Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

CelticRambler

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think one thing you can say for the FPP system is it makes it that much harder for right wing extremists to gain traction in the electoral process. The obvious downside, of course, is that extremism, of both hues, will then seek an outlet through the main parties and often to devastating effect, as we are currently witnessing.

Not sure I follow that logic - as you say, we're seeing the "devastating effect" of right wingers gaining traction, and because of FPTP it's completely disproportionate to their actual numbers, so your first statment is evidently untrue.

The real downside is that FPTP stifles the development of moderate parties and attempts by the same to find cross-party consensus, making it easy for the extremists to manoeuvre themselves into a position of power. Nigel Farage never secured a place in Westminster, but he still pulled Cameron's strings to get us where we are today.

Strazdas

briany wrote: »

To be honest, if a strategically-timed shot of you eating a bacon sandwich can affect your chances, if your bubble is that easily popped, if your image must be that carefully micromanaged, then it paints a pretty weak picture. Milliband, like Cameron, had not sensed the change in the political atmosphere. The public was rapidly going off politicians who tried to be relatable, ordinary and cool. These men were becoming increasingly seen as ideologically mediocre in a time when public appetite for strong ideology was increasing, and this has given rise to Brexit in the UK and a couple of big players within the movement who can do no wrong no matter who many gaffes they make, because their supporters fundamentally agree with the message they're promoting.

Problem is the "strong ideology" guys are ignorant fools who couldn't run a cake stall.

The swinging away from the centre towards the extremes represents a dumbing down by the electorate.....the current UK cabinet must be the worst in history

Water John

FPTP, has meant that the anti EU grouping had no democratic outlet. HOC should always have had an EU sceptic party of some sort. Equally one would have other smaller parties with significant Parliamentary representation. Lib Dems have got a significant % of the vote but have not got the commensurate representation.
Govn't then would normally be by coalition.
It is quite wrong and antidemocratic that a minority of voters elect the Govn't.

Joe_ Public

CelticRambler wrote: »

Not sure I follow that logic - as you say, we're seeing the "devastating effect" of right wingers gaining traction, and because of FPTP it's completely disproportionate to their actual numbers, so your first statment is evidently untrue.

The real downside is that FPTP stifles the development of moderate parties and attempts by the same to find cross-party consensus, making it easy for the extremists to manoeuvre themselves into a position of power. Nigel Farage never secured a place in Westminster, but he still pulled Cameron's strings to get us where we are today.

I think what i said is valid. Perhaps I’m overstating the extremism of certain factions within the main parties, but that’s a matter of interpretation. It’s still nothing compared to the populist right wing surge in other countries and I’m sure there are many factors for that, but fpp i think does definitely make it harder for that to happen in the U.K. I’m not saying it’s a good system mind, your second par is on the money. But wasn’t Cameron pandering to forces within his own party more than Farage? Farage is one thing, but a look at all the polls offers no encouragement for his former party and his proposed new one looks a dead duck before it even gets off the ground.

tuxy

Exactly FPTP is what made it impossible to get and hold seats for new parties. 12% of the vote in 2015 and only a single seat, supporters gave up and didn't vote UKIP in 2017.
Now the UKIP void is filled by members of the ERG and it's causing much more trouble than UKIP would with a few seats. Labour also has a kind of party within party and it's just so messy. All of these people would create external parties, not parties within parties if it were possible to get seats.

blanch152

Enzokk wrote: »

I am not sure what the poster meant, but I would think the best to worst outcome for Ireland is as follows:

• Withdraw article 50 notice
• Theresa May deal
• No-deal but with NI aligned with Ireland
• No-deal without a deal for NI and thus a border on the island

There are other options.

- Withdraw Article 50 notice either by government or following referendum
- Soft Brexit with staying in CU/SM
- Theresa May deal with NI only backstop
- Theresa May deal
- No-deal


There are some variations within those.

Joe_ Public

Water John wrote: »

FPTP, has meant that the anti EU grouping had no democratic outlet. HOC should always have had an EU sceptic party of some sort. Equally one would have other smaller parties with significant Parliamentary representation. Lib Dems have got a significant % of the vote but have not got the commensurate representation.
Govn't then would normally be by coalition.
It is quite wrong and antidemocratic that a minority of voters elect the Govn't.

Yes and the very grim irony is that if they’d got the anticipated coalition back in 2015 or whenever it was, we’d never have got to this sorry pass. Not for a few years or decades anyway.

Water John

You're second option there is largely the LB option. The EU would readily agree to it. TM won't go for it as it would split her party.

Spanish Eyes

If TM saved her country instead of her party. Well that would be patriotic...

So no chance is there

Water John

Moving from just being a Minister to a PM means having to make tough decisions and moving your Govn't towards the national interest. TM hasn't the skillset.

Spanish Eyes

Water John wrote: »

Moving from just being a Minister to a PM means having to make tough decisions and moving your Govn't towards the national interest. TM hasn't the skillset.

To me she is a follower not a leader.

I don't think this will end well.

Capt'n Midnight

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think one thing you can say for the FPP system is it makes it that much harder for right wing extremists to gain traction in the electoral process. The obvious downside, of course, is that extremism, of both hues, will then seek an outlet through the main parties and often to devastating effect, as we are currently witnessing.

No it makes it MUCH easier as demonstrated by who's dictating policy in both the Tories and Labour. There is no centre ground.

FPTP is all or nothing. Unless you are in one of the two big parties you won't get anywhere as an MP. So extremists have to join one of them. Especially when you won't get elected in most places if you aren't in either party. And parties have to accept them because they need a majority. It's a vicious circle.

Elsewhere PR means coalitions, so extremists don't need to stay in the big parties. Which means the parties don't have to pander to them. So instead of two lowest common denominator parties you get a spectrum to choose from and the extremists are usually excluded or end up as junior partners.

Imagine a world where you have right most parts of FF/FG as a single party and everyone else in the other party.

Water John

What is important is that people with different views have a party with Parliamentary representation to vote for.

Capt'n Midnight

Headshot wrote: »

May will have to promise something to Labour to get her deal across the line. If I was in her shoes I'd promise a government election because Corbyn won't win anyway which is real indicative of how bad Labour is when a Tory government is the worse is my living memory

Imagine if they declare an election and then Corbyn or McDonald steps down or Labour takes advice from the public or promises a ban on immigration from Asia and Africa or promises £350m a week from the NHS by cancelling Brexit because it's costing £800m a week ?


I can't see it happening, but it's possible and with any half competent crew in charge Labour would romp home.

Joe_ Public

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No it makes it MUCH easier as demonstrated by who's dictating policy in both the Tories and Labour. There is no centre ground.

FPTP is all or nothing. Unless you are in one of the two big parties you won't get anywhere as an MP. So extremists have to join one of them. Especially when you won't get elected in most places if you aren't in either party. And parties have to accept them because they need a majority. It's a vicious circle.

Elsewhere PR means coalitions, so extremists don't need to stay in the big parties. Which means the parties don't have to pander to them. So instead of two lowest common denominator parties you get a spectrum to choose from and the extremists are usually excluded or end up as junior partners.

Imagine a world where you have right most parts of FF/FG as a single party and everyone else in the other party.

I think this depends to a large extent on how you define extremism. For all Farages gains in the uk, there are Farages all over the continent not just making ground, but actually acceding to the highest offices in their respective countries. A guy like Salvini makes Farage look the soul of moderation. Right wing parties are surging in Austria, Sweden, Spain and other places too.

You can say what you like about the erg, or some of the lunatic fringe on the left for that matter, but they’re not really fascists or far right thugs and I’m confident they’d be run out of town if they tried on the sort of stuff they’d get away with in Italy or Poland.

So, yes, i do believe the electoral system makes it harder - it’s not the whole reason but part of it - for the extremists to gain a direct foothold but that’s not me saying it’s a good system because of that. It just happens to be a benign consequence. Of course it also makes it harder for the likes of the Green Party to make ground too and that’s definitely not a good thing as far as I’m concerned.

Peregrinus

Joe_ Public wrote: »

. . . So, yes, i do believe the electoral system makes it harder - it’s not the whole reason but part of it - for the extremists to gain a direct foothold but that’s not me saying it’s a good system because of that. It just happens to be a benign consequence. Of course it also makes it harder for the likes of the Green Party to make ground too and that’s definitely not a good thing as far as I’m concerned.

FPTP makes it harder for extremists to gain a foothold as long as they remain in separate parties. But if they manage to do a reverse takeover of one of the major parties, then FPTP grealy magnifies their power - look at the influence hard brexiters have in the Tory party currently, and the influence of the hard left in the Labour party.

Strazdas

Peregrinus wrote: »

FPTP makes it harder for extremitsts to gain a foothold as long as they remain in separate parties. But if they manage to do a reverse takeover of one of the major parties, then FPTP grealy magnifies their power - look at the influence hard brexiters have in the Tory party currently, and the influence of the hard left in the Labour party.

Indeed, under PR the nutcases can join an extremist party but in Britain they have no choice but to join either the Tories or Labour if they want to get into the Parliament.

In any other country in Europe, the hard Brexiteers could form their own party and get MPs elected. The UK has as many far right and far left MPs as France or Germany, it's just that they're all in the Tories and Labour.

Joe_ Public

Peregrinus wrote: »

FPTP makes it harder for extremitsts to gain a foothold as long as they remain in separate parties. But if they manage to do a reverse takeover of one of the major parties, then FPTP grealy magnifies their power - look at the influence hard brexiters have in the Tory party currently, and the influence of the hard left in the Labour party.

Yes, I see that for sure. But i think there’s a difference between a lot of hard brexiteers and many of the dangerous extreme far right nutjobs you get propping up governments across the continent and beyond.

Actually this may be gone off topic a bit so I’ll just agree to disagree with folk on this. But i would just pose two relevant points:

1. In the event of pr in GB, I’d be fairly confident of ukip being one of the biggest beneficiaries, in that a lot of people of center right or even moderate persuasion who wouldn’t countenance voting them No.1 would more than willingly give them a second or third preference without a guilty conscience. I would envisage them doing well off a low percentage voting base.

2. Those extremists who wish to make capital through the large parties still, as with every other hopeful, go through the selection process. In theory the nasties would be weeded out. And in fairness, Derek hattons recent inexplicable labour resurrection was mercifully cut very short.

Enzokk

astrofool wrote: »

It brings everything back to the disaster that was Milliband and his desire to be "cool" that changed the leader voting that allowed Corbyn to get a foothold.

Not so much Brexit related but I think the parallels could be drawn with how the UK press demonised the EU and how they went after Ed Miliband. There was the bacon sandwich as mentioned, but also the stories how his father hated the UK.



Then you had the scare stories on how a vote for Labour would be a vote for the SNP as the polls suggested a Labour coalition with the SNP as the majority in the HoC. We know there is nothing more that the English fear more than "the others" actually ruling them and in that case those others were their own fellow citizens.

The crazy thing is that some of the domestic policies that the Conservatives have adopted since the election are Labour policies under Miliband. He is not the strong man that Cameron was and that is why they lost the election as the voters, in my opinion, were fooled by an image rather than substance. It ties to Brexit in that they were also fooled again by the image of Brexit and not the substance. The UK voters really seem to be easy to fool if you are able to provide them with the image of what they believe a leader should be.

Look at the image transformation of Johnson recently, gone is the scruffy and unkempt hair and a clean look is very much his image now. I don't think it is a coincidence that it is increasingly looking like May's days may be numbered and the transformed Johnson has made an appearance.

kalych

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

FPTP is all or nothing...
..Elsewhere PR means coalitions, so extremists don't need to stay in the big parties. Which means the parties don't have to pander to them. So instead of two lowest common denominator parties you get a spectrum to choose from and the extremists are usually excluded or end up as junior partners.

As with everything in life 'easier' or 'harder' to elect extremists depends on what system you're comparing FPTP to. You seem to be comparing it to the Irish PR-STV, which is actually a unique system, used in Ireland, Australia and Malta only at parliament level.
Everywhere else PR systems vary from a party list system to mixed single mandate + multi-seat constituencies. Those can be quite volatile with virtually unknown new parties winning majorities after being created 3 months before an election as an outlet for a protest voice.

These PR systems are much more unstable than FPTP in allowing extremists to take power. Which is probably what Joe_public was hinting at.

Peregrinus

kalych wrote: »

As with everything in life 'easier' or 'harder' to elect extremists depends on what system you're comparing FPTP to. You seem to be comparing it to the Irish PR-STV, which is actually a unique system, used in Ireland, Australia and Malta only at parliament level.
Everywhere else PR systems vary from a party list system to mixed single mandate + multi-seat constituencies. Those can be quite volatile with virtually unknown new parties winning majorities after being created 3 months before an election as an outlet for a protest voice.

These PR systems are much more unstable than FPTP in allowing extremists to take power.

Not really.

What is true is that they are much more likely to allow extremists to secure representation with voting support at a level which, in the UK, would not secure representation. For example in the 2015 UK general election UKIP secured 12.5% of the vote, but precisely zero seats. A fair proportional system would have delivered them something like 82 seats.

That wouldn't allow them to "take power", of course, since there were 650 seats up for grabs. At best it would have given them an opportunity to be one of the smaller parties in a coalition government.

And this is really the point. The PR systems that predominate in Europe foster a different political culture from the "winner-takes-all" model that prevails in Westminster (and that is currently serving them so badly). The dominant parliamentary culture in Europe fosters consensus-building and compromise; extremist parties may find themselves in Parliament much more easily than in the UK, but they don't find themselves in power; not unless they compromise very signficantly. If they persist as irredentist extremists, they are condemned to opposition.

The only way extremists can take power without compromising is by securing a large share of the vote: Fidesz in Hungary secured 45% of the vote in 2015; 49% in 2018. But figures like that in a UK election would give them an even bigger majority than they actually have in Hungary.

Dyr

Strazdas wrote: »

Problem is the "strong ideology" guys are ignorant fools who couldn't run a cake stall.

The swinging away from the centre towards the extremes represents a dumbing down by the electorate.....the current UK cabinet must be the worst in history

The current UK cabinet are not the extremes of their party though, if anything they're less extreme than the party membership and their voters. What they are is incompetent, mainly due to MPs being selected by party spin doctors

The reality is that there was support across both the major UK political parties for Brexit and it was reflected in the voting population.

Akrasia

CelticRambler wrote: »

If we can see it, you can be sure the strategists in the EU can see it too, and I think that will strongly influence the terms & conditions attached to any extension - if indeed the EU think it's worth keeping the UK inside the tent.

With a handful of "rickety" national governments already making a nuisance of themselves, there's a good argument to be made for cutting the UK loose for a decade while they re-think their undemocratic FPTP electoral process, sort out their disenfranchised regions and find themselves a prime minister worth the title.

Having seen the way the UK negotiates, starting with the DUP turning on their Tory masters to scupper the original WA, right up to Geoffrey Cox announcing his intention to weasel out of the latest agreement, there's a case to be made for letting the UK crash out - on the 29th - and for the EU to dictate exactly how Britain does business in the future (while picking the sweetest cherries as compensation for all the fecking about).

The EU is about peace and stability. Cutting the UK loose knowing that it's going to go through profound political and economic disruption is like opening Pandoras box.

First Up

The UK has decided to cut itself loose and is still arguing about how much damage it wants to do to itself.

The EU has elaborate and comprehensive policies for dealing with accession countries, pre-accession countries and "neighbourhood" countries. All of these are aimed at peace and stability in Europe.

The UK is the first and so far only country stupid enough to leave the EU and its fair to say that there are no models for dealing with that.

CelticRambler

Akrasia wrote: »

The EU is about peace and stability. Cutting the UK loose knowing that it's going to go through profound political and economic disruption is like opening Pandoras box.

Pandora's Box is already open. It's not the EU's role to resolve squabbles within a country, but it can present the "peace and stability" of EU membership as a prize for countries that get their act together. We saw this after the break-up of Yugoslavia; indeed it's an ongoing exercise with respect to North Macedonia.

As things stand at the moment, the UK is a long-standing member of the EU and it would be improper for Brussels to interfere with its internal politics; but once the Kingdom is out on its own, such considerations no longer apply. It would then be reasonable to say that Europe's peace and stability would be more reliably assured by the break-up of the UK, the re-admission to the EU of an independent Scotland, and the reunification of Ireland - and for the EU to structure future "no deal" negotiations with that end in mind.

Furthermore, even if there's no overt intention to punish Britain for leaving, it'd be a powerful example to hold up to countries like Spain, saying "sit down and talk to your regions, because you don't want to end up in the same situation"

Water John

Hilary Benn said talking to North Macedonia, where 75% want to join the EU. They gave 3 reasons, peace, stability and prosperity.

Joe_ Public

kalych wrote: »

As with everything in life 'easier' or 'harder' to elect extremists depends on what system you're comparing FPTP to. You seem to be comparing it to the Irish PR-STV, which is actually a unique system, used in Ireland, Australia and Malta only at parliament level.
Everywhere else PR systems vary from a party list system to mixed single mandate + multi-seat constituencies. Those can be quite volatile with virtually unknown new parties winning majorities after being created 3 months before an election as an outlet for a protest voice.

These PR systems are much more unstable than FPTP in allowing extremists to take power. Which is probably what Joe_public was hinting at.

Well, quite. I wasn’t really getting into the nuances of various systems - which I’d be far from an expert on anyway tbh. Just made what i regarded a simple observation on the fpp system that still seems valid to me, but of course it can and needs to be qualified. I also observed that right wing elements will coagulate around the main parties, but while i wouldn’t vote for the likes of Steve Baker or Andrew Bridgin if you offered me a winning euromillions ticket, they still don’t quite fit the extremist bill i was alluding to.

The point about coalitions above is well made. Still doesn’t lessen the horrifying spectre in relation to the far right across the continent, but there’s a lot more to that scourge than the voting system. Parties are curbed by going into power sharing, but you can still achieve a lot in the right circumstances, even as a minority. Look at the influence the dup is wielding in Westminster with less than 2% of the seats. I know that’s fpp, but still...

But where once considered weakness, i agree coalitions are eminently preferable and i repeat the point i made earlier that I’d they’d got a coalition as they’d anticipated in 2015, cameron would have been able to avoid the referendum he never wanted to grant.

Water John

Looking like about 30 Tories will not support TM's Deal whatever the DUP do.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/18/dup-backing-will-not-secure-may-brexit-deal-says-jim-wells
TM might not put it to a 3rd vote.
WTF is she going to say to the 27 when she meets them. They know that she can get her Deal passed in the HOC if she agreed to a 2nd Ref.

CelticRambler

Water John wrote: »

WTF is she going to say to the 27 when she meets them.

Whatever she says, it will start with the declaration "I have been clear ..." before she waffles on again without being clear at all.

Zubeneschamali

Akrasia wrote: »

The EU is about peace and stability. Cutting the UK loose knowing that it's going to go through profound political and economic disruption is like opening Pandoras box.

The EU is not cutting the UK loose. The UK is struggling to cut itself loose, or possibly just into smaller pieces.