Is this an outlier or a start of a trend? Something to watch intently.
On these numbers, Remain 54 - Leave 45, although looking like a continuation of the trend toward Remain, is still potentially within margin of error.
The scary thing is the lack of support for Deal, 85% do not want it.
What this poll teases out is that catch-all support for Leave does not equate to support for each Leave. As the ultimate Leave becomes clearer, support for Leave will presumably decline.
If (and that's a big if) this poll is typical, it looks entirely possible that at the crunch point the public would prefer to remain by a clear margin. That would make for some very interesting dynamics.
Try and understand. There is not going to be another referendum. If there was, the Leave side would boycott it and it would therefore be pointless.
I’m not sure about that, certainly can’t imagine the Farages of this world can be put in their box for the duration of a referendum campaign.
The Leave campaign would certainly run hard on respecting the first vote though, with UKIP posters saying “We f***ing told you first time around, you elities just don’t get democracy do you?”.
There’s no way a second referendum isn’t way more divisive and bitter than the first, which I’m not sure anyone really wants to happen. There’s also no way the PM survives proposing a referendum with a Remain option, it’d have to be the Noel Edmonds question.
Mr. rkrkrk, not really a subplot. Schoolkids can't vote. They've never been able to vote (except in Scotland, where the SNP hoped they'd be more interested in leaving the UK).
Votes at 16 is an entirely good thing. The consensus in Scotland is solidly and sensibly in favour. Even the Conservatives are in favour and Ruth Davidson wrote a pamphlet promoting the idea.
Further to my thread the other day, I note that on Betfair there is currently an underround on the next Labour leader market of 1.8%. Even allowing for the fact that the winner might not yet be listed, it's hard to imagine that there isn't plenty of value to be found there.
Is this an outlier or a start of a trend? Something to watch intently.
On these numbers, Remain 54 - Leave 45, although looking like a continuation of the trend toward Remain, is still potentially within margin of error.
The scary thing is the lack of support for Deal, 85% do not want it.
What this poll teases out is that catch-all support for Leave does not equate to support for each Leave. As the ultimate Leave becomes clearer, support for Leave will presumably decline.
If (and that's a big if) this poll is typical, it looks entirely possible that at the crunch point the public would prefer to remain by a clear margin. That would make for some very interesting dynamics.
What’s a patriotic PM to do, looking at these figures?
A) Stall, hoping the trend will push more voters to Remain, setting up the conditions for another Ref?
Push towards a fudge (deal) with Europe despite a total lack of support in Parliament and country?
C) Let ERG and Corbyn take us over the edge to an economic crash?
D) Resign and let some other bugger deal with it?
B is the only thing she can try, buy seems pretty hopeless. A) looks possible by accident, buy not as much as C when B fails.
Is this an outlier or a start of a trend? Something to watch intently.
On these numbers, Remain 54 - Leave 45, although looking like a continuation of the trend toward Remain, is still potentially within margin of error.
The scary thing is the lack of support for Deal, 85% do not want it.
What this poll teases out is that catch-all support for Leave does not equate to support for each Leave. As the ultimate Leave becomes clearer, support for Leave will presumably decline.
If (and that's a big if) this poll is typical, it looks entirely possible that at the crunch point the public would prefer to remain by a clear margin. That would make for some very interesting dynamics.
Try and understand. There is not going to be another referendum. If there was, the Leave side would boycott it and it would therefore be pointless.
I’m not sure about that, certainly can’t imagine the Farages of this world can be put in their box for the duration of a referendum campaign.
The Leave campaign would certainly run hard on respecting the first vote though, with UKIP posters saying “We f***ing told you first time around, you elities just don’t get democracy do you?”.
There’s no way a second referendum isn’t way more divisive and bitter than the first, which I’m not sure anyone really wants to happen. There’s also no way the PM survives proposing a referendum with a Remain option, it’d have to be the Noel Edmonds question.
The Prime Minister doesn't need to put the Remain option in. Parliament will do that for her.
I see a mostly civil discussion on Israel and Palestine wrapped up on the last thread with accusations that some posters are advocates of genocide. Yeesh.
Is this an outlier or a start of a trend? Something to watch intently.
On these numbers, Remain 54 - Leave 45, although looking like a continuation of the trend toward Remain, is still potentially within margin of error.
The scary thing is the lack of support for Deal, 85% do not want it.
What this poll teases out is that catch-all support for Leave does not equate to support for each Leave. As the ultimate Leave becomes clearer, support for Leave will presumably decline.
If (and that's a big if) this poll is typical, it looks entirely possible that at the crunch point the public would prefer to remain by a clear margin. That would make for some very interesting dynamics.
Try and understand. There is not going to be another referendum. If there was, the Leave side would boycott it and it would therefore be pointless.
I’m not sure about that, certainly can’t imagine the Farages of this world can be put in their box for the duration of a referendum campaign.
The Leave campaign would certainly run hard on respecting the first vote though, with UKIP posters saying “We f***ing told you first time around, you elities just don’t get democracy do you?”.
There’s no way a second referendum isn’t way more divisive and bitter than the first, which I’m not sure anyone really wants to happen. There’s also no way the PM survives proposing a referendum with a Remain option, it’d have to be the Noel Edmonds question.
The Prime Minister doesn't need to put the Remain option in. Parliament will do that for her.
Putting No Deal on a public ballot is far more problematic than putting Remain on it.
Is this an outlier or a start of a trend? Something to watch intently.
On these numbers, Remain 54 - Leave 45, although looking like a continuation of the trend toward Remain, is still potentially within margin of error.
The scary thing is the lack of support for Deal, 85% do not want it.
What this poll teases out is that catch-all support for Leave does not equate to support for each Leave. As the ultimate Leave becomes clearer, support for Leave will presumably decline.
If (and that's a big if) this poll is typical, it looks entirely possible that at the crunch point the public would prefer to remain by a clear margin. That would make for some very interesting dynamics.
When push comes to shove I can't see a lot people supporting No Deal. But I can't see them being offered the choice between Remain and No Deal either. Tricky.
Mr. 43, votes at 16 are ridiculous. I'd sooner see the age rise to 21 than fall to 16.
Mr. Glenn, a Remain/Deal referendum would itself cause ructions just by virtue of either reversing the first decision or giving May's capitulation (if we get a deal [NB it's possible it'll be decent but I'd be astounded were it so]) the green light with no option for a clean break.
I think Remain or Leave with no deal likelier in a theoretical second referendum.
If we do have another referendum it's important to have it as soon as possible so my bet comes off.
Mr. rkrkrk, not really a subplot. Schoolkids can't vote. They've never been able to vote (except in Scotland, where the SNP hoped they'd be more interested in leaving the UK).
Votes at 16 is an entirely good thing. The consensus in Scotland is solidly and sensibly in favour. Even the Conservatives are in favour and Ruth Davidson wrote a pamphlet promoting the idea.
I'm not in favour but I think it having been allowed before it is a fight already lost. I do find most of the proposed benefits unconvincing and overly optimistic, but if it was OK in Scotland it is surely ok in the text of the coubtrym
Is this an outlier or a start of a trend? Something to watch intently.
On these numbers, Remain 54 - Leave 45, although looking like a continuation of the trend toward Remain, is still potentially within margin of error.
The scary thing is the lack of support for Deal, 85% do not want it.
What this poll teases out is that catch-all support for Leave does not equate to support for each Leave. As the ultimate Leave becomes clearer, support for Leave will presumably decline.
If (and that's a big if) this poll is typical, it looks entirely possible that at the crunch point the public would prefer to remain by a clear margin. That would make for some very interesting dynamics.
Try and understand. There is not going to be another referendum. If there was, the Leave side would boycott it and it would therefore be pointless.
I’m not sure about that, certainly can’t imagine the Farages of this world can be put in their box for the duration of a referendum campaign.
The Leave campaign would certainly run hard on respecting the first vote though, with UKIP posters saying “We f***ing told you first time around, you elities just don’t get democracy do you?”.
There’s no way a second referendum isn’t way more divisive and bitter than the first, which I’m not sure anyone really wants to happen. There’s also no way the PM survives proposing a referendum with a Remain option, it’d have to be the Noel Edmonds question.
The Prime Minister doesn't need to put the Remain option in. Parliament will do that for her.
Putting No Deal on a public ballot is far more problematic than putting Remain on it.
It would be the strong undercurrent to any new vote. Alas, the elite would ignore it because they are always right, so the phrase will go right over their heads. And on the doorstep, they would lecture potential switchers on how stupid they are.
"Listen up, thicko, I'm saving you from yourself." A sure vote winner.
Is this an outlier or a start of a trend? Something to watch intently.
On these numbers, Remain 54 - Leave 45, although looking like a continuation of the trend toward Remain, is still potentially within margin of error.
The scary thing is the lack of support for Deal, 85% do not want it.
What this poll teases out is that catch-all support for Leave does not equate to support for each Leave. As the ultimate Leave becomes clearer, support for Leave will presumably decline.
If (and that's a big if) this poll is typical, it looks entirely possible that at the crunch point the public would prefer to remain by a clear margin. That would make for some very interesting dynamics.
What’s a patriotic PM to do, looking at these figures?
A) Stall, hoping the trend will push more voters to Remain, setting up the conditions for another Ref?
Push towards a fudge (deal) with Europe despite a total lack of support in Parliament and country?
C) Let ERG and Corbyn take us over the edge to an economic crash?
D) Resign and let some other bugger deal with it?
B is the only thing she can try, buy seems pretty hopeless. A) looks possible by accident, buy not as much as C when B fails.
Surely wanting A requires doing B? Which may be the most apposite point of all.
There’s also no way the PM survives proposing a referendum with a Remain option, it’d have to be the Noel Edmonds question.
If the public want Remain and parliament wants Remain, how could the PM survive not putting Remain on the ballot?
Because her party are the ones who determine her survival of course. Most of them now back leave and a large number won't want to risk remain.
In which case they should shut up and let her arrange a deal, then push for a deal/No deal referendum which they would probably win.
They won't get a No Deal referendum through parliament. The specificity of the options implies it will be binding, so what happens to Northern Ireland if No Deal wins?
No, you have misunderstood. Brexit was lost because of the reduction in electoral rolls caused by making registration harder -- this reduced voters in Labour areas but also, crucially for Brexit, excluded Remain-leaning voters. A measure taken for one reason (gerrymandering) blew back in EUref.
This is why the government, once it belatedly realised the implications of what it had done, set out on a registration drive which added two million voters in just a few weeks. It even passed emergency legislation to extend the registration deadline, which led to Leave threatening judicial review. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36486369
Again, I am far from convinced that the changes would have come anywhere near overturning leave's win. Do you have any figures to back up your assertion (and that such voters would have been for remain)?
As for your second paragraph, you might want to read the link you gave: "It comes after the government website for registering voters failed just before Tuesday's original deadline."
So the emergency legislation and extension was because of a system crash, rather than some nefarious plan. I can imagine if they had not done so, you'd be complaining that the government stopped people from voting!
An entirely fair point, as precisely that scenario was argued, from outside of the government, in favour of extending the deadline.
I think this tends to illustrate that many (most ?) of the complaints made about the fairness of the electoral process are from a partisan point of view, and once in power the complainers tend to perpetuate precisely the same unfairness. As an example, Labour will oppose PR, as do the Tories, as they think it likely to deny them an outright majority in any given election, and yet complain about the proportionality of the FPTP system, which is baked in rather than the result of some notional 'gerrymandering'.
I’m sure that a number of her constituency party would at this point prefer their old Labour MP back. At least they knew where they stood with him, could argue against his views from the outside rather than inside their own party.
I doubt it.. on what do you base this comment? have you spoken to members in the constituency?
The real question here (which tbf he touches upon at the end) is whether these "new" Tories in Mansfield represent the sustainable long-term base for the party, or whether, as in most western democracies, the "conservative" party will at some point have to return to its traditional base in business and the educated middle class.
Goodwin's argument may be valid in the short-term whilst putting the Tories' long-term prospects (such as they are) at risk.
The new boundaries, and how Cameron and Osborne's gerrymandering led to Brexit.
Convinced Labour had an unfair advantage that gave it more seats per vote -- which was in fact mainly due to differential turnout -- CCHQ borrowed a cunning plan from the American Republican Party.
Step 1: purge electoral rolls. Erase people who have left; move to individual registration to make it just a little bit harder for new voters to register. This will mainly impact urban areas with fleeting and mobile populations. and university towns for the same reason. Get rid of the Brown family, which moved out last year, and hope the Smith family which just moved in has not yet registered. The aim is not to lose actual voters (although that would be a nice bonus) but to reduce the size of the rolls.
Step 2: redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters. Thanks to step 1, towns with transient populations will have smaller rolls, fewer registered voters, than their populations would suggest.
Step 3: reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600. Tell the papers some old guff about reducing the cost of parliament and trust them not to ask how much the hundreds of new Tory peers will cost. The real reason is this forces every constituency to be re-evaluated. In blunt party terms, regions that tend towards Labour will qualify for fewer constituencies. This means that in future, there will be fewer Labour MPs.
So that's the plan: make Labour-leaning areas seem smaller than they really are, then redraw all the constituency boundaries.
So how did it lead to Brexit? Well, the young and transient Labour-leaning voters were also more likely to vote Remain.
Eventually, the problem dawned on Downing Street that it was about to be hoist by its own petard, so the government launched a voter registration drive. It even, to the outrage of Leave campaigners, extended the deadline to register. Two million voters were registered in the last couple of months.
Too late. The brilliant wheeze that was to have led to Cameron's ten or fifteen year reign before handing over to George Osborne led directly to losing the referendum and their banishment from Downing Street.
While there might be some degree of justification for your complaints, the truth is that only PR would render the system fair. The biggest reason Labour is disadvantaged is differential voter distribution rather than gerrymandering.
When you think about it, it's almost axiomatic: The only thing that would render representation proportional to the vote is if you got proportional representation.
The new boundaries, and how Cameron and Osborne's gerrymandering led to Brexit.
Convinced Labour had an unfair advantage that gave it more seats per vote -- which was in fact mainly due to differential turnout -- CCHQ borrowed a cunning plan from the American Republican Party.
Step 1: purge electoral rolls. Erase people who have left; move to individual registration to make it just a little bit harder for new voters to register. This will mainly impact urban areas with fleeting and mobile populations. and university towns for the same reason. Get rid of the Brown family, which moved out last year, and hope the Smith family which just moved in has not yet registered. The aim is not to lose actual voters (although that would be a nice bonus) but to reduce the size of the rolls.
Step 2: redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters. Thanks to step 1, towns with transient populations will have smaller rolls, fewer registered voters, than their populations would suggest.
Step 3: reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600. Tell the papers some old guff about reducing the cost of parliament and trust them not to ask how much the hundreds of new Tory peers will cost. The real reason is this forces every constituency to be re-evaluated. In blunt party terms, regions that tend towards Labour will qualify for fewer constituencies. This means that in future, there will be fewer Labour MPs.
So that's the plan: make Labour-leaning areas seem smaller than they really are, then redraw all the constituency boundaries.
So how did it lead to Brexit? Well, the young and transient Labour-leaning voters were also more likely to vote Remain.
Eventually, the problem dawned on Downing Street that it was about to be hoist by its own petard, so the government launched a voter registration drive. It even, to the outrage of Leave campaigners, extended the deadline to register. Two million voters were registered in the last couple of months.
Too late. The brilliant wheeze that was to have led to Cameron's ten or fifteen year reign before handing over to George Osborne led directly to losing the referendum and their banishment from Downing Street.
While there might be some degree of justification for your complaints, the truth is that only PR would render the system fair. The biggest reason Labour is disadvantaged is differential voter distribution rather than gerrymandering.
When you think about it, it's almost axiomatic: The only thing that would render representation proportional to the vote is if you got proportional representation.
Well, quite. Given we have an independent electoral commission, it's hard to see anything other than a change in the electoral system ever settling such arguments. And even then....
There’s also no way the PM survives proposing a referendum with a Remain option, it’d have to be the Noel Edmonds question.
If the public want Remain and parliament wants Remain, how could the PM survive not putting Remain on the ballot?
Becuase those that would bring down the PM are Conservative MPs, rather than the electorate or Parliament as a whole. They’d replace her with a Sajid Javid or a Michael Gove, with a mandate to tell the EU to get stuffed.
Right now the MPs are split about 170 for the deal, 130 for no deal and half a dozen for remain.
It would be the strong undercurrent to any new vote. Alas, the elite would ignore it because they are always right, so the phrase will go right over their heads. And on the doorstep, they would lecture potential switchers on how stupid they are.
"Listen up, thicko, I'm saving you from yourself." A sure vote winner.
A new vote will only happen if public opinion has already shifted. The 'elites' don't come into it.
In fact, the unpleasant reaction to the referendum result by some Remainers has been the lasting memory. Many were disappointed but remained silent. However the torrent of abuse from the gobby media people has produced a bitter taste.
Seeing them try to get their own way by as usual by a combination of legal challenges and an enhanced project fear makes it likely that you'll see a "We'll show you" response. The voters may not actively like any new deal but the thought of the gobby elite gloating afterwards won't be acceptable either.
Fortunately, we'll be spared the problem. BINO is far more possible, with a corresponding temporary spike in Ukip support.
Mr. Sandpit, doubt this'd happen but the PM is technically defined as being able to command a majority in the Commons. Between the SNP, Labour MPs and Soubry et al., May could lose the Conservative leadership and theoretically remain PM to put through such a vote.
There’s also no way the PM survives proposing a referendum with a Remain option, it’d have to be the Noel Edmonds question.
If the public want Remain and parliament wants Remain, how could the PM survive not putting Remain on the ballot?
Becuase those that would bring down the PM are Conservative MPs, rather than the electorate or Parliament as a whole. They’d replace her with a Sajid Javid or a Michael Gove, with a mandate to tell the EU to get stuffed.
Right now the MPs are split about 170 for the deal, 130 for no deal and half a dozen for remain.
And if Javid and Gove are backing May?
I think you're being naive about the sympathies of Tory MPs.
There’s also no way the PM survives proposing a referendum with a Remain option, it’d have to be the Noel Edmonds question.
If the public want Remain and parliament wants Remain, how could the PM survive not putting Remain on the ballot?
Becuase those that would bring down the PM are Conservative MPs, rather than the electorate or Parliament as a whole. They’d replace her with a Sajid Javid or a Michael Gove, with a mandate to tell the EU to get stuffed.
Right now the MPs are split about 170 for the deal, 130 for no deal and half a dozen for remain.
Except that under such a new leader the parliamentary arithmetic they face would become worse.
I’m sure that a number of her constituency party would at this point prefer their old Labour MP back. At least they knew where they stood with him, could argue against his views from the outside rather than inside their own party.
I doubt it.. on what do you base this comment? have you spoken to members in the constituency?
There was an attempt by the chairman to deselect her, on the basis of a number of letters written to him. It turns out he didn’t quite have the numbers so has had to fall on his own sword, but there’s certainly a lot of disquiet about having an MP tabling amendments and voting on bills that directly contradict the manifesto on which she was elected.
In fact, the unpleasant reaction to the referendum result by some Remainers has been the lasting memory. Many were disappointed but remained silent. However the torrent of abuse from the gobby media people has produced a bitter taste.
Seeing them try to get their own way by as usual by a combination of legal challenges and an enhanced project fear makes it likely that you'll see a "We'll show you" response. The voters may not actively like any new deal but the thought of the gobby elite gloating afterwards won't be acceptable either.
Fortunately, we'll be spared the problem. BINO is far more possible, with a corresponding temporary spike in Ukip support.
"in fact..." Some cites to demonstrate that would be welcome.
The polling that counts of course is the next election and it is quite possible to argue that a Chequers or similar deal, though the last popular option, is less damaging to longer term Tory prospects than the reality of crash Brexit, or the total climb down of Remain.
Polling ATM is a phony war, the reality post-Brexit process will be a key determinant.
While there might be some degree of justification for your complaints, the truth is that only PR would render the system fair. The biggest reason Labour is disadvantaged is differential voter distribution rather than gerrymandering.
When you think about it, it's almost axiomatic: The only thing that would render representation proportional to the vote is if you got proportional representation.
Well, quite. Given we have an independent electoral commission, it's hard to see anything other than a change in the electoral system ever settling such arguments. And even then....
Given the massive advantages to both the Conservatives and Labour inherent in the current system, it's extremely hard to see any change away from FPTP ever coming about. They'll always find some way of rationalising the continuation of a system that locks them into alternating power.
It's a (sadly) very useful way of viewing what will happen, as with a referendum on the Deal: is it directly against the interests of the people who would have to propose and submit it? If so, don't expect to see it.
All the arguments on good or bad, or democratic or not, or sensible or foolish evaporate: is it against the interests of those currently holding the power? If yes, it ain't happening.
In fact, the unpleasant reaction to the referendum result by some Remainers has been the lasting memory. Many were disappointed but remained silent. However the torrent of abuse from the gobby media people has produced a bitter taste.
Seeing them try to get their own way by as usual by a combination of legal challenges and an enhanced project fear makes it likely that you'll see a "We'll show you" response. The voters may not actively like any new deal but the thought of the gobby elite gloating afterwards won't be acceptable either.
Fortunately, we'll be spared the problem. BINO is far more possible, with a corresponding temporary spike in Ukip support.
"in fact..." Some cites to demonstrate that would be welcome.
A solution has to be found which maintains the ability of this country to function, yet respects the will of the referendum. EEA/ETFA membership should be the real only option here surely.
The 'free movement of people' red line has to be rubbed out.
A solution has to be found which maintains the ability of this country to function, yet respects the will of the referendum. EEA/ETFA membership should be the real only option here surely.
The 'free movement of people' red line has to be rubbed out.
And thereby destroying a main thrust of the referendum campaign?
There’s also no way the PM survives proposing a referendum with a Remain option, it’d have to be the Noel Edmonds question.
If the public want Remain and parliament wants Remain, how could the PM survive not putting Remain on the ballot?
Becuase those that would bring down the PM are Conservative MPs, rather than the electorate or Parliament as a whole. They’d replace her with a Sajid Javid or a Michael Gove, with a mandate to tell the EU to get stuffed.
Right now the MPs are split about 170 for the deal, 130 for no deal and half a dozen for remain.
And if Javid and Gove are backing May?
I think you're being naive about the sympathies of Tory MPs.
The Cabinet are all backing the deal, as is everyone with a job in government. It’s good to see collective responsibility returned. Several have, if you didn’t notice, resigned in order to argue against it. There’s only a handful or two of the New Bastards.
I’m personally just about in favour of the deal as it stands, providing there’s no discrimination between GB and NI.
A solution has to be found which maintains the ability of this country to function, yet respects the will of the referendum. EEA/ETFA membership should be the real only option here surely.
The 'free movement of people' red line has to be rubbed out.
And thereby destroying a main thrust of the referendum campaign?
No chance.
It won't please the pure Brexiters for sure, but they're not getting what they want anyway.
It'll be either this, or no Brexit, or such chaos it'll rip the country apart.
If the media keep making up unsubstantiated bollocks about food and medicines in order to destabilise the negotiation process, then it’s not going to be a surprise if the whole process of planning gets classified Top Secret and subject to D-Notices. It’s a genuine matter of national security.
An entirely fair point, as precisely that scenario was argued, from outside of the government, in favour of extending the deadline.
I think this tends to illustrate that many (most ?) of the complaints made about the fairness of the electoral process are from a partisan point of view, and once in power the complainers tend to perpetuate precisely the same unfairness. As an example, Labour will oppose PR, as do the Tories, as they think it likely to deny them an outright majority in any given election, and yet complain about the proportionality of the FPTP system, which is baked in rather than the result of some notional 'gerrymandering'.
I agree. Which is why, when discussing our electoral process we need to start from first principles. What do we want it to achieve? What are its aim? What issues do we want to avoid?
We can only move on once those are answered. People calling for AV, PR, or any other system are putting the horse before the cart unless they've got a firm idea of the objectives, an can state them clearly.
Mr. Sandpit, doubt this'd happen but the PM is technically defined as being able to command a majority in the Commons. Between the SNP, Labour MPs and Soubry et al., May could lose the Conservative leadership and theoretically remain PM to put through such a vote.
Yes the FTPA complicates things immeasurably, as it’s possible to imagine the likes of Soubry voting against everything except a VoNC in the government, thus not forcing the PM’s resignation. It’s hard to see how she doesn’t resign as PM in the circumstances of her key legislation failing to pass the Commons though.
There’s also no way the PM survives proposing a referendum with a Remain option, it’d have to be the Noel Edmonds question.
If the public want Remain and parliament wants Remain, how could the PM survive not putting Remain on the ballot?
Becuase those that would bring down the PM are Conservative MPs, rather than the electorate or Parliament as a whole. They’d replace her with a Sajid Javid or a Michael Gove, with a mandate to tell the EU to get stuffed.
Right now the MPs are split about 170 for the deal, 130 for no deal and half a dozen for remain.
And if Javid and Gove are backing May?
I think you're being naive about the sympathies of Tory MPs.
The Cabinet are all backing the deal, as is everyone with a job in government. It’s good to see collective responsibility returned. Several have, if you didn’t notice, resigned in order to argue against it. There’s only a handful or two of the New Bastards.
The Cabinet knew at the time Chequers was agreed that large elements of it would be unacceptable to the EU. Therefore supporting it is more likely to be tactical than strategic.
An entirely fair point, as precisely that scenario was argued, from outside of the government, in favour of extending the deadline.
I think this tends to illustrate that many (most ?) of the complaints made about the fairness of the electoral process are from a partisan point of view, and once in power the complainers tend to perpetuate precisely the same unfairness. As an example, Labour will oppose PR, as do the Tories, as they think it likely to deny them an outright majority in any given election, and yet complain about the proportionality of the FPTP system, which is baked in rather than the result of some notional 'gerrymandering'.
I agree. Which is why, when discussing our electoral process we need to start from first principles. What do we want it to achieve? What are its aim? What issues do we want to avoid?
We can only move on once those are answered. People calling for AV, PR, or any other system are putting the horse before the cart unless they've got a firm idea of the objectives, an can state them clearly.
It also needs to explain how we get from point 'A', where we are now, to where you want to be.
No-one here who understands the Tory party expects a second referendum.
This should be quite telling.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
When is the latest that a 2nd referendum could be organised for it to happen before 29th March?
We had a 51-day lead in for the 2017 GE, though this was a bit longer than necessary because May left time for the two-week No Confidence period in case Labour voted against a GE. 51 days would take us back to 6th February. I think it's 21st January that the Government have to report to Parliament if they don't have a deal agreed with the EU.
I would think that in a scenario where it becomes obvious that there is no deal to be made then there isn't much time to organise either another referendum or a GE before we crash out with no deal.
I expect that we will crash out with no deal with Theresa May as PM.
Edit: The 29th is a Friday, so any vote on a Thursday would need to be by the 28th at the latest, so one day earlier than my above dates.
No-one here who understands the Tory party expects a second referendum.
This should be quite telling.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
When is the latest that a 2nd referendum could be organised for it to happen before 29th March?
We had a 51-day lead in for the 2017 GE, though this was a bit longer than necessary because May left time for the two-week No Confidence period in case Labour voted against a GE. 51 days would take us back to 6th February. I think it's 21st January that the Government have to report to Parliament if they don't have a deal agreed with the EU.
I would think that in a scenario where it becomes obvious that there is no deal to be made then there isn't much time to organise either another referendum or a GE before we crash out with no deal.
I expect that we will crash out with no deal with Theresa May as PM.
Edit: The 29th is a Friday, so any vote on a Thursday would need to be by the 28th at the latest, so one day earlier than my above dates.
Realistically, the only route for a 2nd vote involves an application to extend A50 deadline.
These boundaries aren't the final version. The final version is expected in September.
Labour's problem under Corbyn (and before that Miliband) is that he has improved Labour's overall votes, while worsening their vote efficiency (by racking up bigger swings in safe Lab seats). Lab now has 9 seats where they have over 80% of the vote. As an example, Liverpool Walton has gone from 78% of the vote in 1997 to 86% of the vote in 2017, while East Ham has gone from 65% to 83%.
The Cons don't have more than 70% in any seat (the nearest is South Holland)
An entirely fair point, as precisely that scenario was argued, from outside of the government, in favour of extending the deadline.
I think this tends to illustrate that many (most ?) of the complaints made about the fairness of the electoral process are from a partisan point of view, and once in power the complainers tend to perpetuate precisely the same unfairness. As an example, Labour will oppose PR, as do the Tories, as they think it likely to deny them an outright majority in any given election, and yet complain about the proportionality of the FPTP system, which is baked in rather than the result of some notional 'gerrymandering'.
I agree. Which is why, when discussing our electoral process we need to start from first principles. What do we want it to achieve? What are its aim? What issues do we want to avoid?
We can only move on once those are answered. People calling for AV, PR, or any other system are putting the horse before the cart unless they've got a firm idea of the objectives, an can state them clearly.
It also needs to explain how we get from point 'A', where we are now, to where you want to be.
Yes, but I think that's minor compared to agreeing the basic fundamentals of the system.
No-one here who understands the Tory party expects a second referendum.
This should be quite telling.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
When is the latest that a 2nd referendum could be organised for it to happen before 29th March?
We had a 51-day lead in for the 2017 GE, though this was a bit longer than necessary because May left time for the two-week No Confidence period in case Labour voted against a GE. 51 days would take us back to 6th February. I think it's 21st January that the Government have to report to Parliament if they don't have a deal agreed with the EU.
I would think that in a scenario where it becomes obvious that there is no deal to be made then there isn't much time to organise either another referendum or a GE before we crash out with no deal.
I expect that we will crash out with no deal with Theresa May as PM.
Edit: The 29th is a Friday, so any vote on a Thursday would need to be by the 28th at the latest, so one day earlier than my above dates.
Whatever is the outcome of the referendum would need to be ratified by Parliament, along with the passing of any associated legislation. It would also then need to be formally agreed by the Barnier’s team, the EU27 and the European Parliament, all before 29th March.
No-one here who understands the Tory party expects a second referendum.
This should be quite telling.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
When is the latest that a 2nd referendum could be organised for it to happen before 29th March?
We had a 51-day lead in for the 2017 GE, though this was a bit longer than necessary because May left time for the two-week No Confidence period in case Labour voted against a GE. 51 days would take us back to 6th February. I think it's 21st January that the Government have to report to Parliament if they don't have a deal agreed with the EU.
I would think that in a scenario where it becomes obvious that there is no deal to be made then there isn't much time to organise either another referendum or a GE before we crash out with no deal.
I expect that we will crash out with no deal with Theresa May as PM.
Edit: The 29th is a Friday, so any vote on a Thursday would need to be by the 28th at the latest, so one day earlier than my above dates.
Whatever is the outcome of the referendum would need to be ratified by Parliament, along with the passing of any associated legislation. It would also then need to be formally agreed by the Barnier’s team, the EU27 and the European Parliament, all before 29th March.
An entirely fair point, as precisely that scenario was argued, from outside of the government, in favour of extending the deadline.
I think this tends to illustrate that many (most ?) of the complaints made about the fairness of the electoral process are from a partisan point of view, and once in power the complainers tend to perpetuate precisely the same unfairness. As an example, Labour will oppose PR, as do the Tories, as they think it likely to deny them an outright majority in any given election, and yet complain about the proportionality of the FPTP system, which is baked in rather than the result of some notional 'gerrymandering'.
I agree. Which is why, when discussing our electoral process we need to start from first principles. What do we want it to achieve? What are its aim? What issues do we want to avoid?
We can only move on once those are answered. People calling for AV, PR, or any other system are putting the horse before the cart unless they've got a firm idea of the objectives, an can state them clearly.
It also needs to explain how we get from point 'A', where we are now, to where you want to be.
Yes, but I think that's minor compared to agreeing the basic fundamentals of the system.
Providing you keep government departments run by ministers appointed by the Queen via the PM, the details of how Parliament itself is arranged and voted for could be pretty much done in a Big Bang with an election, possibly with short handover period if necessary (cf. US Congressional elections).
There would need to be a pile of enabling legislation passed beforehand, but the change itself wouldn’t be a huge problem.
We've all established why there can't be a new referendum if there is a Deal. If there is No Deal, there could be as the options would be No Deal vs REMAIN but no one in the Conservative Party wants that (it seems) as I suppose it would be a huge admission of failure.
More on topic, my local MP, Stephen Timms, his hyper-marginal 43,000 majority notwithstanding, works very hard as a constituency MP in a largely deprived area with over 100,000 constituents. Is it too much ? Obvious answer is you'll have to ask him. I suspect he acts as a super-councillor providing advice helping people through the bureaucratic maze. In truth, I rarely see him opine on national issues but I'm sure he does.
Before we start looking at numbers of MPs and constituency sizes, the first question needs to be what is an MP for ? What should they do - how should they interact with the electorate, local councils and other professional organisations as well as business and the private sector ? We should define an MP's roles and responsibilities far more clearly than seems the case.
I do not think a referendum is nailed on, but the arguments against are rather unconvincing:
- Tories won’t have it? They would if it prevented a GE.
- Not enough time? See Greece.
- ERGers will boycott it? Maybe, and if they do so what? The only argument left for Brexit is “will of the people” so it requires very tortured thinking to suggest that the only people now need to shut up.
No-one here who understands the Tory party expects a second referendum.
This should be quite telling.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
When is the latest that a 2nd referendum could be organised for it to happen before 29th March?
We had a 51-day lead in for the 2017 GE, though this was a bit longer than necessary because May left time for the two-week No Confidence period in case Labour voted against a GE. 51 days would take us back to 6th February. I think it's 21st January that the Government have to report to Parliament if they don't have a deal agreed with the EU.
I would think that in a scenario where it becomes obvious that there is no deal to be made then there isn't much time to organise either another referendum or a GE before we crash out with no deal.
I expect that we will crash out with no deal with Theresa May as PM.
Edit: The 29th is a Friday, so any vote on a Thursday would need to be by the 28th at the latest, so one day earlier than my above dates.
Realistically, the only route for a 2nd vote involves an application to extend A50 deadline.
Unfortunately the date of the next European Parliament elections in May 2019 represents another limit. How soon before those elections does Britain's exit from the EU need to be confirmed to allow for the redistribution of British seats in the Parliament?
I don't believe the new boundaries are at all biased, rather it is Labour's weakness in Scotland and divided parties on the left that is causing the discrepancy.
From the GB parties we have the Lib Dems as the only centrists, the Tories as the only party of the right and the rest are all on the left. The divide of the parties is essentially:
When you think about it, it's almost axiomatic: The only thing that would render representation proportional to the vote is if you got proportional representation.
Well, there are two separate issues - fair representation of people registered to vote (which would be solved by PR) and fair consideration of people who have difficulty in being registered (frequent changes of address, social marginalisation and literacy issues). If you're a 20-year-old, disorganised, don't read very well and change your address every few months, should you be represented?
On the first, I've always favoured PR, and the case for it has strengthened since the identifiable varieites of political thought have multiplied. There are now at least five schools of thought with significant popular support:
Nationalist: anti-EU, anti-immigration, socially conservative, protectionist Business Conservative: soft Brexit or Remain, flexible on immigration, socially fairly liberal, free market Liberal: Remain, pro-immigration, socially very liberal, free market Social democrat: Remain, flexible on immigration, socially liberal, regulated free market Socialist: Reluctant Remain or soft Brexit, pro-immigration, socially liberal, state industries, protectionist
These still don't represent everyone, but most people could broadly identify with one or another. Instead, we have a predominantly two-party system in England and FPTP murders anyone who ventures beyond it.
When you think about it, it's almost axiomatic: The only thing that would render representation proportional to the vote is if you got proportional representation.
Business Conservative: soft Brexit or Remain, flexible on immigration, socially fairly liberal, free market Liberal: Remain, pro-immigration, socially very liberal, free market Social democrat: Remain, flexible on immigration, socially liberal, regulated free market
.
You can almost stick a fag packet between them if you really try...
and yet, there's no party really representing them at the moment. Bizarre.
I don't believe the new boundaries are at all biased, rather it is Labour's weakness in Scotland and divided parties on the left that is causing the discrepancy.
From the GB parties we have the Lib Dems as the only centrists, the Tories as the only party of the right and the rest are all on the left. The divide of the parties is essentially:
Right 285 Left 284 NI 17 Centre 14
Put that way it doesn't look biased at all.
I think “bias” means no longer bias in favour of Labour.
When is the latest that a 2nd referendum could be organised for it to happen before 29th March?
We had a 51-day lead in for the 2017 GE, though this was a bit longer than necessary because May left time for the two-week No Confidence period in case Labour voted against a GE. 51 days would take us back to 6th February. I think it's 21st January that the Government have to report to Parliament if they don't have a deal agreed with the EU.
I would think that in a scenario where it becomes obvious that there is no deal to be made then there isn't much time to organise either another referendum or a GE before we crash out with no deal.
I expect that we will crash out with no deal with Theresa May as PM.
Edit: The 29th is a Friday, so any vote on a Thursday would need to be by the 28th at the latest, so one day earlier than my above dates.
There isn't time to organise a referendum between 21 Jan and 29 March. While the electoral arrangements could certainly be put in place (general elections used to be held at about four weeks' notice and while postal votes makes that harder today, it could still be done at a push), the bigger problem is that before a referendum campaign begins, you'd need: 1. Legislation governing it, and requiring local authorities to participate; 2. Campaign groups to register with the Electoral Commission and, hence, to have organised and submitted the registration paperwork.
Getting the legislation through parliament could be done relatively quickly with agreement on all sides - a week, say - but if there was disagreement between the main parties, as well as within them, you'd be looking at months. It's probable that the changes made to the 2015 Bill in its passage through parliament proved decisive in the final result.
I'd suggest that you'd need at least a month for the campaigns to organise and register. In reality, you'd need more but in reality, the referendum wouldn't come out of nowhere and it's almost certain that proto-Remain / Leave campaigns would organise before the legislation was complete. however, one spanner in those works is the uncertainty over what the options would be. If it's not clear well beforehand whether Remain is an option, or whether Deal/No Deal are independent options within a Leave package, then the organisation couldn't solidify until after the Bill became law.
Also, I don't think you could run the vote right up against Brexit Day. There would need to be some space to handle the outcome.
Even if everything went absolutely smoothly (and it wouldn't), I think the shortest realistic possible timescale would be:
December: pass legislation enabling referendum Jan to mid-Feb: campaign groups organise and register. mid-Feb to mid-March: Campaign mid-March: Referendum
Obviously, if there's an A50 extension, you could go as late as the states are willing to consider an extension for.
When is the latest that a 2nd referendum could be organised for it to happen before 29th March?
We had a 51-day lead in for the 2017 GE, though this was a bit longer than necessary because May left time for the two-week No Confidence period in case Labour voted against a GE. 51 days would take us back to 6th February. I think it's 21st January that the Government have to report to Parliament if they don't have a deal agreed with the EU.
I would think that in a scenario where it becomes obvious that there is no deal to be made then there isn't much time to organise either another referendum or a GE before we crash out with no deal.
I expect that we will crash out with no deal with Theresa May as PM.
Edit: The 29th is a Friday, so any vote on a Thursday would need to be by the 28th at the latest, so one day earlier than my above dates.
Whatever is the outcome of the referendum would need to be ratified by Parliament, along with the passing of any associated legislation. It would also then need to be formally agreed by the Barnier’s team, the EU27 and the European Parliament, all before 29th March.
A referendum does not absolutely have to be legislated for, cf the Australian postal vote referendum on gay marriage.
That’s an interesting one. You’re correct on the narrow legal point that it might be possible to arrange a referendum without a Bill passing through Parliament.
However: It still required government funding approval (if not a Bill) for the plebiscite, and required legislation afterwards to implement the result as it was only advisory. It took 11 weeks from the time the survey was formally announced by their ONS and when the result was declared. There were also a number of court cases on a number of different constitutional and points before the survey could be announced.
This all on a very straightforward question, that even those who disapproved still couldn’t argue was unfair. Could you imagine something similar on Brexit progressing here, if it had the potential to overturn the original referendum result??
When you think about it, it's almost axiomatic: The only thing that would render representation proportional to the vote is if you got proportional representation.
Well, there are two separate issues - fair representation of people registered to vote (which would be solved by PR) and fair consideration of people who have difficulty in being registered (frequent changes of address, social marginalisation and literacy issues). If you're a 20-year-old, disorganised, don't read very well and change your address every few months, should you be represented?
On the first, I've always favoured PR, and the case for it has strengthened since the identifiable varieites of political thought have multiplied. There are now at least five schools of thought with significant popular support:
Nationalist: anti-EU, anti-immigration, socially conservative, protectionist Business Conservative: soft Brexit or Remain, flexible on immigration, socially fairly liberal, free market Liberal: Remain, pro-immigration, socially very liberal, free market Social democrat: Remain, flexible on immigration, socially liberal, regulated free market Socialist: Reluctant Remain or soft Brexit, pro-immigration, socially liberal, state industries, protectionist
These still don't represent everyone, but most people could broadly identify with one or another. Instead, we have a predominantly two-party system in England and FPTP murders anyone who ventures beyond it.
I don't believe the new boundaries are at all biased, rather it is Labour's weakness in Scotland and divided parties on the left that is causing the discrepancy.
From the GB parties we have the Lib Dems as the only centrists, the Tories as the only party of the right and the rest are all on the left. The divide of the parties is essentially:
Right 285 Left 284 NI 17 Centre 14
Put that way it doesn't look biased at all.
Mike's projection is based on equal votes for Labour and Tories. If you add in SNP/PC/Green seats to Labour's to make them almost equal to the Tories then you have to add in their votes too - which would give the "Left" a vote lead of 5-6%, which does look biased.
I do not think a referendum is nailed on, but the arguments against are rather unconvincing:
- Tories won’t have it? They would if it prevented a GE.
- Not enough time? See Greece.
- ERGers will boycott it? Maybe, and if they do so what? The only argument left for Brexit is “will of the people” so it requires very tortured thinking to suggest that the only people now need to shut up.
Given the angst about Vote Leave and BeLeave, I don't think it would be acceptable to have a referendum without all of the usual rules and regulations.
Mr. Sandpit, doubt this'd happen but the PM is technically defined as being able to command a majority in the Commons. Between the SNP, Labour MPs and Soubry et al., May could lose the Conservative leadership and theoretically remain PM to put through such a vote.
Although she would only command a majority on that one issue. She would also have no government as if she were deposed as party leader and refused to resign the premiership as she'd cobbled together a rag-tag alliance to get some piece of Brexit legislation through, then 80-90% of the government would resign and she wouldn't be able to replace them with Tories.
No-one here who understands the Tory party expects a second referendum.
This should be quite telling.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
You need to show your working there, because that's where your errors are. How does a refusal to call a second referendum automatically lead to a general election? Even more so, how does a GE negate the need for a new referendum, when the last GE didn't stop people calling for one, even though it's almost certain not to happen.
No-one here who understands the Tory party expects a second referendum.
This should be quite telling.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
When is the latest that a 2nd referendum could be organised for it to happen before 29th March?
We had a 51-day lead in for the 2017 GE, though this was a bit longer than necessary because May left time for the two-week No Confidence period in case Labour voted against a GE. 51 days would take us back to 6th February. I think it's 21st January that the Government have to report to Parliament if they don't have a deal agreed with the EU.
I would think that in a scenario where it becomes obvious that there is no deal to be made then there isn't much time to organise either another referendum or a GE before we crash out with no deal.
I expect that we will crash out with no deal with Theresa May as PM.
Edit: The 29th is a Friday, so any vote on a Thursday would need to be by the 28th at the latest, so one day earlier than my above dates.
Whatever is the outcome of the referendum would need to be ratified by Parliament, along with the passing of any associated legislation. It would also then need to be formally agreed by the Barnier’s team, the EU27 and the European Parliament, all before 29th March.
When you think about it, it's almost axiomatic: The only thing that would render representation proportional to the vote is if you got proportional representation.
Well, there are two separate issues - fair representation of people registered to vote (which would be solved by PR) and fair consideration of people who have difficulty in being registered (frequent changes of address, social marginalisation and literacy issues). If you're a 20-year-old, disorganised, don't read very well and change your address every few months, should you be represented?
On the first, I've always favoured PR, and the case for it has strengthened since the identifiable varieites of political thought have multiplied. There are now at least five schools of thought with significant popular support:
Nationalist: anti-EU, anti-immigration, socially conservative, protectionist Business Conservative: soft Brexit or Remain, flexible on immigration, socially fairly liberal, free market Liberal: Remain, pro-immigration, socially very liberal, free market Social democrat: Remain, flexible on immigration, socially liberal, regulated free market Socialist: Reluctant Remain or soft Brexit, pro-immigration, socially liberal, state industries, protectionist
These still don't represent everyone, but most people could broadly identify with one or another. Instead, we have a predominantly two-party system in England and FPTP murders anyone who ventures beyond it.
You forgot Greens.
And the free-market, socially conservative Leavers.
I think “bias” means no longer bias in favour of Labour.
I presume you'd love a bias in favour of the Conservatives. Unfortunately, two wrongs don't make a right.
It's impossible to come up with a fair system under the current arrangements - all you can do is make it as "less unfair" as possible.
I do think we need to encourage voter participation and registration systems unfortunately disenfranchise some people. OTOH, we're not at the stage where anyone can walk in anywhere and vote in their "home" constituency at a polling station hundreds of miles away but the current arrangements smack of an attempt by one party to disenfranchise people who would likely vote for other parties and that's as much gerrymandering as redrawing constituency boundaries.
I don't believe the new boundaries are at all biased, rather it is Labour's weakness in Scotland and divided parties on the left that is causing the discrepancy.
From the GB parties we have the Lib Dems as the only centrists, the Tories as the only party of the right and the rest are all on the left. The divide of the parties is essentially:
Right 285 Left 284 NI 17 Centre 14
Put that way it doesn't look biased at all.
Mike's projection is based on equal votes for Labour and Tories. If you add in SNP/PC/Green seats to Labour's to make them almost equal to the Tories then you have to add in their votes too - which would give the "Left" a vote lead of 5-6%, which does look biased.
No-one here who understands the Tory party expects a second referendum.
This should be quite telling.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
When is the latest that a 2nd referendum could be organised for it to happen before 29th March?
We had a 51-day lead in for the 2017 GE, though this was a bit longer than necessary because May left time for the two-week No Confidence period in case Labour voted against a GE. 51 days would take us back to 6th February. I think it's 21st January that the Government have to report to Parliament if they don't have a deal agreed with the EU.
I would think that in a scenario where it becomes obvious that there is no deal to be made then there isn't much time to organise either another referendum or a GE before we crash out with no deal.
I expect that we will crash out with no deal with Theresa May as PM.
Edit: The 29th is a Friday, so any vote on a Thursday would need to be by the 28th at the latest, so one day earlier than my above dates.
Whatever is the outcome of the referendum would need to be ratified by Parliament, along with the passing of any associated legislation. It would also then need to be formally agreed by the Barnier’s team, the EU27 and the European Parliament, all before 29th March.
A referendum does not absolutely have to be legislated for, cf the Australian postal vote referendum on gay marriage.
The flaws of holding any second referendum on a different basis to the original should be obvious.
Leavers don't get to determine what constitutes democracy. If it becomes apparent that there is no longer continued support for their mad hobbyhorse, the country should change course. So it may be a case of needs must. Or it may be a case of a back-up plan securing the Parliamentary support necessary for a statutory referendum that might otherwise would not be forthcoming quickly enough.
As it happens, I'm not expecting a second referendum (and I'm not at all sure how I would vote or if I would vote in any second referendum).
You need to show your working there, because that's where your errors are. How does a refusal to call a second referendum automatically lead to a general election? Even more so, how does a GE negate the need for a new referendum, when the last GE didn't stop people calling for one, even though it's almost certain not to happen.
The politicians who wanted to "take back control" can't make a decision. They will put it back to the people.
The people can vote again on the question of in or out, or they can replace the politicians.
Mr. rkrkrk, not really a subplot. Schoolkids can't vote. They've never been able to vote (except in Scotland, where the SNP hoped they'd be more interested in leaving the UK).
There was a big discussion about it. I have no doubt Dave would have been cynical enough to give them the vote, had he not been concerned about the implications for general elections. And you can of course leave school at 16.
I thought Gordon Brown made the school leaving age 18?
I don't believe the new boundaries are at all biased, rather it is Labour's weakness in Scotland and divided parties on the left that is causing the discrepancy.
From the GB parties we have the Lib Dems as the only centrists, the Tories as the only party of the right and the rest are all on the left. The divide of the parties is essentially:
Right 285 Left 284 NI 17 Centre 14
Put that way it doesn't look biased at all.
Mike's projection is based on equal votes for Labour and Tories. If you add in SNP/PC/Green seats to Labour's to make them almost equal to the Tories then you have to add in their votes too - which would give the "Left" a vote lead of 5-6%, which does look biased.
I don't believe the new boundaries are at all biased, rather it is Labour's weakness in Scotland and divided parties on the left that is causing the discrepancy.
From the GB parties we have the Lib Dems as the only centrists, the Tories as the only party of the right and the rest are all on the left. The divide of the parties is essentially:
Right 285 Left 284 NI 17 Centre 14
Put that way it doesn't look biased at all.
Mike's projection is based on equal votes for Labour and Tories. If you add in SNP/PC/Green seats to Labour's to make them almost equal to the Tories then you have to add in their votes too - which would give the "Left" a vote lead of 5-6%, which does look biased.
Mr Herdson beat me to it but yes the issue is that UKIP at 5% take no seats on the right while the SNP on 4% of the GB vote take 35 seats on the Left almost all of which were formerly Labour.
Mr. rkrkrk, not really a subplot. Schoolkids can't vote. They've never been able to vote (except in Scotland, where the SNP hoped they'd be more interested in leaving the UK).
How silly of them when every PB expert and their hamsters were saying it would backfire on them.
There were 'hands up if you support the Union' polls after school debates and everything.
You need to show your working there, because that's where your errors are. How does a refusal to call a second referendum automatically lead to a general election? Even more so, how does a GE negate the need for a new referendum, when the last GE didn't stop people calling for one, even though it's almost certain not to happen.
The politicians who wanted to "take back control" can't make a decision. They will put it back to the people.
The people can vote again on the question of in or out, or they can replace the politicians.
Incidentally my wife who is far less interested in politics than I am said unprompted last night "Theresa May is going to screw up Brexit isn't she?" I imagine that's a very widespread opinion now.
I’m sure that a number of her constituency party would at this point prefer their old Labour MP back. At least they knew where they stood with him, could argue against his views from the outside rather than inside their own party.
It’s certainly easier to discover that one has principles and is not just a bovine supporter of their party come hell or high water when one is not an MP.
You need to show your working there, because that's where your errors are. How does a refusal to call a second referendum automatically lead to a general election? Even more so, how does a GE negate the need for a new referendum, when the last GE didn't stop people calling for one, even though it's almost certain not to happen.
The politicians who wanted to "take back control" can't make a decision. They will put it back to the people.
The people can vote again on the question of in or out, or they can replace the politicians.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
And it's easier to get a 2nd referendum passed than calling a GE, I suspect
You need to show your working there, because that's where your errors are. How does a refusal to call a second referendum automatically lead to a general election? Even more so, how does a GE negate the need for a new referendum, when the last GE didn't stop people calling for one, even though it's almost certain not to happen.
The politicians who wanted to "take back control" can't make a decision. They will put it back to the people.
The people can vote again on the question of in or out, or they can replace the politicians.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
And it's easier to get a 2nd referendum passed than calling a GE, I suspect
Suspect not, actually.
GE has set and established rules (established parties, it happens at most every five years)
2nd ref would be novel (what is the question, what are the funding restrictions, who is nominated official groups).
And that is before various attempts to tilt the balance are considered. Dates of purdah etc
Incidentally my wife who is far less interested in politics than I am said unprompted last night "Theresa May is going to screw up Brexit isn't she?" I imagine that's a very widespread opinion now.
Yes. And the key point is that people think Theresa May and the Tories are going to screw up Brexit. They do not blame the EU. Which is very bad news for Tories and cliff edge Brexiteers and very good news for Labour and advocates of a second referendum.
Comments
The Leave campaign would certainly run hard on respecting the first vote though, with UKIP posters saying “We f***ing told you first time around, you elities just don’t get democracy do you?”.
There’s no way a second referendum isn’t way more divisive and bitter than the first, which I’m not sure anyone really wants to happen. There’s also no way the PM survives proposing a referendum with a Remain option, it’d have to be the Noel Edmonds question.
Not to mention religious/ethno-nationalism.
Mr. Glenn, a Remain/Deal referendum would itself cause ructions just by virtue of either reversing the first decision or giving May's capitulation (if we get a deal [NB it's possible it'll be decent but I'd be astounded were it so]) the green light with no option for a clean break.
I think Remain or Leave with no deal likelier in a theoretical second referendum.
If we do have another referendum it's important to have it as soon as possible so my bet comes off.
Edited extra bit: welcome to PB, Mr. H.
In which case they should shut up and let her arrange a deal, then push for a deal/No deal referendum which they would probably win.
"You elities just don’t get democracy do you?”
It would be the strong undercurrent to any new vote. Alas, the elite would ignore it because they are always right, so the phrase will go right over their heads. And on the doorstep, they would lecture potential switchers on how stupid they are.
"Listen up, thicko, I'm saving you from yourself." A sure vote winner.
I think this tends to illustrate that many (most ?) of the complaints made about the fairness of the electoral process are from a partisan point of view, and once in power the complainers tend to perpetuate precisely the same unfairness.
As an example, Labour will oppose PR, as do the Tories, as they think it likely to deny them an outright majority in any given election, and yet complain about the proportionality of the FPTP system, which is baked in rather than the result of some notional 'gerrymandering'.
Goodwin's argument may be valid in the short-term whilst putting the Tories' long-term prospects (such as they are) at risk.
Given we have an independent electoral commission, it's hard to see anything other than a change in the electoral system ever settling such arguments. And even then....
Right now the MPs are split about 170 for the deal, 130 for no deal and half a dozen for remain.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/trumps-former-lawyer-blasts-giuliani-for-damaging-trumps-case-immeasurably.html?
On July 8, Giuliani told ABC News that he had “no concerns that Michael Cohen is going to do anything but tell the truth.” Now the tune is markedly different with Giuliani saying on Thursday that Cohen “is a proven liar.”
Seeing them try to get their own way by as usual by a combination of legal challenges and an enhanced project fear makes it likely that you'll see a "We'll show you" response. The voters may not actively like any new deal but the thought of the gobby elite gloating afterwards won't be acceptable either.
Fortunately, we'll be spared the problem. BINO is far more possible, with a corresponding temporary spike in Ukip support.
I think you're being naive about the sympathies of Tory MPs.
This should be quite telling.
Some cites to demonstrate that would be welcome.
Polling ATM is a phony war, the reality post-Brexit process will be a key determinant.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
It's a (sadly) very useful way of viewing what will happen, as with a referendum on the Deal: is it directly against the interests of the people who would have to propose and submit it? If so, don't expect to see it.
All the arguments on good or bad, or democratic or not, or sensible or foolish evaporate: is it against the interests of those currently holding the power? If yes, it ain't happening.
It’s like the Monty Hall problem all over again for Scott...
The 'free movement of people' red line has to be rubbed out.
No chance.
I’m personally just about in favour of the deal as it stands, providing there’s no discrimination between GB and NI.
It'll be either this, or no Brexit, or such chaos it'll rip the country apart.
How does the Matthew Goodwin article's conclusion about Labour fit with the points made in the header about boundary changes?
We can only move on once those are answered. People calling for AV, PR, or any other system are putting the horse before the cart unless they've got a firm idea of the objectives, an can state them clearly.
The National Register of Citizens (NRC) is a list of people who can prove they came to the state by 24 March 1971, when Bangladesh was created.
India says the process is to root out hordes of illegal Bangladeshi migrants.
But it has sparked fears of a witch hunt against ethnic minorities in Assam. '
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-45002549
We had a 51-day lead in for the 2017 GE, though this was a bit longer than necessary because May left time for the two-week No Confidence period in case Labour voted against a GE. 51 days would take us back to 6th February. I think it's 21st January that the Government have to report to Parliament if they don't have a deal agreed with the EU.
I would think that in a scenario where it becomes obvious that there is no deal to be made then there isn't much time to organise either another referendum or a GE before we crash out with no deal.
I expect that we will crash out with no deal with Theresa May as PM.
Edit: The 29th is a Friday, so any vote on a Thursday would need to be by the 28th at the latest, so one day earlier than my above dates.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45003639
Labour's problem under Corbyn (and before that Miliband) is that he has improved Labour's overall votes, while worsening their vote efficiency (by racking up bigger swings in safe Lab seats). Lab now has 9 seats where they have over 80% of the vote. As an example, Liverpool Walton has gone from 78% of the vote in 1997 to 86% of the vote in 2017, while East Ham has gone from 65% to 83%.
The Cons don't have more than 70% in any seat (the nearest is South Holland)
The latest it could theoretically be is in the middle of January, but more likely practically in November. A November referendum would need to be the first and only item on Parliamant’s agenda when they return for a week on 5th September.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/
There would need to be a pile of enabling legislation passed beforehand, but the change itself wouldn’t be a huge problem.
We've all established why there can't be a new referendum if there is a Deal. If there is No Deal, there could be as the options would be No Deal vs REMAIN but no one in the Conservative Party wants that (it seems) as I suppose it would be a huge admission of failure.
More on topic, my local MP, Stephen Timms, his hyper-marginal 43,000 majority notwithstanding, works very hard as a constituency MP in a largely deprived area with over 100,000 constituents. Is it too much ? Obvious answer is you'll have to ask him. I suspect he acts as a super-councillor providing advice helping people through the bureaucratic maze. In truth, I rarely see him opine on national issues but I'm sure he does.
Before we start looking at numbers of MPs and constituency sizes, the first question needs to be what is an MP for ? What should they do - how should they interact with the electorate, local councils and other professional organisations as well as business and the private sector ? We should define an MP's roles and responsibilities far more clearly than seems the case.
- Tories won’t have it? They would if it prevented a GE.
- Not enough time? See Greece.
- ERGers will boycott it? Maybe, and if they do so what? The only argument left for Brexit is “will of the people” so it requires very tortured thinking to suggest that the only people now need to shut up.
From the GB parties we have the Lib Dems as the only centrists, the Tories as the only party of the right and the rest are all on the left. The divide of the parties is essentially:
Right 285
Left 284
NI 17
Centre 14
Put that way it doesn't look biased at all.
On the first, I've always favoured PR, and the case for it has strengthened since the identifiable varieites of political thought have multiplied. There are now at least five schools of thought with significant popular support:
Nationalist: anti-EU, anti-immigration, socially conservative, protectionist
Business Conservative: soft Brexit or Remain, flexible on immigration, socially fairly liberal, free market
Liberal: Remain, pro-immigration, socially very liberal, free market
Social democrat: Remain, flexible on immigration, socially liberal, regulated free market
Socialist: Reluctant Remain or soft Brexit, pro-immigration, socially liberal, state industries, protectionist
These still don't represent everyone, but most people could broadly identify with one or another. Instead, we have a predominantly two-party system in England and FPTP murders anyone who ventures beyond it.
Not to forget that government sources said that was a certain year long recession which would follow a Leave vote.
and yet, there's no party really representing them at the moment. Bizarre.
1. Legislation governing it, and requiring local authorities to participate;
2. Campaign groups to register with the Electoral Commission and, hence, to have organised and submitted the registration paperwork.
Getting the legislation through parliament could be done relatively quickly with agreement on all sides - a week, say - but if there was disagreement between the main parties, as well as within them, you'd be looking at months. It's probable that the changes made to the 2015 Bill in its passage through parliament proved decisive in the final result.
I'd suggest that you'd need at least a month for the campaigns to organise and register. In reality, you'd need more but in reality, the referendum wouldn't come out of nowhere and it's almost certain that proto-Remain / Leave campaigns would organise before the legislation was complete. however, one spanner in those works is the uncertainty over what the options would be. If it's not clear well beforehand whether Remain is an option, or whether Deal/No Deal are independent options within a Leave package, then the organisation couldn't solidify until after the Bill became law.
Also, I don't think you could run the vote right up against Brexit Day. There would need to be some space to handle the outcome.
Even if everything went absolutely smoothly (and it wouldn't), I think the shortest realistic possible timescale would be:
December: pass legislation enabling referendum
Jan to mid-Feb: campaign groups organise and register.
mid-Feb to mid-March: Campaign
mid-March: Referendum
Obviously, if there's an A50 extension, you could go as late as the states are willing to consider an extension for.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Marriage_Law_Postal_Survey
However:
It still required government funding approval (if not a Bill) for the plebiscite, and required legislation afterwards to implement the result as it was only advisory. It took 11 weeks from the time the survey was formally announced by their ONS and when the result was declared. There were also a number of court cases on a number of different constitutional and points before the survey could be announced.
This all on a very straightforward question, that even those who disapproved still couldn’t argue was unfair. Could you imagine something similar on Brexit progressing here, if it had the potential to overturn the original referendum result??
Interesting reading though.
It's impossible to come up with a fair system under the current arrangements - all you can do is make it as "less unfair" as possible.
I do think we need to encourage voter participation and registration systems unfortunately disenfranchise some people. OTOH, we're not at the stage where anyone can walk in anywhere and vote in their "home" constituency at a polling station hundreds of miles away but the current arrangements smack of an attempt by one party to disenfranchise people who would likely vote for other parties and that's as much gerrymandering as redrawing constituency boundaries.
As it happens, I'm not expecting a second referendum (and I'm not at all sure how I would vote or if I would vote in any second referendum).
The people can vote again on the question of in or out, or they can replace the politicians.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
There were 'hands up if you support the Union' polls after school debates and everything.
The other 25% are on holiday and so unavailable for polling.
https://news.sky.com/story/public-opinion-is-shifting-sharply-against-brexit-sky-data-poll-reveals-11453220
Incidentally my wife who is far less interested in politics than I am said unprompted last night "Theresa May is going to screw up Brexit isn't she?" I imagine that's a very widespread opinion now.
GE has set and established rules (established parties, it happens at most every five years)
2nd ref would be novel (what is the question, what are the funding restrictions, who is nominated official groups).
And that is before various attempts to tilt the balance are considered. Dates of purdah etc