Waffle waffle <leadership election> waffle waffle <get another Old Etonian back in no.10> waffle waffle.
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
He will literally say anything he can to try and gain a bit of power.
An utter, utter ****
Something very wrong with this process, the simple majority voting, in the referendum and subsequent HoP divisions, that these groups, DUP and ERG (aka the Mogglodytes) have such influence, the few hold sway over the many. It's bloody wrong? How about Qualified Majority for referenda, and for elections a form of Single Transferable Vote? (I think Kenneth Clarke proposed a form of STV in the HoP for the last round of divisions on qualified votes). I found this interesting https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/ . The 2011 referendum results here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum worth noting this took place at the same time as local elections and had a low turnout of 42.2%.
Bonne weakend Jab
All elections small groups hold sway over the result and thus the influence.
In a normal election it is all about tailoring your "portfolio" to appeal to those swing voters even though we are looking at a maximum of 10%. They ignore the 80-90% that are already in their personal "bank."
Say the Tories have a guaranteed 30%, same for Labour. Taking off those that will not vote for either of these 2 and they are tailoring their whole portfolio in order to attract the remaining chunk of swing voters. More often than not "peeing" off those that are already in the bank.
And thus it is the same in the house. They are going after the votes that will take them over the top. They aren't looking at the ones they already have. This is how politics everywhere works. If you ignore the small groups then you will never win. Those small groups ARE the ones that enable you to win.
Pretty similar to the business models. Great deals for "new" customers, not great deals for the customers you already have.
Look at your energy supplier. You go to them because they come out cheaper than your current one. What happens in a year's time? Your current supplierr offers you nowhere near others that you could change to. Same with insurance companies.
As much as there has been a lot of talk about "tribal politics" being a thing of the past it isn't really true. Even I have suggested that it was a thing of the past but what we have seen is that I was wrong. People have just changed tribes over things but are still very tribal and different faces are now "in the bank."
I have just been trying to explain to a lot of "tribal" leavers how their talk of "If we have EU elections then we will take all the seats, we must show them" is ridiculously naive and not thought out at all.
They are very simplistically looking at a headline of UKIP winning the 2014 election without taking into account they won with 27% of the vote on a turnout of 37% giving them 24 seats out of 73.
The idea that "we will show them" is going to result in a huge Brexit supporting result (UKIP, BrexitParty, SDP, other) ignores that remainers will equally be wanting to "show them" and thus this isn;t going to be the 37% turnout of 2014 topped up purely by leavers. It is much more likely that remainers will equally top up that number and thus the actual result is likely to be pretty much the same on a much higher turnout (possibly 50%+) if we do have these elections.
Yes those actual Brexit supporting parties might end up with a higher amount of seats in total but only by pulling from the Tory 19 seats. It will still be a Tory/Brexit total of 43 so not a lot of change in reality.
There is a belief from a lot of these numpties that it will end up like an SNP result in 2015 with everybody else wiped out.
Although I predict that in reality solely Brexit parties (not inc Tory) will actually improve their seat count by pulling from the Tories while the remain coalition parties will actually gain from their 29 seats and beat the leave element because the (future) leave element won the last election on a surge. The (future) remain element did not surge back then so the "leave" element has already shot half of it's bolt, while the remain element has a full bolt remaining that will vote this time.
If I had to predict what would happen I would suggest that the remain coalition would go from 29 to 38, the leave coalition would go from 44 to 35. The (was UKIP) solely Brexit parties (UKIP, BrexitParty, SDP, other) would gain 2 or 3 seats on top of the 24 last time BUT the coalitions would see a Remain victory of 38:35 +8 / -8.
They are very simplistically looking at a headline of UKIP winning the 2014 election without taking into account they won with 27% of the vote on a turnout of 37% giving them 24 seats out of 73.
The idea that "we will show them" is going to result in a huge Brexit supporting result (UKIP, BrexitParty, SDP, other) ignores that remainers will equally be wanting to "show them" and thus this isn;t going to be the 37% turnout of 2014 topped up purely by leavers. It is much more likely that remainers will equally top up that number and thus the actual result is likely to be pretty much the same on a much higher turnout (possibly 50%+) if we do have these elections.
Yes those actual Brexit supporting parties might end up with a higher amount of seats in total but only by pulling from the Tory 19 seats. It will still be a Tory/Brexit total of 43 so not a lot of change in reality.
There is a belief from a lot of these numpties that it will end up like an SNP result in 2015 with everybody else wiped out.
Although I predict that in reality solely Brexit parties (not inc Tory) will actually improve their seat count by pulling from the Tories while the remain coalition parties will actually gain from their 29 seats and beat the leave element because the (future) leave element won the last election on a surge. The (future) remain element did not surge back then so the "leave" element has already shot half of it's bolt, while the remain element has a full bolt remaining that will vote this time.
If I had to predict what would happen I would suggest that the remain coalition would go from 29 to 38, the leave coalition would go from 44 to 35. The (was UKIP) solely Brexit parties (UKIP, BrexitParty, SDP, other) would gain 2 or 3 seats on top of the 24 last time BUT the coalitions would see a Remain victory of 38:35 +8 / -8.
Last edited:
Rees-Mogg on Wednesday:
You must log in or register to see media
As loathsome as he is unprincipled.Never mind your tribes, energy suppliers or insurance companies we change ours more often than our underwear more fool those that don't. How about a change from simple majority voting? What are you succinct at to the point view thought? That was the point of my post, there's a need for a change.. To decide such complex and momentous decision as leaving the EU with such a slim majority has proven to be a complete disaster.
Jab
I feel very much independent from the government today, so I'd say this was a pretty successful brexit for me. I no longer care what they do, but I may just laugh when the distrust & annoyance turns to hate. A few of them are in for a rough ride, and they've earned it.
Les Gilets Jaunes.
Les Gilets Jaunes.
If we were to replace our FPTP voting system for a form of PR - and an excellent case can certainly be made for doing so - we’d actually see a lot more cases of fringe parties like the DUP holding the balance of power, as it’s unlikely any one party would ever hold a clear majority again.
I feel very much independent from the government today, so I'd say this was a pretty successful brexit for me. I no longer care what they do, but I may just laugh when the distrust & annoyance turns to hate. A few of them are in for a rough ride, and they've earned it.
Les Gilets Jaunes.
As ever when frustration turns to hate, the people copping for a rough ride are unlikely to be the ones who have earned it.
David Cameron, Nigel Farage, Arron “Funny Money” Banks, these are the people who should be held to account, but they won’t be.
I watched a video about the Dolphins washing up on french beaches earlier, so I'm spreading my anger/annoyance around a fair bit. Not much light at the end of the tunnel today, might have to press escape delete and try tomorrow instead.
So do I. Not that many people change their politics each year though.
In answer I have no problem with a fully PR setup. Never have done really. I think however that you may find it isn't "right wingers" that are the tumbling block. It is the Labour and Conservative block (lefties and righties) that are not in favour. It isn't about left/right wing, purely 2 tribes that want to control the agenda.
I have no problem with PR. IT would however benefit both sides of the argument(s) It would have given UKIP a possible (crude) 82 MPs in 2015 based on 12.6% of seats. Yes I know it doesn't actually work like that.
I think a lot of people (not saying you are one of those) want change assuming that it would be more helpful to the left of politics when in reality (ignoring the complete mess of 2017) 2015 would have still totalled more than 50% of the vote. Tory and UKIP alone got 49.6% of that popular vote. Adding DUP puts it to 50.2% without adding in any other "right wing" parties/Indies.
As for referenda and the suggestion of "must be a higher than %" then I would disagree. It is quite simply a way to offer a suggestion of people having the choice when the odds have been stacked against them and the rules gerrymandered to ensure that the choice can be ignored by the "ruling class."
Yes you might support it on this particular issue however IF that were to become the norm then I would think that governments would be much more inclined to offer referenda on all sorts of things as a pretence that they were offering a choice when in reality they knew the % needed would not be breached. And then they could use that as defence for not changing something that actually did need changing.
As is the case already in many European countries.
Yeah, that is the downside. Look at the ongoing Israeli election campaign, where an ever-crazier fringe has been mainstreamed because that is what is likely necessary for Likud to form a majority coalition.
I posted above about naive leavers thinking they were going to storm the EU elections. Seems there are plenty of "naive/uninformed" in the remain section as well. Quite a lot of tweets that are so aware of EU workings that they state things like "Hopefully the leave vote will be split in the EU elections between UKIP and Brexit Party and neither will get elected" which would work............if EU elections were FPTP. If 5,000 people vote Brexitparty and 5,000 vote UKIP then it just means they split the number of MEPs in the final standings, not lose out.
This is one example but there are a few like this with others not explaining that it doesn't work that way in EU elections but instead explaining that unfortunately the left vote is split too. lol
This is one example but there are a few like this with others not explaining that it doesn't work that way in EU elections but instead explaining that unfortunately the left vote is split too. lol
Last edited:
I go the other way with referenda, QM widely recognised as the way to go, the're more one offs than elections, often on complex issues (some would argue against referenda in such or any circumstances), they are advisory, this by Edmund Burke:-
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion".
How about this from the same source:-
"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament".
Lofty ideals pity about the reality
Jab
Edmund Burke being ideal to apply to 2019?
I understand what you are saying but offering a choice to the people but only if they beat a number that you decided upon in order to not let their choice count is no better than simply keeping it in the house and ignoring what the public thinks.
Similar threads
