I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.
That poster, FFS.
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
Not my cause.
It was used as part of the leave campaign.
Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.
That poster, FFS.
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
Not my cause.
It was used as part of the leave campaign.
Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.
Hmm a bit apples and chalk there Richard.
Not really. What's sauce for the goose and all that . . .
Are you pro or anti-death penalty? If we were to have a death penalty referendum and a fringe party on your side of the divide put out a vile poster you found distateful and disagreed with would you switch your vote to go against them? Or would you denounce and distance yourself from the vile poster but still vote for what you believe in?
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.
That poster, FFS.
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
Not my cause.
It was used as part of the leave campaign.
Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.
Weak...
Yes the whole poster argument is very weak. Glad you see it when it is span around.
From a PB viewpoint, it will be of interest who will be opposing the Tories next time around and what will Lab have done. If Lab stays Continuity Corbynista it will be ... interesting.
Mansfield has had Independent Mayors for about 3 or 4 terms now, with a Lab squeaked mayoral victory this time.
Ashfield has Zadrozny and friends, who are relatively formidable. Bolsover has lots of Indys, who failed to be coordinated at
Will the ex-Red Wall be Tory vs Indy next time? At least in Local Government contests? Or a patchwork quilt?
I would see Lib Dems as having burnt their boats in this immediate area.
Elsewhere?
The swing in the north of the East Midlands/bottom of rural south Yorkshire was so big that all the historically Labour constituencies here aren't even in the game next time round. The closest for Labour is Don Valley with 4% swing needed and target 45
Not sure if it has been mentioned here but Electoral Calculus have worked out what the election result would be based on the most recent boundary review that hasn't passed:
That said there are a couple of things that might make the Cons hesitate:
1) Major boundary changes in areas like Teesside, the Black Country and North Wales would make it harder for the new Con MPs to build up incumbancy. 2) The situation would be bad for the Unionists in Scotland with LDs losing 3, Lab there only seat, Con 1, and SNP only losing 1.
The Cons should definitely get new boundaries through but it might be better to start again with 640 or 650 MPs.
Which constituencies are getting put together in Northern Ireland?
Rather strange promise. Polls at various times would not have looked as good for Boris as it turned out, and he did not quit. By the time it was clear she could not win it would be too late, particularly since Boris will have scrapped the FTPA and could call it at his pleasure!
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.
That poster, FFS.
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
Not my cause.
It was used as part of the leave campaign.
Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.
Weak...
Yes the whole poster argument is very weak. Glad you see it when it is span around.
Quite happy to give up any votes from the IRA. What proportion of the 52% are you happy to disavow ? I suspect as far as the poster and its arguments are concerned, it’s substantially larger.
From a PB viewpoint, it will be of interest who will be opposing the Tories next time around and what will Lab have done. If Lab stays Continuity Corbynista it will be ... interesting.
Mansfield has had Independent Mayors for about 3 or 4 terms now, with a Lab squeaked mayoral victory this time.
Ashfield has Zadrozny and friends, who are relatively formidable. Bolsover has lots of Indys, who failed to be coordinated at
Will the ex-Red Wall be Tory vs Indy next time? At least in Local Government contests? Or a patchwork quilt?
I would see Lib Dems as having burnt their boats in this immediate area.
Elsewhere?
The swing in the north of the East Midlands/bottom of rural south Yorkshire was so big that all the historically Labour constituencies here aren't even in the game next time round. The closest for Labour is Don Valley with 4% swing needed and target 45
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.
That poster, FFS.
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
Not my cause.
It was used as part of the leave campaign.
Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.
Weak...
Yes the whole poster argument is very weak. Glad you see it when it is span around.
Quite happy to give up any votes from the IRA. What proportion of the 52% are you happy to disavow ? I suspect as far as the poster and its arguments are concerned, it’s substantially larger.
I'm happy to disavow all racists and bigots. Their votes still count, we live in a democracy, but I want nothing to do with them.
Worth reading this entire thread from Ipsos Mori. Although things are grim for Labour, the main reason for the Conservative win is that this party managed to eliminate the Brexit Party amongst Leave voters while Remainers were split amongst several parties, which is fatal in a winner takes all voting system: https://twitter.com/DylanSpielman/status/1208060699844468737
There are no Leavers and Remainers now, the battle lines are being redrawn. So as the Brexit issue unwinds it matters how attached to each party these voters are.
Note the younger vote looks to be slipping back to pre-referendum turnout which is really going to do Labour in if they can't turn that around.
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.
That poster, FFS.
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
Not my cause.
It was used as part of the leave campaign.
Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.
Weak...
Yes the whole poster argument is very weak. Glad you see it when it is span around.
Quite happy to give up any votes from the IRA. What proportion of the 52% are you happy to disavow ? I suspect as far as the poster and its arguments are concerned, it’s substantially larger.
I'm happy to disavow all racists and bigots. Their votes still count, we live in a democracy, but I want nothing to do with them.
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.
That poster, FFS.
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
Not my cause.
It was used as part of the leave campaign.
Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.
Weak...
Yes the whole poster argument is very weak. Glad you see it when it is span around.
Quite happy to give up any votes from the IRA. What proportion of the 52% are you happy to disavow ? I suspect as far as the poster and its arguments are concerned, it’s substantially larger.
I'm happy to disavow all racists and bigots. Their votes still count, we live in a democracy, but I want nothing to do with them.
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.
That poster, FFS.
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
Not my cause.
It was used as part of the leave campaign.
Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.
Weak...
Yes the whole poster argument is very weak. Glad you see it when it is span around.
Quite happy to give up any votes from the IRA. What proportion of the 52% are you happy to disavow ? I suspect as far as the poster and its arguments are concerned, it’s substantially larger.
Immaterial. By yours and Topping's argument the mere fact that your side shared a cause with the IRA puts you beyond the pale. It is of course a fatuous and stupid argument and I am merely showing how idiotic Topping is being by using it. Guilt by unwilling association is a very dumb argument.
Not sure if it has been mentioned here but Electoral Calculus have worked out what the election result would be based on the most recent boundary review that hasn't passed:
That said there are a couple of things that might make the Cons hesitate:
1) Major boundary changes in areas like Teesside, the Black Country and North Wales would make it harder for the new Con MPs to build up incumbancy. 2) The situation would be bad for the Unionists in Scotland with LDs losing 3, Lab there only seat, Con 1, and SNP only losing 1.
The Cons should definitely get new boundaries through but it might be better to start again with 640 or 650 MPs.
Agreed.
The other issue I have with the boundary commission is that right now we have seats that vary in size from 25,000 to 100,000. That's a ridiculously broad spread.
But the proposal to have seats being just +/- 2.5% is equally too tight. It means that there can be little recognition of natural geographic boundaries. You end up with seats that contain a bit of three different towns just to make everything fit such a narrow spread.
Better to recognise natural boundaries and make the range +/- 10%. It would mean that the range of constituency sizes was dramatically reduced, while avoiding splitting natural boundaries up too much.
The 2018 Boundary Commission reports waiting to be voted on are actually +/- 5%.
Which is of course a range of 10% (ie from 95% to 105% of electoral quota).
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.
That poster, FFS.
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
Not my cause.
It was used as part of the leave campaign.
Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.
Hmm a bit apples and chalk there Richard.
Not at all. You are indulging in a lazy and fatuous argument because you have nothing better. You are entering the realms of the TSE school of misrepresentation and all it shows at this point is that you are aware you have lost the argument and are acting out of frustration and petulance.
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.
That poster, FFS.
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
Not my cause.
It was used as part of the leave campaign.
Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.
Weak...
Yes the whole poster argument is very weak. Glad you see it when it is span around.
Quite happy to give up any votes from the IRA. What proportion of the 52% are you happy to disavow ? I suspect as far as the poster and its arguments are concerned, it’s substantially larger.
Immaterial. By yours and Topping's argument the mere fact that your side shared a cause with the IRA puts you beyond the pale. It is of course a fatuous and stupid argument and I am merely showing how idiotic Topping is being by using it. Guilt by unwilling association is a very dumb argument.
Not sure if it has been mentioned here but Electoral Calculus have worked out what the election result would be based on the most recent boundary review that hasn't passed:
That said there are a couple of things that might make the Cons hesitate:
1) Major boundary changes in areas like Teesside, the Black Country and North Wales would make it harder for the new Con MPs to build up incumbancy. 2) The situation would be bad for the Unionists in Scotland with LDs losing 3, Lab there only seat, Con 1, and SNP only losing 1.
The Cons should definitely get new boundaries through but it might be better to start again with 640 or 650 MPs.
Which constituencies are getting put together in Northern Ireland?
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.
That poster, FFS.
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
Not my cause.
It was used as part of the leave campaign.
Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.
Weak...
Yes the whole poster argument is very weak. Glad you see it when it is span around.
Quite happy to give up any votes from the IRA. What proportion of the 52% are you happy to disavow ? I suspect as far as the poster and its arguments are concerned, it’s substantially larger.
I'm happy to disavow all racists and bigots. Their votes still count, we live in a democracy, but I want nothing to do with them.
Disavow the means, but not the win. Neat.
I won't disavow democracy no. Will you disavow democracy easily?
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.
That poster, FFS.
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
Not my cause.
It was used as part of the leave campaign.
Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.
Weak...
Yes the whole poster argument is very weak. Glad you see it when it is span around.
Quite happy to give up any votes from the IRA. What proportion of the 52% are you happy to disavow ? I suspect as far as the poster and its arguments are concerned, it’s substantially larger.
Immaterial. By yours and Topping's argument the mere fact that your side shared a cause with the IRA puts you beyond the pale. It is of course a fatuous and stupid argument and I am merely showing how idiotic Topping is being by using it. Guilt by unwilling association is a very dumb argument.
Which wasn’t my argument at all. If you’re attempting to rebut, try a little harder.
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.
That poster, FFS.
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
Not my cause.
It was used as part of the leave campaign.
Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.
Weak...
Yes the whole poster argument is very weak. Glad you see it when it is span around.
Quite happy to give up any votes from the IRA. What proportion of the 52% are you happy to disavow ? I suspect as far as the poster and its arguments are concerned, it’s substantially larger.
I'm happy to disavow all racists and bigots. Their votes still count, we live in a democracy, but I want nothing to do with them.
Disavow the means, but not the win. Neat.
I suppose it would be a bit like disavowing Stalin when we defeated Hitler.
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.
That poster, FFS.
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
Not my cause.
It was used as part of the leave campaign.
Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.
Weak...
Yes the whole poster argument is very weak. Glad you see it when it is span around.
Quite happy to give up any votes from the IRA. What proportion of the 52% are you happy to disavow ? I suspect as far as the poster and its arguments are concerned, it’s substantially larger.
Immaterial. By yours and Topping's argument the mere fact that your side shared a cause with the IRA puts you beyond the pale. It is of course a fatuous and stupid argument and I am merely showing how idiotic Topping is being by using it. Guilt by unwilling association is a very dumb argument.
Did the IRA support remain? Which IRA? When?
SF, the SDLP, Alliance, the UUP and NI Greens wanted to Remain. DUP, TUV and People Before Profit wanted to Leave.
Not sure if it has been mentioned here but Electoral Calculus have worked out what the election result would be based on the most recent boundary review that hasn't passed:
That said there are a couple of things that might make the Cons hesitate:
1) Major boundary changes in areas like Teesside, the Black Country and North Wales would make it harder for the new Con MPs to build up incumbancy. 2) The situation would be bad for the Unionists in Scotland with LDs losing 3, Lab there only seat, Con 1, and SNP only losing 1.
The Cons should definitely get new boundaries through but it might be better to start again with 640 or 650 MPs.
Which constituencies are getting put together in Northern Ireland?
Yes the whole poster argument is very weak. Glad you see it when it is span around.
Brexit Analogy Syndrome: whenever we attempt to use an analogy to convey some argument about Brexit, we inevitably over-simplify and corrupt our reasoning about a highly complex issue.
To restore the complexities a little:
Brexit might be a binary decision, but its implications and repercussions are enormous in complexity and magnitude. When one side is seen to have "won", and the campaign for that side included anti-immigration arguments, be they simple objections to FOM, or the foul, overt racism of the poster, with a healthy background of dog-whistling about other more established immigrant communities, then a certain constituency among that side is going to see the "win" as a victory for their arguments or their interpretation of the campaign. I suspect that you would accept this without reservation, and we would quibble only about the size of this constituency, and perhaps whether it constituted the difference between victory and defeat on the binary issue.
Alas, the response to the win under Theresa May (and the wretched Nick Timothy) was to immediately reinforce the anti-immigration arguments as crucial. No debate was allowed about retaining FOM, and precious few Leave voices were raised to criticise the poster, either before or after victory. I don't know why the liberal Leavers were so reticent: was it fear of breaking up their coalition, or were they unable to assert themselves for party political reasons?
And ever since, this argument has gone unspoken. Gove and Johnson have come close occasionally, but are always too tempted by the power of dog-whistling to say what they probably feel to be right.
I'm sure Leave voters had many different reasons for voting the way they did. But those who supported a single market option that retains FOM have had no say, and have not even tried to make their case. And worse, every time you parrot a dumb line like "take back control of our borders, our laws and our money", that constituency I referred to earlier nods when you say "our borders", and interprets your words as support for the vile ideas conveyed by the poster.
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.
That poster, FFS.
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
Not my cause.
It was used as part of the leave campaign.
Your side was supported by the IRA. Given your history in Ireland I wouldn't be as crass as to suggest that means you share their aims but that is exactly the argument you are making with regard to the poster.
Weak...
Yes the whole poster argument is very weak. Glad you see it when it is span around.
Quite happy to give up any votes from the IRA. What proportion of the 52% are you happy to disavow ? I suspect as far as the poster and its arguments are concerned, it’s substantially larger.
Immaterial. By yours and Topping's argument the mere fact that your side shared a cause with the IRA puts you beyond the pale. It is of course a fatuous and stupid argument and I am merely showing how idiotic Topping is being by using it. Guilt by unwilling association is a very dumb argument.
Which wasn’t my argument at all. If you’re attempting to rebut, try a little harder.
Goodnight.
It was the argument I was replying to and which you were therefore by implication supporting.
I've just been struck by the same thought that struck me during the 2016 USA Presidential Election.
Turnout filters on USA presidentisl polling is absolutely brutal. The first question Emerson asks you is "Did you vote in the previous presidential election?" and if you answer No then that's the end of the call. Other pollsters are similar in America.
If you were a 2012 Obama voter who DNV'd in 2016 you basically disappear from the polling.
This is particularly pertinent in the Rust Belt where Republican vote was static but the Dem vote cratered with turnout in key Demographics way down.
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.
That poster, FFS.
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
Not my cause.
You are somewhat naive. Xenophobia was clearly one motivator of Brexit.
And why not? The British working classes, without their permission, were subjected to an historic and unprecedented influx of foreigners - at one stage 600,000 a year - and just told to tolerate it. And this went on for a decade. And one of the reasons it happened was because the Left simply wanted to "rub the noses of the right in diversity".
Shaming.
The marvel of it is that the British voters, in their essential decency, just became slightly ethnocentric, and voted for Brexit and One Nation Tories.
Lesser nations might have voted full on hard right or Far Right. See Sweden right now, where the Swedish Democrats are way ahead in the polls, and they have recent roots in overt Fascism.
Xenophobia may be one motivator of Brexit for some. So what? That doesn't make Brexit a cause nor does it make everyone who voted for it believe in it like some religious cult demanding fealty to some divine faith.
Brexit is a political view on one issue. No more, no less.
I couldn't care less that 600k foreigners a year were coming. I don't give a damn about that.
That's daft. 600,000 is an enormous figure, for one of the most densely settled nations on earth. It was bound to provoke a reaction
So there is no level of migration which might influence your vote? 1m a year? 2m? 10m?
I don't believe you.
Brexiteers who claim Brexit had NOTHING to do with immigration are as absurd as Remainers who claim Free Movement and Mass Immigration are wholly brilliant and any anxiety is racist
I wouldn't say anxiety is racist, just incorrect. Free movement and mass immigration are wholly brilliant. A huge net positive for the world.
Not sure if it has been mentioned here but Electoral Calculus have worked out what the election result would be based on the most recent boundary review that hasn't passed:
That said there are a couple of things that might make the Cons hesitate:
1) Major boundary changes in areas like Teesside, the Black Country and North Wales would make it harder for the new Con MPs to build up incumbancy. 2) The situation would be bad for the Unionists in Scotland with LDs losing 3, Lab there only seat, Con 1, and SNP only losing 1.
The Cons should definitely get new boundaries through but it might be better to start again with 640 or 650 MPs.
This should not be a political matter...
Yeah, it's a shame that it was blocked twice, and that we are still using boundaries drawn up using data from over a decade ago.
Reduce the number of UNELECTED "Lords", NOT the elected MPs!
One of the much vaunted advantages of FPTP is the constituency link. Effectively making constituencies bigger by reducing the number of MPs reduces the strength of the constituency link and thus the argument for FPTP.
MPs will have less time for individual constituents and have to represent the interests of a wider area.
If anything, there should be more MPs not less. It would also have the side effect of government and opposition having a wider pool of talent to draw from.
The Conservatives would I think be strategically best served by a new boundary review which reduces their disadvantage from uneven electorate size, but maintains around 650 MPs in total. That there will be more Parliamentary work to do as less is outsourced to the EU offers a good justification for this change.
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.
That poster, FFS.
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
Not my cause.
You are somewhat naive. Xenophobia was clearly one motivator of Brexit.
And why not? The British working classes, without their permission, were subjected to an historic and unprecedented influx of foreigners - at one stage 600,000 a year - and just told to tolerate it. And this went on for a decade. And one of the reasons it happened was because the Left simply wanted to "rub the noses of the right in diversity".
Shaming.
The marvel of it is that the British voters, in their essential decency, just became slightly ethnocentric, and voted for Brexit and One Nation Tories.
Lesser nations might have voted full on hard right or Far Right. See Sweden right now, where the Swedish Democrats are way ahead in the polls, and they have recent roots in overt Fascism.
Xenophobia may be one motivator of Brexit for some. So what? That doesn't make Brexit a cause nor does it make everyone who voted for it believe in it like some religious cult demanding fealty to some divine faith.
Brexit is a political view on one issue. No more, no less.
I couldn't care less that 600k foreigners a year were coming. I don't give a damn about that.
That's daft. 600,000 is an enormous figure, for one of the most densely settled nations on earth. It was bound to provoke a reaction
So there is no level of migration which might influence your vote? 1m a year? 2m? 10m?
I don't believe you.
Brexiteers who claim Brexit had NOTHING to do with immigration are as absurd as Remainers who claim Free Movement and Mass Immigration are wholly brilliant and any anxiety is racist
I wouldn't say anxiety is racist, just incorrect. Free movement and mass immigration are wholly brilliant. A huge net positive for the world.
If I were gay and living anywhere near that school in Birmingham, I might be inclined to disagree with you on the "wholly brilliant" thing.
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.
That poster, FFS.
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
Not my cause.
Shaming.
The marvel of it is that the British voters, in their essential decency, just became slightly ethnocentric, and voted for Brexit and One Nation Tories.
Lesser nations might have voted full on hard right or Far Right. See Sweden right now, where the Swedish Democrats are way ahead in the polls, and they have recent roots in overt Fascism.
Xenophobia may be one motivator of Brexit for some. So what? That doesn't make Brexit a cause nor does it make everyone who voted for it believe in it like some religious cult demanding fealty to some divine faith.
Brexit is a political view on one issue. No more, no less.
I couldn't care less that 600k foreigners a year were coming. I don't give a damn about that.
That's daft. 600,000 is an enormous figure, for one of the most densely settled nations on earth. It was bound to provoke a reaction
So there is no level of migration which might influence your vote? 1m a year? 2m? 10m?
I don't believe you.
Brexiteers who claim Brexit had NOTHING to do with immigration are as absurd as Remainers who claim Free Movement and Mass Immigration are wholly brilliant and any anxiety is racist
I wouldn't say anxiety is racist, just incorrect. Free movement and mass immigration are wholly brilliant. A huge net positive for the world.
If I were gay and living anywhere near that school in Birmingham, I might be inclined to disagree with you on the "wholly brilliant" thing.
The problem is political correctness making public figures unwilling to criticize religious nonsense.
Unfair constituency electorates are a feature of FPTP, not a design flaw. The more constituencies, the more unfairness, because local outliers in population growth and voter turnout are less mitigated by nearby areas. And FPTP, a one-seat list system, has smaller constituencies than other systems.
The UK party system is essentially split between the Conservatives and a lot of parties against the Conservatives, so as the leading party in the historical sense, they will usually benefit from fewer seats. Looked at geographically, this would also dilute the times when the opposition wins one seat in a region like Exeter or Norwich - whereas there are fewer areas where the Conservatives take one seat in a mainly Labour regions.
I think that is very wrong. I for one certainly don't want to reduce the number non-British minorities and I doubt many Leavers here do either.
We have to take you on your word, but you live in permanent denial of whom you have made your bed with.
That poster, FFS.
Stop astroturfing. That poster was repugnant to most Leavers and reflected upon those who supported it, not those who voted Leave.
It was deployed in support of your cause. You don't get plausible deniability.
Not my cause.
You are somewhat naive. Xenophobia was clearly one motivator of Brexit.
And why not? The British working classes, without their permission, were subjected to an historic and unprecedented influx of foreigners - at one stage 600,000 a year - and just told to tolerate it. And this went on for a decade. And one of the reasons it happened was because the Left simply wanted to "rub the noses of the right in diversity".
Shaming.
The marvel of it is that the British voters, in their essential decency, just became slightly ethnocentric, and voted for Brexit and One Nation Tories.
Lesser nations might have voted full on hard right or Far Right. See Sweden right now, where the Swedish Democrats are way ahead in the polls, and they have recent roots in overt Fascism.
Xenophobia may be one motivator of Brexit for some. So what? That doesn't make Brexit a cause nor does it make everyone who voted for it believe in it like some religious cult demanding fealty to some divine faith.
Brexit is a political view on one issue. No more, no less.
I couldn't care less that 600k foreigners a year were coming. I don't give a damn about that.
That's daft. 600,000 is an enormous figure, for one of the most densely settled nations on earth. It was bound to provoke a reaction
So there is no level of migration which might influence your vote? 1m a year? 2m? 10m?
I don't believe you.
Brexiteers who claim Brexit had NOTHING to do with immigration are as absurd as Remainers who claim Free Movement and Mass Immigration are wholly brilliant and any anxiety is racist
I wouldn't say anxiety is racist, just incorrect. Free movement and mass immigration are wholly brilliant. A huge net positive for the world.
Do you spend any time at all wondering why you're so out of touch, do you just think everyone else is wrong, or do you not realise how off the reservation you are on this?
Unfair constituency electorates are a feature of FPTP, not a design flaw. The more constituencies, the more unfairness, because local outliers in population growth and voter turnout are less mitigated by nearby areas. And FPTP, a one-seat list system, has smaller constituencies than other systems.
I guess you meant to say, the *fewer* constituencies, the more unfairness?
I'm pretty sure I saw a map of Belfast with North and East largely as they are now, but West and South combined. Naturally, SF were against the idea, so that's probably the main reason why that plan was shelved.
If I were gay and living anywhere near that school in Birmingham, I might be inclined to disagree with you on the "wholly brilliant" thing.
I think you are conflating two separate issues.
I agree with Gabs about the benefits of migration and freedom of movement.
But at the same time I believe that migrants must abide by both the spirit and the letter of the laws and culture of the country they are moving to. So I would be far tougher on any aspects of immigrant culture which result in challenges to our own laws and customs. This would include absolutely no concessions for religion when it comes to how our schools operate or our laws on things like animal welfare. If migrants don't like this then they can go elsewhere. If they are happy to abide by our laws and customs - or in the case of the latter at least not challenge them - then they should be welcome.
Our problem historically is that we have welcomed immigration whilst not expecting migrants to abide by our own laws and respect our own culture. The vast majority of migrants have done this off their own back as they are decent people. A very few have chosen not to. That is where our laws should insist that they do.
From a PB viewpoint, it will be of interest who will be opposing the Tories next time around and what will Lab have done. If Lab stays Continuity Corbynista it will be ... interesting.
Mansfield has had Independent Mayors for about 3 or 4 terms now, with a Lab squeaked mayoral victory this time.
Ashfield has Zadrozny and friends, who are relatively formidable. Bolsover has lots of Indys, who failed to be coordinated at
Will the ex-Red Wall be Tory vs Indy next time? At least in Local Government contests? Or a patchwork quilt?
I would see Lib Dems as having burnt their boats in this immediate area.
Elsewhere?
The swing in the north of the East Midlands/bottom of rural south Yorkshire was so big that all the historically Labour constituencies here aren't even in the game next time round. The closest for Labour is Don Valley with 4% swing needed and target 45
And that was probably only due to a personal vote for the Labour candidate who lost. Labour should listen to her.
I'm pretty sure I saw a map of Belfast with North and East largely as they are now, but West and South combined. Naturally, SF were against the idea, so that's probably the main reason why that plan was shelved.
Demographically west and south aren't close, west and north are connected and so are east and south.
All those who are still finding it easy to shrug Brexit off as the actions of a misguided, racist and xenophobic public, may want to watch the Boris Johnson Chanukah video (link reposted below) and then consider this:
Millions of supposedly racist white Northern and Midlands voters, just balked at voting for the prime reason why "recent years have not been easy ones for British Jews". They broke the habit of a lifetime, and in some cases multiple lifetimes, to elect a man who is - I have no doubt - absolutely committed to trying to ensure that the next five years at least are easier.
Meanwhile, hordes of mostly young metropolitan (supposedly) liberal and tolerant types voted without hesitation for someone who, at an absolute minimum, is a serial enabler of race-baiters. And after he lost, the most committed among them went online and started generating conspiracy theories blaming his defeat on the Jews.
Not sure if it has been mentioned here but Electoral Calculus have worked out what the election result would be based on the most recent boundary review that hasn't passed:
Con - lose 13 seats
as like Teesside, the Black Country and North Wales would make it harder for the new Con MPs to pld definitely get new boundaries through but it might be better to start again with 640 or 650 MPs.
This should not be a political matter...
Yeah, it's a shame that it was blocked twice, and that we are still using boundaries drawn up using data from over a decade ago.
Reduce the number of UNELECTED "Lords", NOT the elected MPs!
One of the much vaunted advantages of FPTP is the constituency link. Effectively making constituencies bigger by reducing the number of MPs reduces the strength of the constituency link and thus the argument for FPTP.
MPs will have less time for individual constituents and have to represent the interests of a wider area.
If anything, there should be more MPs not less. It would also have the side effect of government and opposition having a wider pool of talent to draw from.
The Conservatives would I think be strategically best served by a new boundary review which reduces their disadvantage from uneven electorate size, but maintains around 650 MPs in total. That there will be more Parliamentary work to do as less is outsourced to the EU offers a good justification for this change.
I think that is altogether wrong.
In terms of electoral self interest, the current Conservative self interest is for fewer constituencies, since the winner’s premium increases as the system becomes less proportional, which happens significantly as the number of sears reduces. The reason the last review increases the bias toward the Tories is more to do with the 600 than the new boundaries per se.
That’s a dangerous game, of course, because sooner or later the winner’s premium turns into the loser’s disadvantage. And it’s also the interest of the party as a whole, not of individual MPs, since even the Tories lose MPs in a more biased fewer seat system, and individual MPs may not like the particular changes proposed last time, some of which are bizarre, and it messes with incumbency as others have said.
Whether or not a 650 boundary review would make much difference is a moot point, especially since the electoral geography has changed significantly since the last review was done. I doubt it would change things by more than a seat or two net at the margins now.
Exactly, it’s the uncertainty that kills business confidence.
And why Remain owns all the defered investment decisions and job losses of the past couple of years.
They must be very proud of how it has panned out.
Hardly.
The fact that the simple unity of "leave" was made up of people who wanted a Norway style deal through to those who wanted a hard No Deal was always going to mean a post referendum struggle.
Getting a majority for something is always much trickier than getting a majority against something.
Reduce the number of UNELECTED "Lords", NOT the elected MPs!
One of the much vaunted advantages of FPTP is the constituency link. Effectively making constituencies bigger by reducing the number of MPs reduces the strength of the constituency link and thus the argument for FPTP.
MPs will have less time for individual constituents and have to represent the interests of a wider area.
If anything, there should be more MPs not less. It would also have the side effect of government and opposition having a wider pool of talent to draw from.
The Conservatives would I think be strategically best served by a new boundary review which reduces their disadvantage from uneven electorate size, but maintains around 650 MPs in total. That there will be more Parliamentary work to do as less is outsourced to the EU offers a good justification for this change.
I think that is altogether wrong.
In terms of electoral self interest, the current Conservative self interest is for fewer constituencies, since the winner’s premium increases as the system becomes less proportional, which happens significantly as the number of sears reduces. The reason the last review increases the bias toward the Tories is more to do with the 600 than the new boundaries per se.
That’s a dangerous game, of course, because sooner or later the winner’s premium turns into the loser’s disadvantage. And it’s also the interest of the party as a whole, not of individual MPs, since even the Tories lose MPs in a more biased fewer seat system, and individual MPs may not like the particular changes proposed last time, some of which are bizarre, and it messes with incumbency as others have said.
Whether or not a 650 boundary review would make much difference is a moot point, especially since the electoral geography has changed significantly since the last review was done. I doubt it would change things by more than a seat or two net at the margins now.
There are still a significant number of rotten boroughs in hollowed out City Centres where MPs were being elected on very modest totals as well as suburban seats where the losers often got more than the City centre winners. This undoubtedly benefits Labour considerably. They also get a marginal benefit from the over representation of Wales although that is less than it was. I suspect a boundary review could still cost Labour the equivalent of 10-15 seats, enough to make a win next time out move from extremely difficult to next to impossible.
There are still a significant number of rotten boroughs in hollowed out City Centres where MPs were being elected on very modest totals as well as suburban seats where the losers often got more than the City centre winners. This undoubtedly benefits Labour considerably. They also get a marginal benefit from the over representation of Wales although that is less than it was. I suspect a boundary review could still cost Labour the equivalent of 10-15 seats, enough to make a win next time out move from extremely difficult to next to impossible.
Seats are divided on electorate not voter turnout. Given the Conservatives skew older and Labour younger then Labour will win more youthful seats that will also average lower turnout (and vice versa).
One of the much vaunted advantages of FPTP is the constituency link. Effectively making constituencies bigger by reducing the number of MPs reduces the strength of the constituency link and thus the argument for FPTP.
MPs will have less time for individual constituents and have to represent the interests of a wider area.
If anything, there should be more MPs not less. It would also have the side effect of government and opposition having a wider pool of talent to draw from.
The Conservatives would I think be strategically best served by a new boundary review which reduces their disadvantage from uneven electorate size, but maintains around 650 MPs in total. That there will be more Parliamentary work to do as less is outsourced to the EU offers a good justification for this change.
I think that is altogether wrong.
In terms of electoral self interest, the current Conservative self interest is for fewer constituencies, since the winner’s premium increases as the system becomes less proportional, which happens significantly as the number of sears reduces. The reason the last review increases the bias toward the Tories is more to do with the 600 than the new boundaries per se.
That’s a dangerous game, of course, because sooner or later the winner’s premium turns into the loser’s disadvantage. And it’s also the interest of the party as a whole, not of individual MPs, since even the Tories lose MPs in a more biased fewer seat system, and individual MPs may not like the particular changes proposed last time, some of which are bizarre, and it messes with incumbency as others have said.
Whether or not a 650 boundary review would make much difference is a moot point, especially since the electoral geography has changed significantly since the last review was done. I doubt it would change things by more than a seat or two net at the margins now.
The Electoral Commissions have already done their work, what we need now to make the process automatic, such that the boundaries are updated automatically in the absence of primary legislation deferring them.
Boundaries shouldn't be allowed to become a political football.
Very early days, but if this sets the tone of his future actions, Boris is going to be a very fine ambassador for this country.
Unless you're languishing in an Iranian jail, perhaps, or you're someone with family in one of the "watermelon" countries.
But I think the real issue (and I know it was HYUFD) is what the living feck is anyone doing following Ted Cruz's twitter feed?
The 'lady in the Iranian jail' story is a prime example of why people are losing faith in journalism.
She's an Iranian citizen, and under international law we can do precisely nothing about her. Iran aren't going to let her out, and she would have known that, no matter how much our media wish to play up to a sob story from her family.
(This posted from a place where hundreds of Brits end up falling foul of local laws every year, and mostly see very little help from UK authorities - because it isn't their job to interfere in the judicial system of another country. )
There are still a significant number of rotten boroughs in hollowed out City Centres where MPs were being elected on very modest totals as well as suburban seats where the losers often got more than the City centre winners. This undoubtedly benefits Labour considerably. They also get a marginal benefit from the over representation of Wales although that is less than it was. I suspect a boundary review could still cost Labour the equivalent of 10-15 seats, enough to make a win next time out move from extremely difficult to next to impossible.
Seats are divided on electorate not voter turnout. Given the Conservatives skew older and Labour younger then Labour will win more youthful seats that will also average lower turnout (and vice versa).
One of the much vaunted advantages of FPTP is the constituency link. Effectively making constituencies bigger by reducing the number of MPs reduces the strength of the constituency link and thus the argument for FPTP.
MPs will have less time for individual constituents and have to represent the interests of a wider area.
If anything, there should be more MPs not less. It would also have the side effect of government and opposition having a wider pool of talent to draw from.
The Conservatives would I think be strategically best served by a new boundary review which reduces their disadvantage from uneven electorate size, but maintains around 650 MPs in total. That there will be more Parliamentary work to do as less is outsourced to the EU offers a good justification for this change.
I think that is altogether wrong.
In terms of electoral self interest, the current Conservative self interest is for fewer constituencies, since the winner’s premium increases as the system becomes less proportional, which happens significantly as the number of sears reduces. The reason the last review increases the bias toward the Tories is more to do with the 600 than the new boundaries per se.
That’s a dangerous game, of course, because sooner or later the winner’s premium turns into the loser’s disadvantage. And it’s also the interest of the party as a whole, not of individual MPs, since even the Tories lose MPs in a more biased fewer seat system, and individual MPs may not like the particular changes proposed last time
Whether or not a 650 boundary review would make much difference is a moot point, especially since the electoral geography has changed significantly since the last review was done. I doubt it would change things by more than a seat or two net at the margins now.
The Electoral Commissions have already done their work, what we need now to make the process automatic, such that the boundaries are updated automatically in the absence of primary legislation deferring them.
Boundaries shouldn't be allowed to become a political football.
Some of the boundaries need to be seriously questioned, but the process is dominated by local authorities that act their own self interest. In the south, the way the consistencies are drawn, wrapping just enough rural areas around towns is instrumental in ensuring that the Tories win usually 100% of the seats with 40-50% of the vote and the Lib Dem’s with support in the towns end up with nothing.
In terms of electoral self interest, the current Conservative self interest is for fewer constituencies, since the winner’s premium increases as the system becomes less proportional, which happens significantly as the number of sears reduces. The reason the last review increases the bias toward the Tories is more to do with the 600 than the new boundaries per se.
That’s a dangerous game, of course, because sooner or later the winner’s premium turns into the loser’s disadvantage. And it’s also the interest of the party as a whole, not of individual MPs, since even the Tories lose MPs in a more biased fewer seat system, and individual MPs may not like the particular changes proposed last time, some of which are bizarre, and it messes with incumbency as others have said.
Whether or not a 650 boundary review would make much difference is a moot point, especially since the electoral geography has changed significantly since the last review was done. I doubt it would change things by more than a seat or two net at the margins now.
There are still a significant number of rotten boroughs in hollowed out City Centres where MPs were being elected on very modest totals as well as suburban seats where the losers often got more than the City centre winners. This undoubtedly benefits Labour considerably. They also get a marginal benefit from the over representation of Wales although that is less than it was. I suspect a boundary review could still cost Labour the equivalent of 10-15 seats, enough to make a win next time out move from extremely difficult to next to impossible.
I doubt the ‘considerably’. The largest seats in England break about 60:40 Tory, since a fair few of them are London seats with significant population growth. 60:40 is par, now. The very smallest English seats break 60:40 Labour, for sure, but they contain a fair few that the Tories have gained or regained in recent elections (Workington, Kensington, Berwick, Blackpool South, etc.). The Welsh seats are smaller, but then Wales isn’t as pro-Labour as it once was, and some of the smallest are Tory seats like Big_G’s or recent gains like Wrexham.
The biggest winner would be the government payroll vote, since this appears immune to any boundary review and would constitute a larger proportion of a smaller house.
If I were gay and living anywhere near that school in Birmingham, I might be inclined to disagree with you on the "wholly brilliant" thing.
I think you are conflating two separate issues.
I agree with Gabs about the benefits of migration and freedom of movement.
But at the same time I believe that migrants must abide by both the spirit and the letter of the laws and culture of the country they are moving to. So I would be far tougher on any aspects of immigrant culture which result in challenges to our own laws and customs. This would include absolutely no concessions for religion when it comes to how our schools operate or our laws on things like animal welfare. If migrants don't like this then they can go elsewhere. If they are happy to abide by our laws and customs - or in the case of the latter at least not challenge them - then they should be welcome.
Our problem historically is that we have welcomed immigration whilst not expecting migrants to abide by our own laws and respect our own culture. The vast majority of migrants have done this off their own back as they are decent people. A very few have chosen not to. That is where our laws should insist that they do.
I more or less agree, except that one of our laws is that people living here have freedom of expression, so if a migrant settles here and then disagrees with something, he should not be less entitled to say so (obviously in lawful fashion) than you or I. Sometimes cultural differences will show up awkward differences of opinion, but we already live with those - SeanT (peace be on him) and I appear to share virtually no values, but neither of us are inclined to beat the other up. I would not support the idea that someone born abroad must shut up and accept everything, nor I'd think would you?
What if we suddenly let in the entire population of Utah and they demanded that we make Britain a Mormon state? Well, that would be awkward, but the numbers involved would mean they'd fail, in the same way as any attempt to make Britain Muslim or Hindu would fail. But they might influence us a bit (perhaps we'd drink a bit less booze, for instance), and that woudn't always be a bad thing. I don't think our culture should be preserved in aspic, impervious to any other ideas.
Exactly, it’s the uncertainty that kills business confidence.
And why Remain owns all the defered investment decisions and job losses of the past couple of years.
They must be very proud of how it has panned out.
That would be a complete whitewashing of history. Let’s not forget that Boris, the ERG and other Brexit ideologues were instrumental in defeating May.
No they weren't that's a total rewriting of history. The ERG had at most a combined 100 or so MPs and the Spartans had far fewer.
The Remainers had a combined 300+ MPs and they were sufficient to defeat May. They had enough MPs to reject the deal without the Leavers.
But its history now. Leavers will get a deal through that is far superior to May's deal unless you're the DUP. Job done, life goes on.
May called the election. The Conservatives rather than reaching out, tried to govern with the ERG and DUP. Together they completely determined what happened next.
If I were gay and living anywhere near that school in Birmingham, I might be inclined to disagree with you on the "wholly brilliant" thing.
I think you are conflating two separate issues.
I agree with Gabs about the benefits of migration and freedom of movement.
But at the same time I believe that migrants must abide by both the spirit and the letter of the laws and culture of the country they are moving to. So I would be far tougher on any aspects of immigrant culture which result in challenges to our own laws and customs. This would include absolutely no concessions for religion when it comes to how our schools operate or our laws on things like animal welfare. If migrants don't like this then they can go elsewhere. If they are happy to abide by our laws and customs - or in the case of the latter at least not challenge them - then they should be welcome.
Our problem historically is that we have welcomed immigration whilst not expecting migrants to abide by our own laws and respect our own culture. The vast majority of migrants have done this off their own back as they are decent people. A very few have chosen not to. That is where our laws should insist that they do.
I more or less agree, except that one of our laws is that people living here have freedom of expression, so if a migrant settles here and then disagrees with something, he should not be less entitled to say so (obviously in lawful fashion) than you or I. Sometimes cultural differences will show up awkward differences of opinion, but we already live with those - SeanT (peace be on him) and I appear to share virtually no values, but neither of us are inclined to beat the other up. I would not support the idea that someone born abroad must shut up and accept everything, nor I'd think would you?
What if we suddenly let in the entire population of Utah and they demanded that we make Britain a Mormon state? Well, that would be awkward, but the numbers involved would mean they'd fail, in the same way as any attempt to make Britain Muslim or Hindu would fail. But they might influence us a bit (perhaps we'd drink a bit less booze, for instance), and that woudn't always be a bad thing. I don't think our culture should be preserved in aspic, impervious to any other ideas.
Letting people speak is one thing. Letting them vote after they've been here for many years, long enough to acquire citizenship is one thing.
However the pandering to religion is not done because of a majority having that religion. Someone having a medieval religion should not trump equality or our laws.
Exactly, it’s the uncertainty that kills business confidence.
And why Remain owns all the defered investment decisions and job losses of the past couple of years.
They must be very proud of how it has panned out.
That would be a complete whitewashing of history. Let’s not forget that Boris, the ERG and other Brexit ideologues were instrumental in defeating May.
No they weren't that's a total rewriting of history. The ERG had at most a combined 100 or so MPs and the Spartans had far fewer.
The Remainers had a combined 300+ MPs and they were sufficient to defeat May. They had enough MPs to reject the deal without the Leavers.
But its history now. Leavers will get a deal through that is far superior to May's deal unless you're the DUP. Job done, life goes on.
May called the election. The Conservatives rather than reaching out, tried to govern with the ERG and DUP. Together they completely determined what happened next.
May didn't try and govern with the ERG and DUP, she tried to ride a bus over her own parties ERG and her allies the DUP.
Johnson is the one who tried to govern with the ERG and determined what happened next, which was a success.
Personally as someone who was aghast at the awful backstop May had negotiated (but wanted a deal) I am very grateful to Remainers for their invaluable role in ensuring we get a proper Brexit instead.
Exactly, it’s the uncertainty that kills business confidence.
And why Remain owns all the defered investment decisions and job losses of the past couple of years.
They must be very proud of how it has panned out.
That would be a complete whitewashing of history. Let’s not forget that Boris, the ERG and other Brexit ideologues were instrumental in defeating May.
No they weren't that's a total rewriting of history. The ERG had at most a combined 100 or so MPs and the Spartans had far fewer.
The Remainers had a combined 300+ MPs and they were sufficient to defeat May. They had enough MPs to reject the deal without the Leavers.
But its history now. Leavers will get a deal through that is far superior to May's deal unless you're the DUP. Job done, life goes on.
May called the election. The Conservatives rather than reaching out, tried to govern with the ERG and DUP. Together they completely determined what happened next.
May didn't try and govern with the ERG and DUP, she tried to ride a bus over her own parties ERG and her allies the DUP.
Johnson is the one who tried to govern with the ERG and determined what happened next, which was a success.
Personally as someone who was aghast at the awful backstop May had negotiated (but wanted a deal) I am very grateful to Remainers for their invaluable role in ensuring we get a proper Brexit instead.
You’re as bad as the Corbynites with this revisionist nonsense. Do you actually remember Boris and the ERG voting against the Conservative whip? Do remember the DUP and May agreeing a confidence and supply arrangement and then the DUP letting her down?
On one point you’re right, this is now history. But let’s not try to rewrite it.
Exactly, it’s the uncertainty that kills business confidence.
And why Remain owns all the defered investment decisions and job losses of the past couple of years.
They must be very proud of how it has panned out.
That would be a complete whitewashing of history. Let’s not forget that Boris, the ERG and other Brexit ideologues were instrumental in defeating May.
No they weren't that's a total rewriting of history. The ERG had at most a combined 100 or so MPs and the Spartans had far fewer.
The Remainers had a combined 300+ MPs and they were sufficient to defeat May. They had enough MPs to reject the deal without the Leavers.
But its history now. Leavers will get a deal through that is far superior to May's deal unless you're the DUP. Job done, life goes on.
May called the election. The Conservatives rather than reaching out, tried to govern with the ERG and DUP. Together they completely determined what happened next.
May didn't try and govern with the ERG and DUP, she tried to ride a bus over her own parties ERG and her allies the DUP.
Johnson is the one who tried to govern with the ERG and determined what happened next, which was a success.
Personally as someone who was aghast at the awful backstop May had negotiated (but wanted a deal) I am very grateful to Remainers for their invaluable role in ensuring we get a proper Brexit instead.
Remainders absolutely screwed the pooch. They gambled on getting everything they wanted (no Brexit). May repeatedly offered desperate concessions to get support nullifying pretty much any potential future advantage post Brexit. Still they refused. Boris also tagged on concessions to try and get his deal over the line. It failed and was clearly going to get messed around with.
Now they have a Brexit that will be further away than May’s and pretty much guarantee divergence at some point. They are even howling that he has removed some of the concessions he added to sweeten the deal for support.
If they wanted that deal hey should have taken it when they could.
One of the much vaunted advantages of FPTP is the constituency link. Effectively making constituencies bigger by reducing the number of MPs reduces the strength of the constituency link and thus the argument for FPTP.
MPs will have less time for individual constituents and have to represent the interests of a wider area.
If anything, there should be more MPs not less. It would also have the side effect of government and opposition having a wider pool of talent to draw from.
The Conservatives would I think be strategically best served by a new boundary review which reduces their disadvantage from uneven electorate size, but maintains around 650 MPs in total. That there will be more Parliamentary work to do as less is outsourced to the EU offers a good justification for this change.
I think that is altogether wrong.
In terms of electoral self interest, the current Conservative self interest is for fewer constituencies, since the winner’s premium increases as the system becomes less proportional, which happens significantly as the number of sears reduces. The reason the last review increases the bias toward the Tories is more to do with the 600 than the new boundaries per se.
That’s a dangerous game, of course, because sooner or later the winner’s premium turns into the loser’s disadvantage. And it’s also the interest of the party as a whole, not of individual MPs, since even the Tories lose MPs in a more biased fewer seat system, and individual MPs may not like the particular changes proposed last time, some of which are bizarre, and it messes with incumbency as others have said.
Whether or not a 650 boundary review would make much difference is a moot point, especially since the electoral geography has changed significantly since the last review was done. I doubt it would change things by more than a seat or two net at the margins now.
The Electoral Commissions have already done their work, what we need now to make the process automatic, such that the boundaries are updated automatically in the absence of primary legislation deferring them.
Boundaries shouldn't be allowed to become a political football.
The most recent boundary review is already a political football, having its rules devised for the Cameron/Osborne gerrymandering process. For that reason, there will be pressure from CCHQ to enact it, even if the net benefit to the Conservative Party is less than originally envisaged.
May called the election. The Conservatives rather than reaching out, tried to govern with the ERG and DUP. Together they completely determined what happened next.
May didn't try and govern with the ERG and DUP, she tried to ride a bus over her own parties ERG and her allies the DUP.
Johnson is the one who tried to govern with the ERG and determined what happened next, which was a success.
Personally as someone who was aghast at the awful backstop May had negotiated (but wanted a deal) I am very grateful to Remainers for their invaluable role in ensuring we get a proper Brexit instead.
You’re as bad as the Corbynites with this revisionist nonsense. Do you actually remember Boris and the ERG voting against the Conservative whip? Do remember the DUP and May agreeing a confidence and supply arrangement and then the DUP letting her down?
On one point you’re right, this is now history. But let’s not try to rewrite it.
I remember that (at MV1 and MV2 only) but I also can do Maths.
Boris and the ERG were not a majority of the Commons. A majority of the Commons voting against May's deal at MV1 and MV2 was consisted of non-Tories and Tory Remainers only. The Tories alone didn't have a majority to force through a deal, especially when Tory Remainers were rebelling. Even if zero Tory Leavers had rebelled then ceteris paribus May's deal would still have been lost.
As for the DUP, May let them down not the other way around. Johnson did too but then he won the election so he didn't need them. Confidence and Supply doesn't mean voting with the government on all issues like the Meaningful Votes. It means voting on matters of confidence and supply only. May never made the Meaningful Votes a matter of confidence.
Letting people speak is one thing. Letting them vote after they've been here for many years, long enough to acquire citizenship is one thing.
However the pandering to religion is not done because of a majority having that religion. Someone having a medieval religion should not trump equality or our laws.
Yes, I'm against pandering to religion (including Christianity when adherents try to interfere with secular life), though that too is simply an opinion. Fortunately (IMO) there is no prospect of any evangelical religion gaining a majority in Parliament. If there were such a prospect, we'd need to think about entrenching some things we think essential with something like the ECHR, with qualified majorities to protect it against a government with a majority of 1 abolishing it.
Exactly, it’s the uncertainty that kills business confidence.
And why Remain owns all the defered investment decisions and job losses of the past couple of years.
They must be very proud of how it has panned out.
That would be a complete whitewashing of history. Let’s not forget that Boris, the ERG and other Brexit ideologues were instrumental in defeating May.
No they weren't that's a total rewriting of history. The ERG had at most a combined 100 or so MPs and the Spartans had far fewer.
The Remainers had a combined 300+ MPs and they were sufficient to defeat May. They had enough MPs to reject the deal without the Leavers.
But its history now. Leavers will get a deal through that is far superior to May's deal unless you're the DUP. Job done, life goes on.
May called the election. The Conservatives rather than reaching out, tried to govern with the ERG and DUP. Together they completely determined what happened next.
May didn't try and govern with the ERG and DUP, she tried to ride a bus over her own parties ERG and her allies the DUP.
Johnson is the one who tried to govern with the ERG and determined what happened next, which was a success.
Personally as someone who was aghast at the awful backstop May had negotiated (but wanted a deal) I am very grateful to Remainers for their invaluable role in ensuring we get a proper Brexit instead.
Remainders absolutely screwed the pooch. They gambled on getting everything they wanted (no Brexit). May repeatedly offered desperate concessions to get support nullifying pretty much any potential future advantage post Brexit. Still they refused. Boris also tagged on concessions to try and get his deal over the line. It failed and was clearly going to get messed around with.
Now they have a Brexit that will be further away than May’s and pretty much guarantee divergence at some point. They are even howling that he has removed some of the concessions he added to sweeten the deal for support.
If they wanted that deal hey should have taken it when they could.
May's Deal was like if it was designed to offend everyone on purpose so that Brexit would be rejected. That could have been the aim of her team, present a Deal so horrible that no one would vote for it.
May called the election. The Conservatives rather than reaching out, tried to govern with the ERG and DUP. Together they completely determined what happened next.
May didn't try and govern with the ERG and DUP, she tried to ride a bus over her own parties ERG and her allies the DUP.
Johnson is the one who tried to govern with the ERG and determined what happened next, which was a success.
Personally as someone who was aghast at the awful backstop May had negotiated (but wanted a deal) I am very grateful to Remainers for their invaluable role in ensuring we get a proper Brexit instead.
You’re as bad as the Corbynites with this revisionist nonsense. Do you actually remember Boris and the ERG voting against the Conservative whip? Do remember the DUP and May agreeing a confidence and supply arrangement and then the DUP letting her down?
On one point you’re right, this is now history. But let’s not try to rewrite it.
I remember that (at MV1 and MV2 only) but I also can do Maths.
Boris and the ERG were not a majority of the Commons. A majority of the Commons voting against May's deal at MV1 and MV2 was consisted of non-Tories and Tory Remainers only. The Tories alone didn't have a majority to force through a deal, especially when Tory Remainers were rebelling. Even if zero Tory Leavers had rebelled then ceteris paribus May's deal would still have been lost.
As for the DUP, May let them down not the other way around. Johnson did too but then he won the election so he didn't need them. Confidence and Supply doesn't mean voting with the government on all issues like the Meaningful Votes. It means voting on matters of confidence and supply only. May never made the Meaningful Votes a matter of confidence.
This thread started by MM saying that all the uncertainty in the last parliament was caused by Remainers. That is clearly untrue.
May was defeated by 432 votes to 202. There were not 432 remain votes in the Commons. Boris and the ERG were part of that defeat. They contributed to the uncertainty.
To claim that Leavers did not add to uncertainty is revisionism pure and simple.
Letting people speak is one thing. Letting them vote after they've been here for many years, long enough to acquire citizenship is one thing.
However the pandering to religion is not done because of a majority having that religion. Someone having a medieval religion should not trump equality or our laws.
Yes, I'm against pandering to religion (including Christianity when adherents try to interfere with secular life), though that too is simply an opinion. Fortunately (IMO) there is no prospect of any evangelical religion gaining a majority in Parliament. If there were such a prospect, we'd need to think about entrenching some things we think essential with something like the ECHR, with qualified majorities to protect it against a government with a majority of 1 abolishing it.
Sharped elbow religious zealots do not need a majority of their own followers in Parliament to get their way. The extension of the blasphemy laws in 2006 proved that.
Exactly, it’s the uncertainty that kills business confidence.
And why Remain owns all the defered investment decisions and job losses of the past couple of years.
They must be very proud of how it has panned out.
That would be a complete whitewashing of history. Let’s not forget that Boris, the ERG and other Brexit ideologues were instrumental in defeating May.
No they weren't that's a total rewriting of history. The ERG had at most a combined 100 or so MPs and the Spartans had far fewer.
The Remainers had a combined 300+ MPs and they were sufficient to defeat May. They had enough MPs to reject the deal without the Leavers.
But its history now. Leavers will get a deal through that is far superior to May's deal unless you're the DUP. Job done, life goes on.
May called the election. The Conservatives rather than reaching out, tried to govern with the ERG and DUP. Together they completely determined what happened next.
May didn't try and govern with the ERG and DUP, she tried to ride a bus over her own parties ERG and her allies the DUP.
Johnson is the one who tried to govern with the ERG and determined what happened next, which was a success.
Personally as someone who was aghast at the awful backstop May had negotiated (but wanted a deal) I am very grateful to Remainers for their invaluable role in ensuring we get a proper Brexit instead.
Remainders absolutely screwed the pooch. They gambled on getting everything they wanted (no Brexit). May repeatedly offered d around with.
Now they have a Brexit that will be further away than May’s and pretty much guarantee divergence at some point. They are even howling that he has removed some of the concessions he added to sweeten the deal for support.
If they wanted that deal hey should have taken it when they could.
May's Deal was like if it was designed to offend everyone on purpose so that Brexit would be rejected. That could have been the aim of her team, present a Deal so horrible that no one would vote for it.
That's a conspiracy theory that does not hold up since it presumes a level of planning and competence that was not in evidence.
Letting people speak is one thing. Letting them vote after they've been here for many years, long enough to acquire citizenship is one thing.
However the pandering to religion is not done because of a majority having that religion. Someone having a medieval religion should not trump equality or our laws.
Yes, I'm against pandering to religion (including Christianity when adherents try to interfere with secular life), though that too is simply an opinion. Fortunately (IMO) there is no prospect of any evangelical religion gaining a majority in Parliament. If there were such a prospect, we'd need to think about entrenching some things we think essential with something like the ECHR, with qualified majorities to protect it against a government with a majority of 1 abolishing it.
The Times front page this morning reads "Extremists hold Sharia trials in British prisons". One doesn't need a majority in parliament to start changing things, especially if you don't put any stock by the existing rule of law.
This thread started by MM saying that all the uncertainty in the last parliament was caused by Remainers. That is clearly untrue.
May was defeated by 432 votes to 202. There were not 432 remain votes in the Commons. Boris and the ERG were part of that defeat. They contributed to the uncertainty.
To claim that Leavers did not add to uncertainty is revisionism pure and simple.
The last Parliament was a sordid attempt by a significant majority of MPs, many having pledged to their Leave seats that they would implement Brexit, to block that Brexit. Not to mitigate its worst effects; to block it from ever proceeding to the statute book. They were prepared to risk economic consequences in doing so.
That Parliament, including many of the most egregious Brexit-blockers, has now been swept aside by an angry electorate, pissed off that economic adversity was the consequence of petty attempts to delay and thwart.
The legislature took over the executive function in order to press the aim of blocking Brexit. The Benn Act was the pinnacle of that effort. And of its folly.
The ERG at some 80 members were a side show in this process, having inadequate numbers to thwart either the will of Remainers or Leavers.
May called the election. The Conservatives rather than reaching out, tried to govern with the ERG and DUP. Together they completely determined what happened next.
May didn't try and govern with the ERG and DUP, she tried to ride a bus over her own parties ERG and her allies the DUP.
Johnson is the one who tried to govern with the ERG and determined what happened next, which was a success.
Personally as someone who was aghast at the awful backstop May had negotiated (but wanted a deal) I am very grateful to Remainers for their invaluable role in ensuring we get a proper Brexit instead.
You’re as bad as the Corbynites with this revisionist nonsense. Do you actually remember Boris and the ERG voting against the Conservative whip? Do remember the DUP and May agreeing a confidence and supply arrangement and then the DUP letting her down?
On one point you’re right, this is now history. But let’s not try to rewrite it.
I remember that (at MV1 and MV2 only) but I also can do Maths.
Boris and the ERG were not a majority of the Commons. A majority of the Commons voting against May's deal at MV1 and MV2 was consisted of non-Tories and Tory Remainers only. The Tories alone didn't have a majority to force through a deal, especially when Tory Remainers were rebelling. Even if zero Tory Leavers had rebelled then ceteris paribus May's deal would still have been lost.
As for the DUP, May let them down not the other way around. Johnson did too but then he won the election so he didn't need them. Confidence and Supply doesn't mean voting with the government on all issues like the Meaningful Votes. It means voting on matters of confidence and supply only. May never made the Meaningful Votes a matter of confidence.
This thread started by MM saying that all the uncertainty in the last parliament was caused by Remainers. That is clearly untrue.
May was defeated by 432 votes to 202. There were not 432 remain votes in the Commons. Boris and the ERG were part of that defeat. They contributed to the uncertainty.
To claim that Leavers did not add to uncertainty is revisionism pure and simple.
Leavers alone couldn't defeat May. The 202 was made up mainly of Tory MPs. The 432 was primarily (and a blocking majority) made up of Remainers.
Even if every single Tory Leaver had backed May she would have still lost. If Remainers had backed the deal they would have got the deal.
Remainers conspired to block the deal and thus ended up with a much harder deal and a much harder Brexit. Are you that stubborn you still can't acknowledge that? It was a strategic disaster for those who wanted a softer exit.
Exactly, it’s the uncertainty that kills business confidence.
And why Remain owns all the defered investment decisions and job losses of the past couple of years.
They must be very proud of how it has panned out.
That would be a complete whitewashing of history. Let’s not forget that Boris, the ERG and other Brexit ideologues were instrumental in defeating May.
No they weren't that's a total rewriting of history. The ERG had at most a combined 100 or so MPs and the Spartans had far fewer.
The Remainers had a combined 300+ MPs and they were sufficient to defeat May. They had enough MPs to reject the deal without the Leavers.
But its history now. Leavers will get a deal through that is far superior to May's deal unless you're the DUP. Job done, life goes on.
May called the election. The Conservatives rather than reaching out, tried to govern with the ERG and DUP. Together they completely determined what happened next.
May didn't try and govern with the ERG and DUP, she tried to ride a bus over her own parties ERG and her allies the DUP.
Johnson is the one who tried to govern with the ERG and determined what happened next, which was a success.
Personally as someone who was aghast at the awful backstop May had negotiated (but wanted a deal) I am very grateful to Remainers for their invaluable role in ensuring we get a proper Brexit instead.
Remainders absolutely screwed the pooch. They gambled on getting everything they wanted (no Brexit). May repeatedly offered desperate concessions to get support nullifying pretty much any potential future advantage post Brexit. Still they refused. Boris also tagged on concessions to try and get his deal over the line. It failed and was clearly going to get messed around with.
.
Wut, it passed away the second reading, Boris pulled it.
Exactly, it’s the uncertainty that kills business confidence.
And why Remain owns all the defered investment decisions and job losses of the past couple of years.
They must be very proud of how it has panned out.
That would be a complete whitewashing of history. Let’s not forget that Boris, the ERG and other Brexit ideologues were instrumental in defeating May.
No they weren't that's a total rewriting of history. The ERG had at most a combined 100 or so MPs and the Spartans had far fewer.
The Remainers had a combined 300+ MPs and they were sufficient to defeat May. They had enough MPs to reject the deal without the Leavers.
But its history now. Leavers will get a deal through that is far superior to May's deal unless you're the DUP. Job done, life goes on.
May called the election. The Conservatives rather than reaching out, tried to govern with the ERG and DUP. Together they completely determined what happened next.
May didn't try and govern with the ERG and DUP, she tried to ride a bus over her own parties ERG and her allies the DUP.
Johnson is the one who tried to govern with the ERG and determined what happened next, which was a success.
Personally as someone who was aghast at the awful backstop May had negotiated (but wanted a deal) I am very grateful to Remainers for their invaluable role in ensuring we get a proper Brexit instead.
Remainders absolutely screwed the pooch. They gambled on getting everything they wanted (no Brexit). May repeatedly offered desperate concessions to get support nullifying pretty much any potential future advantage post Brexit. Still they refused. Boris also tagged on concessions to try and get his deal over the line. It failed and was clearly going to get messed around with.
.
Wut, it passed away the second reading, Boris pulled it.
Second reading was not the only vote. Boris pulled it after the Timetable Motion that was necessary to get it done on time failed.
Exactly, it’s the uncertainty that kills business confidence.
And why Remain owns all the defered investment decisions and job losses of the past couple of years.
They must be very proud of how it has panned out.
That would be a complete whitewashing of history. Let’s not forget that Boris, the ERG and other Brexit ideologues were instrumental in defeating May.
No they weren't that's a total rewriting of history. The ERG had at most a combined 100 or so MPs and the Spartans had far fewer.
The Remainers had a combined 300+ MPs and they were sufficient to defeat May. They had enough MPs to reject the deal without the Leavers.
But its history now. Leavers will get a deal through that is far superior to May's deal unless you're the DUP. Job done, life goes on.
May called the election. The Conservatives rather than reaching out, tried to govern with the ERG and DUP. Together they completely determined what happened next.
May didn't try and govern with the ERG and DUP, she tried to ride a bus over her own parties ERG and her allies the DUP.
Johnson is the one who tried to govern with the ERG and determined what happened next, which was a success.
Personally as someone who was aghast at the awful backstop May had negotiated (but wanted a deal) I am very grateful to Remainers for their invaluable role in ensuring we get a proper Brexit instead.
Remainders absolutely screwed the pooch. They gambled on getting everything they wanted (no Brexit). May repeatedly offered desperate concessions to get support nullifying pretty much any potential future advantage post Brexit. Still they refused. Boris also tagged on concessions to try and get his deal over the line. It failed and was clearly going to get messed around with.
.
Wut, it passed away the second reading, Boris pulled it.
Not this again. They voted for the bill and then against the timetable to implement it. Insert bad analogy of choice here.
Exactly, it’s the uncertainty that kills business confidence.
And why Remain owns all the defered investment decisions and job losses of the past couple of years.
They must be very proud of how it has panned out.
That would be a complete whitewashing of history. Let’s not forget that Boris, the ERG and other Brexit ideologues were instrumental in defeating May.
No they weren't that's a total rewriting of history. The ERG had at most a combined 100 or so MPs and the Spartans had far fewer.
The Remainers had a combined 300+ MPs and they were sufficient to defeat May. They had enough MPs to reject the deal without the Leavers.
But its history now. Leavers will get a deal through that is far superior to May's deal unless you're the DUP. Job done, life goes on.
May called the election. The Conservatives rather than reaching out, tried to govern with the ERG and DUP. Together they completely determined what happened next.
May didn't try and govern with the ERG and DUP, she tried to ride a bus over her own parties ERG and her allies the DUP.
Johnson is the one who tried to govern with the ERG and determined what happened next, which was a success.
Personally as someone who was aghast at the awful backstop May had negotiated (but wanted a deal) I am very grateful to Remainers for their invaluable role in ensuring we get a proper Brexit instead.
Remainders absolutely screwed the pooch. They gambled on getting everything they wanted (no Brexit). May repeatedly offered desperate concessions to get support nullifying pretty much any potential future advantage post Brexit. Still they refused. Boris also tagged on concessions to try and get his deal over the line. It failed and was clearly going to get messed around with.
.
Wut, it passed away the second reading, Boris pulled it.
Don't let truth get in the way of propaganda history.
The deranged Remainers (a small minority of the total) were guilty of the sin of arrogance.
They knew they were right so the result could not possibly be correct. The racist scum and the large group of fools who voted the same way would soon see the error of their ways. When they didn't immediately admit their error, democracy itself had failed.
But many people who voted Remain thought that the result should be honoured because that was democracy. Cries for a second referendum were transparently anti-democratic, and calls for a revoke even more so.
But arrogant people will never admit they can ever be wrong. I make mistakes frequently. It must be nice to never do so despite all the evidence.
Exactly, it’s the uncertainty that kills business confidence.
And why Remain owns all the defered investment decisions and job losses of the past couple of years.
They must be very proud of how it has panned out.
That would be a complete whitewashing of history. Let’s not forget that Boris, the ERG and other Brexit ideologues were instrumental in defeating May.
No they weren't that's a total rewriting of history. The ERG had at most a combined 100 or so MPs and the Spartans had far fewer.
The Remainers had a combined 300+ MPs and they were sufficient to defeat May. They had enough MPs to reject the deal without the Leavers.
But its history now. Leavers will get a deal through that is far superior to May's deal unless you're the DUP. Job done, life goes on.
May called the election. The Conservatives rather than reaching out, tried to govern with the ERG and DUP. Together they completely determined what happened next.
May didn't try and govern with the ERG and DUP, she tried to ride a bus over her own parties ERG and her allies the DUP.
Johnson is the one who tried to govern with the ERG and determined what happened next, which was a success.
Personally as someone who was aghast at the awful backstop May had negotiated (but wanted a deal) I am very grateful to Remainers for their invaluable role in ensuring we get a proper Brexit instead.
Remainders absolutely screwed the pooch. They gambled on getting everything they wanted (no Brexit). May repeatedly offered desperate concessions to get support nullifying pretty much any potential future advantage post Brexit. Still they refused. Boris also tagged on concessions to try and get his deal over the line. It failed and was clearly going to get messed around with.
.
Wut, it passed away the second reading, Boris pulled it.
Don't let truth get in the way of propaganda history.
Indeed. We all know the truth that it wasn't pulled straight after the second reading vote, we all know the truth it was pulled after a subsequent vote was lost.
There are still a significant number of rotten boroughs in hollowed out City Centres where MPs were being elected on very modest totals as well as suburban seats where the losers often got more than the City centre winners. This undoubtedly benefits Labour considerably. They also get a marginal benefit from the over representation of Wales although that is less than it was. I suspect a boundary review could still cost Labour the equivalent of 10-15 seats, enough to make a win next time out move from extremely difficult to next to impossible.
Seats are divided on electorate not voter turnout. Given the Conservatives skew older and Labour younger then Labour will win more youthful seats that will also average lower turnout (and vice versa).
There are still a significant number of rotten boroughs in hollowed out City Centres where MPs were being elected on very modest totals as well as suburban seats where the losers often got more than the City centre winners. This undoubtedly benefits Labour considerably. They also get a marginal benefit from the over representation of Wales although that is less than it was. I suspect a boundary review could still cost Labour the equivalent of 10-15 seats, enough to make a win next time out move from extremely difficult to next to impossible.
I doubt the ‘considerably’. The largest seats in England break about 60:40 Tory, since a fair few of them are London seats with significant population growth. 60:40 is par, now. The very smallest English seats break 60:40 Labour, for sure, but they contain a fair few that the Tories have gained or regained in recent elections (Workington, Kensington, Berwick, Blackpool South, etc.). The Welsh seats are smaller, but then Wales isn’t as pro-Labour as it once was, and some of the smallest are Tory seats like Big_G’s or recent gains like Wrexham.
The biggest winner would be the government payroll vote, since this appears immune to any boundary review and would constitute a larger proportion of a smaller house.
I am not arguing for 600 rather than 650. I am arguing for constituencies where votes have roughly equivalent weight.
There are still a significant number of rotten boroughs in hollowed out City Centres where MPs were being elected on very modest totals as well as suburban seats where the losers often got more than the City centre winners. This undoubtedly benefits Labour considerably. They also get a marginal benefit from the over representation of Wales although that is less than it was. I suspect a boundary review could still cost Labour the equivalent of 10-15 seats, enough to make a win next time out move from extremely difficult to next to impossible.
Seats are divided on electorate not voter turnout. Given the Conservatives skew older and Labour younger then Labour will win more youthful seats that will also average lower turnout (and vice versa).
With class no longer a key dividing line I suspect the average Tory seat and average Labour seat no longer have such big differences in turnout,
Although, yes we are way over due boundary changes, and Wales especially needs to have their number of seats reduced.
Is class the issue?
I thought the issue was that urban seats have lower population than suburban and rural seats (which is bizarre, the opposite would make more sense). Labour still have a lead in urban seats.
There are still a significant number of rotten boroughs in hollowed out City Centres where MPs were being elected on very modest totals as well as suburban seats where the losers often got more than the City centre winners. This undoubtedly benefits Labour considerably. They also get a marginal benefit from the over representation of Wales although that is less than it was. I suspect a boundary review could still cost Labour the equivalent of 10-15 seats, enough to make a win next time out move from extremely difficult to next to impossible.
Seats are divided on electorate not voter turnout. Given the Conservatives skew older and Labour younger then Labour will win more youthful seats that will also average lower turnout (and vice versa).
With class no longer a key dividing line I suspect the average Tory seat and average Labour seat no longer have such big differences in turnout,
Although, yes we are way over due boundary changes, and Wales especially needs to have their number of seats reduced.
Not sure about that. Turnout is generally lower in the Cities which have younger, more mobile populations with electoral rolls that fall out of date much more quickly. And they are the last bastions of the Labour party.
I also think turnout is depressed when seats are very safe. Whilst this can apply across the board one of the interesting things about this election is that there will be far fewer seats deemed safe in future. England has not quite caught up with Scottish volatility but its getting there.
But what I am talking about is the size of the electoral roll. Those discrepancies do need to be sorted out in this Parliament.
There are still a significant number of rotten boroughs in hollowed out City Centres where MPs were being elected on very modest totals as well as suburban seats where the losers often got more than the City centre winners. This undoubtedly benefits Labour considerably. They also get a marginal benefit from the over representation of Wales although that is less than it was. I suspect a boundary review could still cost Labour the equivalent of 10-15 seats, enough to make a win next time out move from extremely difficult to next to impossible.
I doubt the ‘considerably’. The largest seats in England break about 60:40 Tory, since a fair few of them are London seats with significant population growth. 60:40 is par, now. The very smallest English seats break 60:40 Labour, for sure, but they contain a fair few that the Tories have gained or regained in recent elections (Workington, Kensington, Berwick, Blackpool South, etc.). The Welsh seats are smaller, but then Wales isn’t as pro-Labour as it once was, and some of the smallest are Tory seats like Big_G’s or recent gains like Wrexham.
The biggest winner would be the government payroll vote, since this appears immune to any boundary review and would constitute a larger proportion of a smaller house.
The Welsh seats should be re-drawn on a point of principle. The Scottish seats were re-drawn after devolution, but the Welsh seats never were.
Welsh decisions should be taken in the Senedd in Cardiff, not in Westminster. This is part of the process of devolving of decision-making that the LibDems ostensibly favour.
Incidentally, the Welsh seats still massively favour Labour, 42 per cent of the vote gave them 65 per cent of the seats in 2019.
In fact, Welsh results in terms of seats were excellent for Labour in 2019, they are only down one on 2015. (Many of the majorities were sharply down, though).
This thread started by MM saying that all the uncertainty in the last parliament was caused by Remainers. That is clearly untrue.
May was defeated by 432 votes to 202. There were not 432 remain votes in the Commons. Boris and the ERG were part of that defeat. They contributed to the uncertainty.
To claim that Leavers did not add to uncertainty is revisionism pure and simple.
The last Parliament was a sordid attempt by a significant majority of MPs, many having pledged to their Leave seats that they would implement Brexit, to block that Brexit. Not to mitigate its worst effects; to block it from ever proceeding to the statute book. They were prepared to risk economic consequences in doing so.
That Parliament, including many of the most egregious Brexit-blockers, has now been swept aside by an angry electorate, pissed off that economic adversity was the consequence of petty attempts to delay and thwart.
The legislature took over the executive function in order to press the aim of blocking Brexit. The Benn Act was the pinnacle of that effort. And of its folly.
The ERG at some 80 members were a side show in this process, having inadequate numbers to thwart either the will of Remainers or Leavers.
How do you think those same voters will react to the economic adversity of No Deal this time next year?
By the way, most votes at the election went to anti-Brexit parties.
Comments
Are you pro or anti-death penalty? If we were to have a death penalty referendum and a fringe party on your side of the divide put out a vile poster you found distateful and disagreed with would you switch your vote to go against them? Or would you denounce and distance yourself from the vile poster but still vote for what you believe in?
Is it East Derry or East Antrim?
What proportion of the 52% are you happy to disavow ? I suspect as far as the poster and its arguments are concerned, it’s substantially larger.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/22/boris-johnson-told-to-stop-campaigning-and-start-governing-ken-clarke-brexit
Note the younger vote looks to be slipping back to pre-referendum turnout which is really going to do Labour in if they can't turn that around.
Neat.
Which is of course a range of 10% (ie from 95% to 105% of electoral quota).
If you’re attempting to rebut, try a little harder.
Goodnight.
DUP, TUV and People Before Profit wanted to Leave.
To restore the complexities a little:
Brexit might be a binary decision, but its implications and repercussions are enormous in complexity and magnitude. When one side is seen to have "won", and the campaign for that side included anti-immigration arguments, be they simple objections to FOM, or the foul, overt racism of the poster, with a healthy background of dog-whistling about other more established immigrant communities, then a certain constituency among that side is going to see the "win" as a victory for their arguments or their interpretation of the campaign. I suspect that you would accept this without reservation, and we would quibble only about the size of this constituency, and perhaps whether it constituted the difference between victory and defeat on the binary issue.
Alas, the response to the win under Theresa May (and the wretched Nick Timothy) was to immediately reinforce the anti-immigration arguments as crucial. No debate was allowed about retaining FOM, and precious few Leave voices were raised to criticise the poster, either before or after victory. I don't know why the liberal Leavers were so reticent: was it fear of breaking up their coalition, or were they unable to assert themselves for party political reasons?
And ever since, this argument has gone unspoken. Gove and Johnson have come close occasionally, but are always too tempted by the power of dog-whistling to say what they probably feel to be right.
I'm sure Leave voters had many different reasons for voting the way they did. But those who supported a single market option that retains FOM have had no say, and have not even tried to make their case. And worse, every time you parrot a dumb line like "take back control of our borders, our laws and our money", that constituency I referred to earlier nods when you say "our borders", and interprets your words as support for the vile ideas conveyed by the poster.
Do try to keep up.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00098y2/reflections-when-parties-split-series-1-5-brexit-the-party-splitter
@Sunil_Prasannan
Turnout filters on USA presidentisl polling is absolutely brutal. The first question Emerson asks you is "Did you vote in the previous presidential election?" and if you answer No then that's the end of the call. Other pollsters are similar in America.
If you were a 2012 Obama voter who DNV'd in 2016 you basically disappear from the polling.
This is particularly pertinent in the Rust Belt where Republican vote was static but the Dem vote cratered with turnout in key Demographics way down.
https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1208855927723560965?s=20
The UK party system is essentially split between the Conservatives and a lot of parties against the Conservatives, so as the leading party in the historical sense, they will usually benefit from fewer seats. Looked at geographically, this would also dilute the times when the opposition wins one seat in a region like Exeter or Norwich - whereas there are fewer areas where the Conservatives take one seat in a mainly Labour regions.
I agree with Gabs about the benefits of migration and freedom of movement.
But at the same time I believe that migrants must abide by both the spirit and the letter of the laws and culture of the country they are moving to. So I would be far tougher on any aspects of immigrant culture which result in challenges to our own laws and customs. This would include absolutely no concessions for religion when it comes to how our schools operate or our laws on things like animal welfare. If migrants don't like this then they can go elsewhere. If they are happy to abide by our laws and customs - or in the case of the latter at least not challenge them - then they should be welcome.
Our problem historically is that we have welcomed immigration whilst not expecting migrants to abide by our own laws and respect our own culture. The vast majority of migrants have done this off their own back as they are decent people. A very few have chosen not to. That is where our laws should insist that they do.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/23/poll-shows-highest-uk-business-confidence-levels-for-three-years
Millions of supposedly racist white Northern and Midlands voters, just balked at voting for the prime reason why "recent years have not been easy ones for British Jews". They broke the habit of a lifetime, and in some cases multiple lifetimes, to elect a man who is - I have no doubt - absolutely committed to trying to ensure that the next five years at least are easier.
Meanwhile, hordes of mostly young metropolitan (supposedly) liberal and tolerant types voted without hesitation for someone who, at an absolute minimum, is a serial enabler of race-baiters. And after he lost, the most committed among them went online and started generating conspiracy theories blaming his defeat on the Jews.
The world is a complicated place.
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1208789388278276096
They must be very proud of how it has panned out.
Corbyn is at least as responsible as they are.
But I think the real issue (and I know it was HYUFD) is what the living feck is anyone doing following Ted Cruz's twitter feed?
In terms of electoral self interest, the current Conservative self interest is for fewer constituencies, since the winner’s premium increases as the system becomes less proportional, which happens significantly as the number of sears reduces. The reason the last review increases the bias toward the Tories is more to do with the 600 than the new boundaries per se.
That’s a dangerous game, of course, because sooner or later the winner’s premium turns into the loser’s disadvantage. And it’s also the interest of the party as a whole, not of individual MPs, since even the Tories lose MPs in a more biased fewer seat system, and individual MPs may not like the particular changes proposed last time, some of which are bizarre, and it messes with incumbency as others have said.
Whether or not a 650 boundary review would make much difference is a moot point, especially since the electoral geography has changed significantly since the last review was done. I doubt it would change things by more than a seat or two net at the margins now.
The fact that the simple unity of "leave" was made up of people who wanted a Norway style deal through to those who wanted a hard No Deal was always going to mean a post referendum struggle.
Getting a majority for something is always much trickier than getting a majority against something.
It doesn't make it a rotten borough system.
Boundaries shouldn't be allowed to become a political football.
She's an Iranian citizen, and under international law we can do precisely nothing about her. Iran aren't going to let her out, and she would have known that, no matter how much our media wish to play up to a sob story from her family.
(This posted from a place where hundreds of Brits end up falling foul of local laws every year, and mostly see very little help from UK authorities - because it isn't their job to interfere in the judicial system of another country. )
albeit that is also now 8 years out of date. Some seats such as Nottingham East are more than 11k below the mean whilst Bury St Edmonds is 15.5k over. That looks pretty rotten to me.
The biggest winner would be the government payroll vote, since this appears immune to any boundary review and would constitute a larger proportion of a smaller house.
What if we suddenly let in the entire population of Utah and they demanded that we make Britain a Mormon state? Well, that would be awkward, but the numbers involved would mean they'd fail, in the same way as any attempt to make Britain Muslim or Hindu would fail. But they might influence us a bit (perhaps we'd drink a bit less booze, for instance), and that woudn't always be a bad thing. I don't think our culture should be preserved in aspic, impervious to any other ideas.
The Remainers had a combined 300+ MPs and they were sufficient to defeat May. They had enough MPs to reject the deal without the Leavers.
But its history now. Leavers will get a deal through that is far superior to May's deal unless you're the DUP. Job done, life goes on.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/22/johnson-visit-to-lebedev-party-after-victory-odd-move-for-peoples-pm
However the pandering to religion is not done because of a majority having that religion. Someone having a medieval religion should not trump equality or our laws.
Johnson is the one who tried to govern with the ERG and determined what happened next, which was a success.
Personally as someone who was aghast at the awful backstop May had negotiated (but wanted a deal) I am very grateful to Remainers for their invaluable role in ensuring we get a proper Brexit instead.
On one point you’re right, this is now history. But let’s not try to rewrite it.
Now they have a Brexit that will be further away than May’s and pretty much guarantee divergence at some point. They are even howling that he has removed some of the concessions he added to sweeten the deal for support.
If they wanted that deal hey should have taken it when they could.
Boris and the ERG were not a majority of the Commons. A majority of the Commons voting against May's deal at MV1 and MV2 was consisted of non-Tories and Tory Remainers only. The Tories alone didn't have a majority to force through a deal, especially when Tory Remainers were rebelling. Even if zero Tory Leavers had rebelled then ceteris paribus May's deal would still have been lost.
As for the DUP, May let them down not the other way around. Johnson did too but then he won the election so he didn't need them. Confidence and Supply doesn't mean voting with the government on all issues like the Meaningful Votes. It means voting on matters of confidence and supply only. May never made the Meaningful Votes a matter of confidence.
That could have been the aim of her team, present a Deal so horrible that no one would vote for it.
May was defeated by 432 votes to 202. There were not 432 remain votes in the Commons. Boris and the ERG were part of that defeat. They contributed to the uncertainty.
To claim that Leavers did not add to uncertainty is revisionism pure and simple.
That Parliament, including many of the most egregious Brexit-blockers, has now been swept aside by an angry electorate, pissed off that economic adversity was the consequence of petty attempts to delay and thwart.
The legislature took over the executive function in order to press the aim of blocking Brexit. The Benn Act was the pinnacle of that effort. And of its folly.
The ERG at some 80 members were a side show in this process, having inadequate numbers to thwart either the will of Remainers or Leavers.
Even if every single Tory Leaver had backed May she would have still lost.
If Remainers had backed the deal they would have got the deal.
Remainers conspired to block the deal and thus ended up with a much harder deal and a much harder Brexit. Are you that stubborn you still can't acknowledge that? It was a strategic disaster for those who wanted a softer exit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50850325
They knew they were right so the result could not possibly be correct. The racist scum and the large group of fools who voted the same way would soon see the error of their ways. When they didn't immediately admit their error, democracy itself had failed.
But many people who voted Remain thought that the result should be honoured because that was democracy. Cries for a second referendum were transparently anti-democratic, and calls for a revoke even more so.
But arrogant people will never admit they can ever be wrong. I make mistakes frequently. It must be nice to never do so despite all the evidence.
Although, yes we are way over due boundary changes, and Wales especially needs to have their number of seats reduced.
I thought the issue was that urban seats have lower population than suburban and rural seats (which is bizarre, the opposite would make more sense). Labour still have a lead in urban seats.
I also think turnout is depressed when seats are very safe. Whilst this can apply across the board one of the interesting things about this election is that there will be far fewer seats deemed safe in future. England has not quite caught up with Scottish volatility but its getting there.
But what I am talking about is the size of the electoral roll. Those discrepancies do need to be sorted out in this Parliament.
Welsh decisions should be taken in the Senedd in Cardiff, not in Westminster. This is part of the process of devolving of decision-making that the LibDems ostensibly favour.
Incidentally, the Welsh seats still massively favour Labour, 42 per cent of the vote gave them 65 per cent of the seats in 2019.
In fact, Welsh results in terms of seats were excellent for Labour in 2019, they are only down one on 2015. (Many of the majorities were sharply down, though).
By the way, most votes at the election went to anti-Brexit parties.