McGiver wrote: » They really need to change to a PR system. Doesn't have to be STV. Any PR would be a huge improvement. Without that UK politics will never get fixed. Ever. This is the root cause of almost all UK's issues. And reform the Lords so that it's elected like a proper upper chamber. And codify the constitution. A lot is deficient in the UK political system, whilst they've think they are the most democratic system in Europe (and probably world).I'm surprised no one campaigns for PR. Not even LibDems? Even Labour wouldn't be seriously damaged by PR, with good 30-35% they would always had a high chance to be in the government, albeit in a coalition. In years to come it's unlikely Labour could get a majority, it would make sense to bite the bullet and go for it now in my opinion.
Deleted User wrote: » In many respects, Johnson's Deal is reasonably "close alignment". It's difficult to extrapolate results from polls.I think a more consistent trend is that the British public overwhelmingly, in almost all polls, say they would rather not have a second referendum in the first place.
McGiver wrote: » I'm surprised no one campaigns for PR. Not even LibDems? Even Labour wouldn't be seriously damaged by PR, with good 30-35% they would always had a high chance to be in the government, albeit in a coalition. In years to come it's unlikely Labour could get a majority, it would make sense to bite the bullet and go for it now in my opinion.
prawnsambo wrote: » They had a referendum on PR STV in 2011. It lost by a 2/3rd majority. It should have been a warning to Cameron since the narrative was pushed at the time that it would enable some people to have more than one vote. If you're scratching your head about that one, it was suggested that every transfer was another vote. And then they decided to have another referendum on membership of the EU.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » It was AV although it is clear that the British electorate does not really understand PRhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum 'The campaign was described in retrospect by political scientist Iain McLean as a "bad-tempered and ill-informed public debate" '
Christy42 wrote: » Interesting that Farage is scared of standing for election. He has a terrible track record so it is understandable. Still it seems undemocratic to for him to be given much of a say in anything once he is no longer an MEP so he should be out out to pasture really.
prawnsambo wrote: » Yeah, thanks. Though in operation, it's pretty much the same as our PR/STV with the only real difference being single seat constituencies. It was the STV aspect that got misrepresented as multiple votes. It just struck me that after that fiasco, Cameron should have got the message that referendums would be dominated by lies and that something would need to be done to prevent this. Or just not have any more.
quokula wrote: » Cameron’s government were the ones largely responsible for spreading those lies and misinformation though, just as they did later in Scotland. He never considered he’d actually be on the receiving end.
Leroy42 wrote: » The elephant in the room is that even the most ardent leavers want a FTA. Any FTA will require alignment on standards and regulations. Since the EU is one of the biggest regulation setting blocks in the world which regulations do people think they will align? It will either be UK regulations, which the EU would have to align to or the UK will align to the EU. One of them is going to have to accept regulations over which they have no control over. Which is the more likely outcome. The best pointer is to look at the deal which the UK just secured. A deal with gave the EU everything that they wanted and say Johnson sacrificing part of the union in the drive from Brexit.
prawnsambo wrote: » All are also willing to cede control in one form or another to trading partners. There is no such thing as the 'nation state' as you put it. No nation can stand alone and maintain full control of their resources, economy or even laws and exist in today's world. The weak are just picked off by the strong and that's exactly what will happen to the UK. And my 'obscene' implications are shared by many commentators analysing why Britain chose to vote for isolationism.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » Hyprocrite Swinson is just appallinghttps://twitter.com/michaeljswalker/status/1190969677050200064
Joe_ Public wrote: » Cant believe she's actually trying to defend that. The best for britain site, also lib dem related, was advocating the lib dem candidate in nearly every tory-lab marginal. Thats just outrageous really.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » The vote was for the alternative voting system, not the Single-Transferrable vote.
prawnsambo wrote: » It's not. There are Labour people involved. Malloch-Brown the chairman was a Labour member and it was founded by Gina Miller who has pretty much single-handedly fought brexit tooth and nail. I wouldn't get too excited about what it's coming out with until there's more polling data available. My issue with that website is that it needs to provide the data alongside the recommendations and that would shut the whingers up.
Strazdas wrote: » I suspect she was caught unawares a bit. Didn't anticipate Sophy's question and tried to bluff her way out.
Deleted User wrote: » What!? Please explain how you can possibly derive that conclusion from my statement? I doubt you will be able to do it.
Joe_ Public wrote: » Why are people asking questions about it just whingers though? Even one of the guys involved wasnt happy with what is going on?https://twitter.com/MissEllieMae/status/1189939596316024834?s=20 Look at the question they fielded for that poll in mogg area? Or the fact the LD are fielding a candidate against rosie duffield, one of labours most pro remain mps, and who is defending a majority of a few 100. That just seems utterly bizarre and indefensible to me.
Joe_ Public wrote: » People with more knowledge of world trade than me could perhaps tell me how much attraction the 80 per cent services uk economy would have for the US with the nhs completely off the table? Doesnt seem all that much of an appetizing package to me.
As a consequence, my team and I were unsurprised that parts of the Labour twitterati went into paranoid overdrive last week, when Best for Britain dared to suggest voting Liberal Democrat in a number of seats where Labour were first or second in 2017. This was despite the site overall recommending 375 Labour candidates to just 180 Lib Dems. We were equally unsurprised to find Lib Dems suggesting that some of our analysis was wrong, and that they were able to win more than the 180 seats where we identified them as the strongest Remain force.
To achieve accurate, up-to-the-minute recommendations, we have used a technique popular among pollsters called “multilevel regression and poststratification” – MRP for short. This method was deployed to accurately predict the election of Donald Trump, the 2017 hung parliament, and the “surprise” wins for Labour in Kensington and Canterbury that year. The MRP we have used was undertaken in the last couple of weeks, with a statistically enormous sample size of 46,000 voters. A normal national poll contacts less than 2,000 people. With such a large sample, we are able to drill down into individual constituencies, many of which have changed considerably in their political weather since two years ago. Whereas the Conservatives and Labour polled 82.4% combined in 2017, the evidence is that they will struggle to get more than 66% between them this time. There are London seats that the Conservatives won in 2017, and where the Labour party came second. But our polling shows clearly that in such places as the Cities of London and Westminster, Chelsea and Fulham, and Wimbledon, the Liberal Democrats are now the party best placed to unite an anti-Conservative vote with a clear Remain message. That analysis may be inconvenient to Labour but it is the product of cold, hard, recent data. Labour remains the clear challenger in the vast majority of seats. We will update the MRP closer to polling day, to make sure we give the most accurate recommendations possible.
Deleted User wrote: » The BBC is far-right? That's a first. That type of comment demonstrates the complete lack of proportion of many Remainers, who refuse to accept the result of the British people. Furthermore, Euroscepticism has a leg in both Left and Right; it's not owned by the "far-right", and Euroscepticism does not make one a fascist overnight.
Enzokk wrote: » Seeing that you struggle to provide services in different states, i.e. a lawyer from New York cannot practice in California without a license in either state, I think the attraction of some of the UK services isn't that attractive in real life. Here is an article trying to calm the hysteria from Best for Britain,Our tactical voting advice caused a stir, but it’s the only way to stop Brexit A few pertinent quotes from the article, The reason given for some of their choices, The highlighted part, it is easy for the likes of Owen Jones to look at one example and attack the information, but much like Swinson if they were a bit more honest about the whole thing you would find the story isn't all that they want you to think it is. Politicians and their minions will do sneaky things to get your vote, in a shocking revelation.
prawnsambo wrote: » The other thing that has escaped my attention, that perhaps the Labour supporters on here might be able to help me with, is whether there's an election pact in place or not. Are LD and Lab candidates standing down or supporting each other and vice versa in seats where one or other has a chance?
