Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Varta

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Hopefully someone will point out that the WA is just step 1 of a recipe that will take years to cook.

EDIT: The quote: “We have an oven ready deal, put it in the microwave as soon as we get back after the election on Friday 12th Dec and get it done.”

Twitter is mocking him for cooking an oven ready meal in the microwave.

Twitter is hilarious, isn't it. 'Oven ready deal' isn't aimed at the mocking twitterati. Three-word slogans will resonate with half the electorate. Increase them to four words and you will lose most of that cohort. They know what they are doing.

Zubeneschamali

Varta wrote: »

Three-word slogans will resonate with half the electorate.

"Oven-ready deal in the microwave" is a tin-eared fake slogan mouthed by someone who never ate an oven-ready anything in his spoiled life, trying to sound down-to-earth and failing.

They know what they are doing.

People keep saying that about Johnson and/or Cummings, and they keep being proven wrong.

prawnsambo

Varta wrote: »

Shocking to think that the opposition might also lie and get up to dirty tricks. Shakes my faith in democracy.

It was only announced yesterday that Sir Alan Duncan was standing down from the constituency. He was not a fan of Johnson nor brexit, but was expected to stand again. A bit more to come from this, I think. It's a pretty safe seat; Alan Duncan has held it for 30 years or so and generally returns a majority in the high 20k range. It was a 54/46 leave constituency.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

Do you need a physical residence in your constituency?

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think it's wrong that politicians can jump from one constituency to another, particularly when they have changed party during their tenure.

For example: Chuka Umunna moved from Labor to the Independent Group to now Liberal Democrats within his tenure as MP for Streatham.

Now, without the electorate of Streatham having their say on his constant manouvering, he decides to leave Streatham and now stand for Cities of London and Westminster constituency.

Whilst it may not be illegal, there is a serious moral questionmark over this kind of self-serving behavior.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think it's wrong that politicians can jump from one constituency to another, particularly when they have changed party during their tenure.

For example: Chuka Umunna moved from Labor to the Independent Group to now Liberal Democrats within his tenure as MP for Streatham.

Now, without the electorate of Streatham having their say on his constant manouvering, he decides to leave Streatham and now stand for Cities of London and Westminster constituency.

Whilst it may not be illegal, there is a serious moral questionmark over this kind of self-serving behavior.

It's a consequence of the FPTP system. You get 'safe' seats and these are then handed out as 'rewards' to party members. The whole system is corrupted and the constituents are effectively disenfranchised. Both main parties do it because they can. And of course you get built up resentment amongst voters who know their voices will never be heard. One of the reasons for the brexit result imo.

lawred2

Imagine living in a constituency where the winner had 30% or so of the vote.

The views of two thirds of the constituency go unrepresented. I would really struggle with a system like that. The unfairness of it would drive me mental.

prawnsambo

lawred2 wrote: »

Imagine living in a constituency where the winner had 30% or so of the vote.

The views of two thirds of the constituency go unrepresented. I would really struggle with a system like that. The unfairness of it would drive me mental.

And yet when they had the chance, they got bamboozled by the false notion that some people would have more than one vote and rejected it.

Water John

Remember Pocket Burroughs and Rotten Burroughs of 150 years ago?

Strazdas

lawred2 wrote: »

Imagine living in a constituency where the winner had 30% or so of the vote.

The views of two thirds of the constituency go unrepresented. I would really struggle with a system like that. The unfairness of it would drive me mental.

This FPTA system gave way to the shambles of a referendum result. Many British people have it in their heads that a 50.1%-49.9% advisory referendum result would be an appropriate way of deciding their constitutional future for the next few decades. They think they are living in the most democratic country in the world.

CelticRambler

Varta wrote: »

Rjd2 wrote: »

He has been officially re selected so its highly unlikely he would flee now.

Shocking to think that the opposition might also lie and get up to dirty tricks. Shakes my faith in democracy.

Perhaps it is, in fact, a Cunning Plan! Spread the word on Twitter that Johnson is going to do a runner, so he's then obliged to declare his intention to stand in the original constituency, thus boxing him in to a position where his risk of losing is magnified.

Kinda like all those undemocratic MPs in the HoC have been doing to him these last few months! :pac:

Leroy42

I don't agree with this notion that 'safe seats' disinfrancise constituents. It is the constituents that vote after all.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't agree with this notion that 'safe seats' disinfrancise constituents. It is the constituents that vote after all.

They do vote, but (yet again) FPTP is designed to ignore the wishes of the majority and return the (supposedly) "least worst" candidate. Once an MP is elected on the basis of e.g. 35% of the vote, it makes it very hard for anyone else to prove they're a good candidate because the elected MP is the only one with a track record in Westminster. Safe seats put constituents in a position where their only choice is to vote for a party rather than a candidate, and hope that there's a critical mass of like-minded voters in their constituency.

Varta

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

"Oven-ready deal in the microwave" is a tin-eared fake slogan mouthed by someone who never ate an oven-ready anything in his spoiled life, trying to sound down-to-earth and failing.



People keep saying that about Johnson and/or Cummings, and they keep being proven wrong.

If the referendum in 2016 proved anything it proved that a very large portion of the electorate can be led by short, essentially meaningless, slogans. Why should the election be any different? Clearly you saw through the slogan and it would never move you positively, but the fact is it was not aimed at you. It's like bemoaning the fact that the team that lost the match played the best football.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think it's wrong that politicians can jump from one constituency to another, particularly when they have changed party during their tenure.

For example: Chuka Umunna moved from Labor to the Independent Group to now Liberal Democrats within his tenure as MP for Streatham.

Now, without the electorate of Streatham having their say on his constant manouvering, he decides to leave Streatham and now stand for Cities of London and Westminster constituency.

Whilst it may not be illegal, there is a serious moral questionmark over this kind of self-serving behavior.

That begs the question do people vote for the candidate or the party?


In FPTP i would argue that they vote for the party while in PR/STV i would say while people may vote across party lines the ability to rank candidates means the intention is far more about the candidate when it comes to the essence of a vote.

prawnsambo

VinLieger wrote: »

That begs the question do people vote for the candidate or the party?

In FPTP i would argue that they vote for the party while in PR/STV i would say while people may vote across party lines the ability to rank candidates means the intention is far more about the candidate when it comes to the essence of a vote.

I'm not sure that you can say that about PR/STV since it can also rank parties or even candidates within parties to maximise the return for that party. And parties encourage ranking of their candidates without necessarily specifying ranks.

Joe_ Public

VinLieger wrote: »

That begs the question do people vote for the candidate or the party?


In FPTP i would argue that they vote for the party while in PR/STV i would say while people may vote across party lines the ability to rank candidates means the intention is far more about the candidate when it comes to the essence of a vote.

Probably true in many instances. I doubt all those remainers voting for Kate Hoey in Vauxhall in 2017 were doing so out of high personal regard. Thats just safe seat electoral politics for you. While the likes of lowry and the cope gallagher over here show evidence of personal loyalty over party affiliation. These are mere outliers to some extent, though, but do believe the distinction has merit all the same.

Leroy42

CelticRambler wrote: »

They do vote, but (yet again) FPTP is designed to ignore the wishes of the majority and return the (supposedly) "least worst" candidate. Once an MP is elected on the basis of e.g. 35% of the vote, it makes it very hard for anyone else to prove they're a good candidate because the elected MP is the only one with a track record in Westminster. Safe seats put constituents in a position where their only choice is to vote for a party rather than a candidate, and hope that there's a critical mass of like-minded voters in their constituency.

But if enough people can get behind a particular candidate then the seat will be lost. Trump proved that. I agree that FPTP is inherently flawed, but its flaws are well known at it possible to override them, for example Blair in 1997.

PV has its own flaws. A candidate that receives very few 1st preferences can ride on the coat tails of a popular running mate, wasn't there some FF that got in that way with Bertie a few years back?

Whilst being the only candidate with MP experience can of course be a positive, it can also be a negative. How can any Tory candidate stand up and say that they offer experience etc when the last parliament was a car crash? (I ask this based on logical voters which I agree the UK doesn't appear to have at the present time).

I guess my point is that the voters need to stop blaming everyone else and start to take responsibility. The Brexit Ref was Leave because more people voted for it. The HoC is lead by the tories because the voters keep voting for them. Regardless of where one stands on many issues, it beggers believe that voters are willing to give the Tories more time to continue to destroy the very foundations of the country.

Zubeneschamali

Varta wrote: »

If the referendum in 2016 proved anything it proved that a very large portion of the electorate can be led by short, essentially meaningless, slogans.

The actual evidence says that sovereignty (making decisions about the UK in the UK) and control of borders (immigration) were the main reasons for voting Leave. "Take Back Control" is a punchy slogan which addresses both, and it is not meaningless at all.

I don't think Brexit is a good idea, but if the UK wanted to be Norway, that wouldn't be mad, I mean no-one says the Norwegians are mad.

L1011

Leroy42 wrote: »

A candidate that receives very few 1st preferences can ride on the coat tails of a popular running mate, wasn't there some FF that got in that way with Bertie a few years back?

Cyprian Brady. Got under 1000 first preferences.

Its really never happened to quite as extreme a level anywhere else. Wiki lead me to DeV transferring en masse to a running mate who got barely over 100 votes - in 1923!

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

But if enough people can get behind a particular candidate then the seat will be lost. Trump proved that. I agree that FPTP is inherently flawed, but its flaws are well known at it possible to override them, for example Blair in 1997.

PV has its own flaws. A candidate that receives very few 1st preferences can ride on the coat tails of a popular running mate, wasn't there some FF that got in that way with Bertie a few years back?

Whilst being the only candidate with MP experience can of course be a positive, it can also be a negative. How can any Tory candidate stand up and say that they offer experience etc when the last parliament was a car crash? (I ask this based on logical voters which I agree the UK doesn't appear to have at the present time).

I guess my point is that the voters need to stop blaming everyone else and start to take responsibility. The Brexit Ref was Leave because more people voted for it. The HoC is lead by the tories because the voters keep voting for them. Regardless of where one stands on many issues, it beggers believe that voters are willing to give the Tories more time to continue to destroy the very foundations of the country.

No single party UK Gov has got more than 50% of the popular vote since 1932.

FPTP allows constituencies to return a vast number of MPs with low majorities and them getting much less than 50%.

STV is a good way of combating the failings of FPTP, particularly if matched to multiple seat constituencies. If the UK had 215 three seater constituencies, with the Speaker being an MP without a constituency, they would have 646 MPs.

In that case, there could be any number of candidates from each party, some parties fielding three candidates and some only one. So within the constituency, there would be a choice of which particular party candidate to vote for and the notion of safe seats would be gone for ever.

Once the parties get the hang of it, they would start tactical voting, but in the end, the voter has one vote and casts it for the candidates in the order of their choice. Could not be simpler.

Sam Russell

L1011 wrote: »

Cyprian Brady. Got under 1000 first preferences.

Its really never happened to quite as extreme a level anywhere else. Wiki lead me to DeV transferring en masse to a running mate who got barely over 100 votes - in 1923!

Also Dick Spring lost by 9 votes despite having 32% of the vote.

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The actual evidence says that sovereignty (making decisions about the UK in the UK) and control of borders (immigration) were the main reasons for voting Leave. "Take Back Control" is a punchy slogan which addresses both, and it is not meaningless at all.

I don't think Brexit is a good idea, but if the UK wanted to be Norway, that wouldn't be mad, I mean no-one says the Norwegians are mad.

As readily as I would personally wrap my arms around the EEA option, it does leave the UK in a worse position as it now means the surrender of any say in how the EU is run, especially the veto. Good for Europeans, sure but as a remainer it's easy to see why some argue against it.

Joe_ Public

Every system has its flaws. Vote management is a part of pr/stv and can lead to anomalies. Isnt that how they took gove out of tory leadership race? And back further, it was vote management gone wrong that got thatcher elected as tory leader!

prawnsambo

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Every system has its flaws. Vote management is a part of pr/stv and can lead to anomalies. Isnt that how they took gove out of tory leadership race? And back further, it was vote management gone wrong that got thatcher elected as tory leader!

Yeah. You can also have running mates cancelling each other out. The leading vote catcher asking voters to give their first preference to the running mate and both ending up not reaching the quota and being passed out by other candidates. but again an outlier and hardly a flaw really.

Strazdas

Not a good start for Johnson : got booed at Addenbrookes Hospital today

https://twitter.com/chunkymark/status/1189936147226660865

Varta

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The actual evidence says that sovereignty (making decisions about the UK in the UK) and control of borders (immigration) were the main reasons for voting Leave. "Take Back Control" is a punchy slogan which addresses both, and it is not meaningless at all.

I don't think Brexit is a good idea, but if the UK wanted to be Norway, that wouldn't be mad, I mean no-one says the Norwegians are mad.

That's the thing about slogans or good advertising lines, people don't credit them with having influenced them. Which came first, the slogan or people's belief that the slogan fitted with their already held view? Obviously it's a bit of both. When I say meaningless I mean it in the sense that they won't actually be taking back control.

prawnsambo

Strazdas wrote: »

Not a good start for Johnson : got booed at Addenbrookes Hospital today

https://twitter.com/chunkymark/status/1189936147226660865

He's getting that a lot. Wonder will it mean anything when it comes to voting.

Strazdas

Varta wrote: »

That's the thing about slogans or good advertising lines, people don't credit them with having influenced them. Which came first, the slogan or people's belief that the slogan fitted with their already held view? Obviously it's a bit of both. When I say meaningless I mean it in the sense that they won't actually be taking back control.

Sovereignty is certainly meaningless to the man on the street. You're already behoven to numerous authority figures. If you go for surgery or take a flight or take orders from your boss, you are surrendering sovereignty. The entire sovereignty argument is a sham.

CelticRambler

prawnsambo wrote: »

VinLieger wrote: »

In FPTP i would argue that they vote for the party while in PR/STV i would say while people may vote across party lines the ability to rank candidates means the intention is far more about the candidate when it comes to the essence of a vote.

I'm not sure that you can say that about PR/STV since it can also rank parties or even candidates within parties to maximise the return for that party. And parties encourage ranking of their candidates without necessarily specifying ranks.

They do, of course - we've all seen the posters "Vote Fine Gael 1, 2, 3" ... but ultimately the voter has the choice to put their favourite non-mainstream party candidate in first place ("he'll never get in, but he's a good lad") and then vote with either blind party loyalty or some degree of strategy. Every so often, the Good Lad does get in and has a chance to prove himself (or not) and that keeps the others on their toes. No system is perfect, but FPTP is utterly unfit for purpose in a fractured society.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

But if enough people can get behind a particular candidate then the seat will be lost. Trump proved that. I agree that FPTP is inherently flawed, but its flaws are well known at it possible to override them, for example Blair in 1997.
<snip>
I guess my point is that the voters need to stop blaming everyone else and start to take responsibility.

Oh I agree - voters need to take responsibility - but when you've lived for decades under FPTP and seen your vote ignored at election after election after election, it's very hard to believe that "every vote matters". That's why Brexit was such an easy win for the Leavers - they only need to get people to believe they were casting a non-binding protest vote that wouldn't amount to anything anyway - like at least 60% of them do in every election ... only in a referendum, every vote does count.

As for working within the system, you don't have to go as far as Trump to find a good example - the safe Tory seat of Canterbury was swung to Labour in 2017 through concerted action. But that's still only making the best of a bad situation, and selecting MPs based on who you don't want rather than who you do want*. What if you're a LibDem or a Green and don't agree with Labour policies? Nationwide, if you've been a Lib Dem supporter in the last 60 years, you've effectively been disenfranchised from the day each election is announced.

* ... and what happens when you elect a HoC full of MPs who know what they don't want but can't agree on what they do want ...? :cool: