Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

BonnieSituation

Sam Russell wrote: »

No its not PR as far as candidates are concerned. It is a party list system, where one votes for a Party, and the number of seats is determined, and the top of the list working down is deemed elected.

In some countries, the vote is for party, and person. The number of seats for the party is determined and then the seats are dealt out in the popularity of the candidates.

So even though the UK use a 'PR' system, it is still the undemocratic party machine that determines who gets elected, not the voter. Not that much different from FPTP and safe seats.

Regardless of all of that needlessness...

The point I was clearly making is that the system in place for the UK EP elections is PR. It's a crap version of PR but it is what it is. The OP I was responding to was complaining about FPTP which it isn't. And given the EU rules surrounding the elections to the EP, it can't be FPTP.

Jaysus.

Sam Russell

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

No its not PR as far as candidates are concerned. It is a party list system, where one votes for a Party, and the number of seats is determined, and the top of the list working down is deemed elected.

In some countries, the vote is for party, and person. The number of seats for the party is determined and then the seats are dealt out in the popularity of the candidates.

So even though the UK use a 'PR' system, it is still the undemocratic party machine that determines who gets elected, not the voter. Not that much different from FPTP and safe seats.

Regardless of all of that needlessness...

The point I was clearly making is that the system in place for the UK EP elections is PR. It's a crap version of PR but it is what it is. The OP I was responding to was complaining about FPTP which it isn't. And given the EU rules surrounding the elections to the EP, it can't be FPTP.

Jaysus.

They use that system because they have decided that the STV system that requires the voter to put the candidates in order of preference is to taxing for the electorate to grasp. The politicians have obviously a very poor opinion of the electorate, or they fear giving them the idea that a bit of democracy might be dangerous.

It is the fact that both the chosen 'PR' method and FPTP method leaves the candidate choice in the party's hands - not the voters.

Another case of exceptionism.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

So even though the UK use a 'PR' system, it is still the undemocratic party machine that determines who gets elected, not the voter. Not that much different from FPTP and safe seats.

Farage is in a 10 seater, because it's a 10 seater, because the quota is a lower %.

If the Brexit party gets more than 6%-7% of the vote then he's home and dry, because it's a list system and he gets to take the votes first.


Apart from NI and candidates standing on their own UK voters can't choose who to vote for because the party chooses who gets their votes.



For Labour and Tory voters this means they can't choose to vote for a either a Leave or Remain biased candidate. The party chooses who gets their votes.
A third of the voters will have NO say in Brexit. This can't but force voters elsewhere.


For the Brexit Party it's literally make it up as you go, no manifesto so no accountability. And they are polling a quarter of the votes.
So their voters will have NO say in anything other than Hard Brexit. But the party will claim endorsement anyway.


That's how PR works in a Democracy :rolleyes:

LeinsterDub

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48267688

British Steel has said it is seeking further financial support from the government to help it address "Brexit-related issues"

How are the Brexit folks going to spin this one? Perhaps this is also due to declining diesel?

BonnieSituation

Sam Russell wrote: »

They use that system because they have decided that the STV system that requires the voter to put the candidates in order of preference is to taxing for the electorate to grasp. The politicians have obviously a very poor opinion of the electorate, or they fear giving them the idea that a bit of democracy might be dangerous.

It is the fact that both the chosen 'PR' method and FPTP method leaves the candidate choice in the party's hands - not the voters.

Another case of exceptionism.

Poor opinion?

Do you remember the discussion around the AV referendum? Merciful hour.

Funny how them Paddies in Ireland have no issue with PR-STV for their EP elections, both north and south...

Sam Russell

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Poor opinion?

Do you remember the discussion around the AV referendum? Merciful hour.

Funny how them Paddies in Ireland have no issue with PR-STV for their EP elections, both north and south...

That AV was only proposed because British voters cannot count beyond two.

[Well, the major parties think the voters don't count anyway!]

BonnieSituation

Sam Russell wrote: »

That AV was only proposed because British voters cannot count beyond two.

[Well, the major parties think the voters don't count anyway!]

What comes after 'X'?

As bad as the Brexit referendum was in actuality, I despaired listening to any discussion - there was very little discussion mind you - about it in the media. Ridiculous.

Farmer

Two UK d'Hont questions

Is the list's order published in advance ?

How are they compiled? Democratically by the grass roots or is the method up to each party?

Edit: Found a link to how Labour lists are compiled, or at least were in 2013

https://labourlist.org/2013/04/labour-announces-european-election-candidates/

CrabRevolution

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48267688

How are the Brexit folks going to spin this one? Perhaps this is also due to declining diesel?

Maybe "Brexit related issues" are just British Steel having trouble storing the enormous sums of money it has earned as part of the "Brexit dividend"?

Capt'n Midnight

Farmer wrote: »

Two UK d'Hont questions

Is the list's order published in advance ?

How are they compiled? Democratically by the grass roots or is the method up to each party?

A - Yes it's on the Ballot
See https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/european-elections-2019-candidates-mep-who-standing-eu-vote-full-list/
All the names are in each party's box on the paper.



B - Take a wild f*cking guess , go on ...

Actually it's up to the party so YMMV

reslfj

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No. They use the barely proportional d'Hondt system. ... Mainland Britain uses d'Hondt.

https://twitter.com/c_kennaugh/status/1127909565599748097

The problem with the UK using the party list and not voting personally on each candidate, has been discussed.

I have used these recent polling data from London to illustrate the benefit of smaller parties running under one common 'umbrella list'.

Under the d'Hondt system each candidate is elected in a sequence - in the EP election in London from number 1 to 8. Number one is the most safely elected, while number 8 can be replaced by only a small change in the votes.

Party        Alone     LD+G+CUK 'umbrella' 

BRX:         3         4
LibDem:      2+5       1+3+6
Lab:         1+4+6     2+5+8
Con:         7         -(9) 
Green:       8         7
Cuk:         -         -

In this case one of 7 or 8 could have gone to LD instead of Con or Green.

If the three no Brexit parties run under a common 'umbrelle' list, they will

• get one extra MEP (allocated to LD)
  
• LD will have more safely elected MEPs (1+3+6 vs 2+5)
  
• The Green MEP will be a safer number 7 vs number 8
  
• Lab will get less safe MEPs
  
• Con will lose its MEP - the very honest, truthful and 'lovely' Mr. Dan Hannan

Lars

An Ciarraioch

Lib Dems Euro surge continues:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1128372226930221058

Seat projection:

http://twitter.com/flaviblePolitic/status/1128375538333171712

An Ciarraioch

http://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1128389966701240320

marno21

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

http://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1128389966701240320

If brinkmanship didn't work what does she think will persuade MPs to vote for it this time? "Here's the same thing you didn't like a few months ago and half the reasons I wanted you to vote for it are no longer there."

Water John

She has the added promise; 'if you pass this, you'll be rid of me'.
She has some political epitaph.

20silkcut

Is the purpose of this to pull the rug from under the brexit party??

Will the fear of no deal amongst MPs get it over the line?
Considering the way public opinion is heading.

It will deliver brexit and put the issue to bed, without the chaos of no deal.

Should remainer MPs get behind it???
In fairness the remain movement has been very underwhelming and don’t look like they are going to up their game.
They don’t deserve anything better.
I mean Tony Blair is still the most visible figurehead of the remain movement.
It really is pathetic.

Capt'n Midnight

Water John wrote: »

She has the added promise; 'if you pass this, you'll be rid of me'.
She has some political epitaph.

She already tried that, knowing the DUP would say "NO"

Groundhog day.

Laois_Man

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...but millions of people will not be voting for them.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You posted a video and said it reinforced your view.

52% of people voted for Brexit in 2016. It makes sense that a portion of them would vote for the Brexit party 3 years later. I doubt most of them are sufficiently well engaged that they agree with the likes of Ann Widdecombe. It's also traditional here for voters to use the local and European elections to vote against the main parties.

If you assume a similar turnout to the 2014 EU elections in the UK (which was 16.5 million), and take the Brexit party's current polling percentage as a rough estimate of the number of votes they will get (26%), that works out 4.3 million votes for The Brexit party!

Laois_Man

Interesting little snippet from Farage from years ago - before he ditched the posh accent - pity he never ditched being this kind of a snake!

https://twitter.com/SimonCowley2nd/status/1128213202490286080

Peregrinus

marno21 wrote: »

If brinkmanship didn't work what does she think will persuade MPs to vote for it this time? "Here's the same thing you didn't like a few months ago and half the reasons I wanted you to vote for it are no longer there."

Her thinking ("thinking" may be generous term, but let's run with it) is this:

1. Tory party is whipped to a puree in the EP elections.
2. May says "This is because we haven't delivered Brexit. And it will keep happening, only more so, until we deliver Brexit."
3. Panicked Tory MPs support May's deal in order to deliver Brexit, and so not get thrashed any more.

Will it work? Like fûck it will. But it's all she's got.

54and56

Peregrinus wrote: »

Her thinking ("thinking" may be generous term, but let's run with it) is this:

1. Tory party is whipped to a puree in the EP elections.
2. May says "This is because we haven't delivered Brexit. And it will keep happening, only more so, until we deliver Brexit."
3. Panicked Tory MPs support May's deal in order to deliver Brexit, and so not get thrashed any more.

Will it work? Like fûck it will. But it's all she's got.

This ties in with Crispin Blunt's suggestion that the Tory's do a pact with the Brexit party at the next general election which basically ring fences existing Tory MP's so the Brexit party doesn't stand candidates against them but in all other seats where there isn't a sitting Tory MP the Tory's would give the Brexit party a clear run and not put up a candidate themselves.

Sitting Tory MP's are afraid of their lives if they go into a general election and are opposed by a Brexit party candidate that they will lose their seat either to that candidate or (worse) to a Labour or Lib Dem as a result of the traditional conservative vote splitting between the Tory and Brexit party's.

Perhaps TM's thinking is that she can use this pressure to push through her WA thus giving the Tory's time to put their own Brexiteer in to replace her and in doing so kick a GE down the road and take the sting out of Farage and Co who will have to sit on the sidelines watching as Boris/Raab/Davis or whoever take up the hard/ERG/Farage style Brexit cudgels in negotiations with the EU?

In such a scenario the WA would be a sunk cost and quickly blamed on the departed TM allowing the newly invigorated Tory party to adopt a much tougher Brexit line going forward and thus recover much of the ground they are currently losing to the Brexit party.

Zubeneschamali

54&56 wrote: »

Perhaps TM's thinking is that she can use this pressure to push through

This might explain why Tory MPs might support the WA, but there are not enough Tories to pass it.


From the polling numbers upthread, the Brexit party is a much bigger threat to the Tories - Labour seem to be losing number to the LibDems and Greens because they are not fighting Brexit - so double crossing their members and supporters by passing May's deal would likely see mass defections to the Lib Dems before the next Westminster election.

Water John

Why would the Brexit party agree that deal with the Tories?

Leroy42

Labour are in a real bind now. Clearly there is a upsurge in support for LibDems, but Remain leaning parties in general. So accepting the WA will be seen as a terrible betrayal.
On the other hand if they don't accept it then they will be seen by a clearly very large cohort of Brexit voters to have stopped Brexit and thus will lose votes to the Brexit party.

At least the Tories as seen as a Brexit party so passing the WA gives the possibility that they may get voters back from the BRexit party.

Leroy42

Water John wrote: »

Why would the Brexit party agree that deal with the Tories?

It would save them a huge amount of resources and ensure they maximise their seats from the votes they obtain.

Last election (or the one before I think) they got 4m votes and 1 seat. So concentrating on winnable seats makes sense.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

Why would the Brexit party agree that deal with the Tories?

Power/influence?
Despite their performance in European elections UKIP never gained any traction in national politics.

54and56

Water John wrote: »

Why would the Brexit party agree that deal with the Tories?

Three reasons:-

1. It would make them a peer of the Tory's which is some going 12 months after inception.
2. It would guarantee them seats in the HOC and a role in any future Tory led coalition govt as by definition the best the Tory's could do is retain their existing number of seats which leaves them short of a majority.
3. It would allow them to focus their resources where they can have the most impact. Fighting against Tories in Tory seats would drain their coffers and potentially offer little return as the "conservative" vote splits allowing Lib Dems and Labour to win seats they'd otherwise never win.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

Power/influence?
Despite their performance in European elections UKIP never gained any traction in national politics.

There is nothing whatever behind the Brexit party except Brexit - they have no policies, not even a manifesto. Their financial backers are a secret. If Brexit actually happens, they will evaporate, and their voters will return to their traditional Tory and Labour homes.

The only hope the Brexit party has is that Brexit does not happen before the next Westminster election, and maybe they can thrash the Tories in that election as they will in the EU election.

If this is the situation, the Brexit party will be aiming to take Tory seats, not let the Tories keep them in a pact.

Enzokk

54&56 wrote: »

In such a scenario the WA would be a sunk cost and quickly blamed on the departed TM allowing the newly invigorated Tory party to adopt a much tougher Brexit line going forward and thus recover much of the ground they are currently losing to the Brexit party.

The problem is that they will still need all of their MPs to vote for the WA and they will need to persuade the DUP to as well. Labour should have received a wake up call after the local elections early this month. At least it should be clear after this election that there isn't an appetite to leave from their voters and they are being abandoned to other parties. There would be no confusion that people want Brexit any longer and they will not support her deal.

Leroy42 wrote: »

On the other hand if they don't accept it then they will be seen by a clearly very large cohort of Brexit voters to have stopped Brexit and thus will lose votes to the Brexit party.

At least the Tories as seen as a Brexit party so passing the WA gives the possibility that they may get voters back from the BRexit party.

Brexit has always been a Tory party policy. The only way Labour loses MPs is if they facilitate Brexit, as we are seeing now. They may lose some votes but the areas they are concerned about will not vote for the Tories or the Brexit Party vote would not be enough to stop them electing Labour MPs. Labour is in trouble with Brexit because Corbyn has somehow scored an own goal when he isn't even playing in the same match.

54&56 wrote: »

Three reasons:-

1. It would make them a peer of the Tory's which is some going 12 months after inception.
2. It would guarantee them seats in the HOC and a role in any future Tory led coalition govt as by definition the best the Tory's could do is retain their existing number of seats which leaves them short of a majority.
3. It would allow them to focus their resources where they can have the most impact. Fighting against Tories in Tory seats would drain their coffers and potentially offer little return as the "conservative" vote splits allowing Lib Dems and Labour to win seats they'd otherwise never win.

I cannot see them having enough votes in Labour seats to stop Labour electing MPs, especially when they don't have any policies other than Brexit. Brexit doesn't solve the NHS, it doesn't solve Universal Credit and it doesn't solve the economy of the areas outside of London. Once the Brexit Party has to put down a manifesto they will slink back to around 10% of the vote, which will mainly be Conservative votes.

Shelga

How do 35-40% of the electorate of the UK not care even a tiny bit about nuance or detail, or have any understanding that leaving the EU is incredibly complicated and will be devastating for the economy. It’s terrifying.