Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

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.

However were it the case that people generally thought they were only casting a non-binding protest vote as you say, then we would expect a much larger swing back to the remain side in subsequent opinion polls.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

However were it the case that people generally thought they were only casting a non-binding protest vote as you say, then we would expect a much larger swing back to the remain side in subsequent opinion polls.

Yes. But there's the element of winning to take into account. They've won, which in FPTP doesn't happen for a lot of voters, so they are insistent that they collect their winnings.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

However were it the case that people generally thought they were only casting a non-binding protest vote as you say, then we would expect a much larger swing back to the remain side in subsequent opinion polls.

Not when the electorate has been trained to accept the result of every vote that's ever been held before. Fair play and all that, innit? :P

To me, the real lesson from Brexit has been to highlight how easily manipulated is the British electorate and (having been so manipulated) how easily they slip into "yeah, woteva"-ness. I think that's entirely due to the unrepresentative nature of FPTP.

On the flipside, Brexit has been such an enormous shock to the British political system that it may be eventually be viewed the defibrillator that brought the British electorate back to life.

PopePalpatine

CelticRambler wrote: »

Oh jeeeeeez ... just in time for Christmas, Johnson is now telling us the UK has an oven-ready Brexit :eek:

That takes me back to my days of poring over the works of Plath for English in the Leaving Cert. :pac:

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yes. But there's the element of winning to take into account. They've won, which in FPTP doesn't happen for a lot of voters, so they are insistent that they collect their winnings.

I would still need to see some evidence that at the time of voting fairly large numbers did not expect the result to be honoured by the government in the event of a Leave win, i.e., were treating it as a non-binding opinion poll.

I remember the day after the result came out, TV news had on people who regretted their vote. But of course in the age of social media it is easy for reporters to find four or five people who regretted their decision. It is not evidence of widespread regret. The evidence such as it is suggests that most of those who voted to leave have not reversed their decision.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

The evidence such as it is suggests that most of those who voted to leave have not reversed their decision.

You're probably right but the evidence also shows that most of those who voted to leave believe that the kind of Brexit they voted for is what should be delivered, and it's not what's being offered. Three years after the referendum, there is still no consensus on what a vote to "Leave the EU" means.

Professor Moriarty

CelticRambler wrote: »

You're probably right but the evidence also shows that most of those who voted to leave believe that the kind of Brexit they voted for is what should be delivered, and it's not what's being offered. Three years after the referendum, there is still no consensus on what a vote to "Leave the EU" means.

There is indeed no definition of what 'Leave' means. But, over three years later, Leave voters will coalesce around Johnson's deal. Whether they are soft or hard Brexiteers, they know that the alternative is probably going to be Remain. So Johnson and his deal is the lesser of two evils.

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

You're probably right but the evidence also shows that most of those who voted to leave believe that the kind of Brexit they voted for is what should be delivered, and it's not what's being offered. Three years after the referendum, there is still no consensus on what a vote to "Leave the EU" means.

However given that the type of brexit that occurs is a matter of negotiation with another party, is it realistic for a government to promise a particular type? I think it was always understood that there was going to be risk associated with a leave vote and the evidence for this is, again, that we're not seeing a major reversal in the position of the majority of Leave voters. Individual Leave voters might have wanted a particular form of brexit but they seem happy enough with leaving the EU in any case.

Yes, remainers are saying these sorts of things but most remainers are against any sort of brexit.

theological

Strazdas wrote: »

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

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

Boris is leading Labour by 17 points in the polls. A few people booing him isn't an indication of a lack of support.

If Boris keeps this up he'll get into Downing Street again with enough of a majority to deliver Brexit. The hard remain side look to be sunk.

Professor Moriarty

theological wrote: »

Boris is leading Labour by 17 points in the polls. A few people booing him isn't an indication of his support.

If Boris keeps this up he'll get into Downing Street again with enough of a majority to deliver Brexit. The hard remain side look to be sunk.

In one poll. The average lead in all October polls is 9%.

theological

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

In one poll. The average lead in all October polls is 9%.

A 9% lead is still substantial, particularly given the electoral system.

A lot of people in Britain even remain voters just want to bring this to a conclusion. Labour will suffer for their fence sitting on this.

Professor Moriarty

theological wrote: »

A 9% lead is still substantial, particularly given the electoral system.

A lot of people in Britain even remain voters just want to bring this to a conclusion. Labour will suffer for their fence sitting on this.

They might. They need to sharpen their message.

theological

theological wrote: »

A 9% lead is still substantial, particularly given the electoral system.

A lot of people in Britain even remain voters just want to bring this to a conclusion. Labour will suffer for their fence sitting on this.

Labor aren't sitting on the fence, though.

It's to re-negotiate a deal "economically close" to the Single Market and Customs Union, then put that deal to the public versus Remain.

It couldn't be clearer.

It's not the clarity that's missing, it's the logic and sense of it.

theological

Deleted User wrote: »

Labor aren't sitting on the fence, though.

It's to re-negotiate a deal "economically close" to the Single Market and Customs Union, then put that deal to the public versus Remain.

It couldn't be clearer.

It's not the clarity that's missing, it's the logic and sense of it.

They will re-negotiate a deal, to campaign against it in a referendum. This is absurd particularly with the other two choices. Labour have also flip flopped several times on this subject over the last 2 years even.

There are two clear choices.

The Liberal Democrats will revoke Article 50.

The Conservatives will leave the European Union.

This is the people's vote.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

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%.

50% +1 votes in 50% +1 seats guarantees you a majority with barely more than 25% of the turnout.

In Belfast South Alasdair McDonnell got elected with less than 25% of the vote in 2015

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.

Here it's between 3 to 5 seaters to balance out the under representation of small parties in 3 seaters and visa versa.

http://www.constituency-commission.ie/index.htm

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

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

I don't agree with gravity, it can be such a drag.


In the Irish system, if the voter marks all the way down, then their vote will always go to either a candidate who is elected or to the final runner up which can be the person who finished 6th in a five seater.

In the UK system surpluses are wasted.
As are votes for anyone who isn't either the winner or runner up.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/electoral-reform/

These two groups of voters combined made up three-quarters of voters in 2017. 22 million people voted yet had no influence on the outcome.

Professor Moriarty

theological wrote: »

They will re-negotiate a deal, to campaign against it in a referendum. This is absurd particularly with the other two choices. Labour have also flip flopped several times on this subject over the last 2 years even.

There are two clear choices.

The Liberal Democrats will revoke Article 50.

The Conservatives will leave the European Union.

This is the people's vote.

While the Tories have a clear and simple Brexit message, it's important to remember that this is a general election, not another referendum on Brexit. When you move away from Brexit, Labour's message (NHS, transport, austerity etc.) is much more defined and the Tories have much to hide.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Labor aren't sitting on the fence, though.

It's to re-negotiate a deal "economically close" to the Single Market and Customs Union, then put that deal to the public versus Remain.

It couldn't be clearer.

It's not the clarity that's missing, it's the logic and sense of it.

It's the one thing i have to admit does boil my blood a bit in this whole saga, the wilful obscuring of the labour position that you'd imagine you'd need mensa level brain capacity to grasp it the way some go on about it. No one has to like it or vote for it, but to portray it as in any way complex seems disingenuous to me. Vote labour and you vote for a second referendum in all circumstances. That seems fairly plain to me at least. Do i really need to worry unduly about how individual labour politicians stand afterwards? I get the vote and so vote accordingly.

Bit cynical

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

While the Tories have a clear and simple Brexit message, it's important to remember that this is a general election, not another referendum on Brexit. When you move away from Brexit, Labour's message (NHS, transport, austerity etc.) is much more defined and the Tories have much to hide.

I could see a lot of Labour people voting Tory in the upcoming election just to get Brexit over with then reverting back to Labour in subsequent elections.

theological

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

While the Tories have a clear and simple Brexit message, it's important to remember that this is a general election, not another referendum on Brexit. When you move away from Brexit, Labour's message (NHS, transport, austerity etc.) is much more defined and the Tories have much to hide.

Agreed, I'm just not convinced that Corbyn will manage to gain as much on Johnson as he did on May. The NHS, transport and austerity will be much harder to argue on because Johnson is willing to spend more in these areas than his predecessors. Corbyn is also the most unpopular opposition leader since records began in 1977.

quokula

theological wrote: »

Agreed, I'm just not convinced that Corbyn will manage to gain as much on Johnson as he did on May. The NHS, transport and austerity will be much harder to argue on because Johnson is willing to spend more in these areas than his predecessors. Corbyn is also the most unpopular opposition leader since records began in 1977.

Is Boris willing to spend more on public services, or is it just more empty promises? That's a pretty easy attack line for Labour given his propensity for going back on his word, and the fact he served in the government that cut services to shred without ever speaking up at the time.

Enzokk

Strazdas wrote: »

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

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

This didn't used to happen. It used to be that any PM or politician that visited a hospital would be treated with respect by the staff, even if they are responsible for cuts that make the work for the staff challenging. But once the father confronted him in the hospital it seems that a barrier has been breached. Staff would have seen they can question him and once it gathers momentum it will be hard to contain. I expect this to happen more and more once it becomes common.

theological wrote: »

Agreed, I'm just not convinced that Corbyn will manage to gain as much on Johnson as he did on May. The NHS, transport and austerity will be much harder to argue on because Johnson is willing to spend more in these areas than his predecessors. Corbyn is also the most unpopular opposition leader since records began in 1977.

Johnson will have to release his manifesto and spending plans. If it includes money to reverse austerity he will need to explain why he and his party voted for austerity before when the economy is doing worse now but all of a sudden there is spending money.

Then we get to the broken promises from Johnson as well and if he stands in his own constituency he is more than likely to lose his own seat, hence the rumours of him moving to another seat. I think Johnson's lead is more to do with Corbyn than him being the preferred choice. But once the Labour foot soldiers are out for individual MPs and their policies line up with Corbyn's then I hope we will see the same swing as last time.

I mean fighting the election on a platform of fixing the NHS, Schools and Police when you broke it will be a hard sell.

theological

Enzokk wrote: »

Johnson will have to release his manifesto and spending plans. If it includes money to reverse austerity he will need to explain why he and his party voted for austerity before when the economy is doing worse now but all of a sudden there is spending money.

Then we get to the broken promises from Johnson as well and if he stands in his own constituency he is more than likely to lose his own seat, hence the rumours of him moving to another seat. I think Johnson's lead is more to do with Corbyn than him being the preferred choice. But once the Labour foot soldiers are out for individual MPs and their policies line up with Corbyn's then I hope we will see the same swing as last time.

I mean fighting the election on a platform of fixing the NHS, Schools and Police when you broke it will be a hard sell.

I think you're being overly optimistic about Corbyn's prospects here. This forum has a particular slant but when you look at things domestically in Britain you'll see it is a much harder fight for Corbyn than some suggest. Theresa May who shot herself in the foot because her advisors Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy thought it'd be a great idea to say that old aged pensioners would have to pay for social care in the election and Corbyn still only managed to get a hung parliament.

Then you have the Liberal Democrats campaigning on a clear remain platform to simply revoke Article 50.

Most people in Britain are deeply sceptical of Corbyn and the Momentum group within the Labour party. A lot of people are simply lethargic about Brexit and just want it done and dusted including a lot of remainers.

The polls are suggesting that Johnson is starting off with a big lead also.

Capt'n Midnight

theological wrote: »

Agreed, I'm just not convinced that Corbyn will manage to gain as much on Johnson as he did on May. The NHS, transport and austerity will be much harder to argue on because Johnson is willing to spend more in these areas than his predecessors. Corbyn is also the most unpopular opposition leader since records began in 1977.

Spend more ?

How ?

The UK has to borrow more right now because revenue is down £40Bn a year already because of Bexit uncertainty. And looking to be another £70Bn down with the current deal.


That's £110Bn that won't be available.

For comparison 2018/19, NHS England held a budget of £114 billion.

L1011

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Spend more ?

How ?

The UK has to borrow more right now because revenue is down £40Bn a year already because of Bexit uncertainty. And looking to be another £70Bn down with the current deal.


That's £110Bn that won't be available.

For comparison 2018/19, NHS England held a budget of £114 billion.

Labour aren't in a position to call out the Magic Money Tree that Boris is intending to tap, though.

lawred2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Labor aren't sitting on the fence, though.

It's to re-negotiate a deal "economically close" to the Single Market and Customs Union, then put that deal to the public versus Remain.

It couldn't be clearer.

It's not the clarity that's missing, it's the logic and sense of it.

It's a stupid policy. Mind numbingly stupid. Labour are not in a position to offer an unknown future deal that's almost like an arrangement that some other Europeans have already...

Vote for us and we'll reset the clocks and we can all get back on the negotiation merry-go-round...

I can't see anyone on the fence voting for that outside of partisan labour supporters. Anyone else will just go with the tangible offers of revoke from the SNP/Green/Lib Dem remain actors or the only deal that is in existence that delivers a Brexit in Johnson.

Labour are trying to be all things to all people. A middle ground party.

It's going to be a hard sell but they might surprise us.

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

I could see a lot of Labour people voting Tory in the upcoming election just to get Brexit over with then reverting back to Labour in subsequent elections.

Many in the north of England and south of Wales would rather vote for the Brexit Party.

That's why a pact could prove advantageous between BP and the Torys. Many Labor voters would never consider voting for a Conservative government, but would be willing to vote for the Brexit Party.

Bit cynical

lawred2 wrote: »

It's a stupid policy. Mind numbingly stupid. Labour are not in a position to offer an unknown future deal that's like something that people don't understand already.

I think the voters can see that if Labour were to go ahead with their plans, the EU could insist on any terms they wanted knowing that the worst that would happen is that the UK would have to revoke A50. What would most likely happen is that the EU would insist on freedom of movement if the UK were to be granted a customs union with the EU. This deal, if Labour accepted it, would then be rejected by the electorate in the subsequent referendum.

coastwatch

I think this will be easy for Boris, "Brexit, Let's get it done"
Even soft remainers wont be able to resist that.

All other issues, economy, NHS, re-negotiate, all way too complicated at this stage.

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

50% +1 votes in 50% +1 seats guarantees you a majority with barely more than 25% of the turnout.

In Belfast South Alasdair McDonnell got elected with less than 25% of the vote in 2015




Here it's between 3 to 5 seaters to balance out the under representation of small parties in 3 seaters and visa versa.

http://www.constituency-commission.ie/index.htm

But it is possible to win a seat on less than 35%, and if this was repeated in just over 50% of constituencies, a majority could be obtained by as small as 18% of the popular vote. However, that is based on the most unlikely of events.

Labour votes are usually concentrated, while Tories get seats with lower majorities, giving them a bias. M. Thatcher won with huge majorities with no more than 42% of the popular vote in any of her elections.