Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Euro elections are all about vote shares not how many MEPs
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Euro elections are all about vote shares not how many MEPs each party secures
Lots of talk today about the various lists that the parties are putting up for the unexpected euro elections on May 23rd. To remind ourselves in this election voters put a cross by a party name in a particular region and their votes are allocated according to a complex system that seeks to proportionately distribute the numbers of MEPs.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
You might like that to be the case, Mike. But unless Labour get off the fence (which, tactically, is the right place for them to be) then they can't be part of that equation.
If you convert wealth to revenue spending you end up with no assets. It's better to leave surplus assets as income generating.
If you want to redistribute wealth just do it - take a slice and park it into a sovereign wealth fund or something.
Brexit+UKIP vs Green+LibDem+TIG
I'd also look at England alone.
Labour and Tories are still, just about, electoral coalitions on this question. So it's about weighing the weight of the extreme to each side. The various (non-English) Nationalists only confuse the issue - this is a question of English Nationalism.
Misogyny, surely. Or sexism.
If Corbyn had acted differently on any of the key votes over the past few months (the votes on May's deal, on preventing No Deal, on extending Article 50), we would be out of the EU already. The #FBPE nutters might not like that, since they seem to want to believe Corbyn is some secret Brexit agent who has some Machiavellian strategy to take us to the hardest Brexit possible, but it's the facts.
Meanwhile, we don't have a new PM because...
https://twitter.com/rowenamason/status/1120683524766486530
I suspect the next Labour government will be introducing a wealth tax.
In most cases it won't matter, but if there are lots of UKIP/ChUK/Green/etc. votes which don't produce any seats, then I suspect most reports won't count them in at all. Certainly I doubt if they'll add them up in a mock coalition - the big parties especially are not monolithic on Brexit, and even LibDems and Greens have minorities of supporters who take the opposite view.
One won't be called during Local or Euros campaign, he won't be coming during a GE campaign and once he's gone (June 5) it's then too late to dissolve Parliament and have a 5 week campaign in time for a GE before the Summer holidays.
Earliest possible now is for it to be called when Parliament comes back for two weeks in early September which would give a GE mid October.
This isn't about the *ownership* of the assets but how they are used.
For example I am pretty relaxed about governments financing capital investment through debt. I get much more nervous about them funding current expenditure through debt.
This is exactly the same logic here: if you have an asset then it shouldn't be "spent". That's a different question to whether it should be owned by the state or owned by private individuals.
Re: the next government introducing a wealth tax, I suspect you are right. I hope that they don't - far better that they introduce a property tax as that is much simpler to administer and harder to avoid.
If the US becomes an oligarchy, then how assets are 'used' becomes very difficult to regulate.
1. Winning on seats nationally (single party)
2. Winning on vote share nationally (if different)
...
3. "No Deal" coalition vs "Remain" coalition result, by vote share, then seats
4. Mike's wider coalitions above, by vote share, then seats
...
5. Amusing calculations about how much better a Remain Party would have done
This and Sandpit's post both amount to the same thing: that this kind of tax would prevent you and your children and your children's children and so on from sitting on a sufficiently large pot of wealth and getting richer and richer without ever doing anything else to earn an income. If you did that, your wealth would instead gradually diminish over time. Personally, I'd call that a good thing.
Mike you usually get most things right. But this time you've departed from your usual mantra, which is to eschew twisting polls or votes to suit your outcome. What you are attempting here is beyond contrived, it's ridiculous.
For it to work, you'd need to be sure that everyone voting Conservative was voting Leave and everyone voting Labour was voting Remain. Stop and think for a second just what nonsense that is. Those two main parties are way bigger than the Brexit issue and, even in Euro elections, participants will vote for them because they are their parties of choice. Furthermore, many Conservative loyalists as well as those Tories who are Remainers will vote Conservative.
So it's just junk. Sorry.
The most you 'might' attempt is UKIP + Brexit vs SNP + Green + TIG but even that is thoroughly contrived, wild extrapolation.
I expect better of you, Mike.
If you own a 1000 acres and live off the proceeds, at some point you might have to sell some of that land to pay a wealth tax but those acres you sell still exist, just in different ownership.
Similarly with stocks and other assets.
(* for the record, Attlee forced us to split our house and garden from the productive land that supported it. But given the choice today we'd have found a way to keep the garden
I have confirmed that chocolate orange fudge is tasty. The science continues.
Fundamentally the stock privately held wealth is being reduced to fund government spending.
If the land wasn't sold then the capital that would otherwise have been used to acquire it would have increased the overall stock of assets. (Trying to think about the economy as a whole not an individual)
No, worse, the Independents in Weybridge St George’s Hill. The LibDems are the main challengers in the next door seat.
The vast bulk of my family's wealth is tied up in the company - there would normally be an exemption for that.
Assets can be converted into assets and income into spending, but assets into spending is a poor long term strategy.
As I said: if you want to redistribute assets then (a) take a slice of private wealth and move it to a sovereign wealth fund; or (b) use it to repay government debt
Also, I bought said fudge, so the credit goes to a friend of mine.
https://twitter.com/lucyallan/status/1120663812129075204
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/property_taxes-01.png
And what happened? May got her WA, the Tory ultras did not support it and....Labour MPs in leave seats did not support it either. Only a tiny handful of Labour MPs have rebelled and voted for the WA in any of the three votes. And Labour has solidly voted against no deal and (slightly less solidly) for the Cooper Letwin bill. Labour has prevented Brexit so far, it is continuing (via the "talks") to prevent Brexit now, and it will continue to do so in the future. Corbyn may or may not like that (he probably doesn't care much either way) but the facts are there.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/23/former-communist-claire-fox-standing-as-mep-for-farages-brexit-party
About 1% would be fair.
Nothing from Lab or Kippers yet.
Lib Dem’s strategically not talking about the B word.
The kiss of death?
lol, what?
https://youtu.be/u74UKFPzx78
you're right you can't be too certain about what you read into the aggregate vote shares but you can be sure that if activists can make the results confirm what they believe they will be shouting it very loudly.