Brexit and Boris

[DeadlyDuo]

No, that is not how proportional representation works. That would still be a first-past-the-post system.

If the UK switched to a proportional system, you would likely dramatically cut down the number of constituencies. Each constituency would be given a number of seats, based on its population relative to other constituencies. If the Tories got 40 % of the votes in a constituency, they would get 40 % of the seats.

As it is now, the Tories can get 40 % of the votes in a constituency and still win its only seat. That means that 60 % of the votes go down the trash. It should be no wonder that the turn out is so low, when many people know that there is no possibility that the party they support will win. In a proportional system, their votes will still matter.

Now, if the UK did have a proportional system, the other parties could form a coalition and kick the Tories out of power. It wouldn't be unfair. They would have more seats, but more importantly, I think, they would have the support of a larger part of the voters.

It is the same issue in the US. The party that wins the state gets all the seats. More Americans voted for Clinton, but Trump still won. If you are a democrat in a red state or a republican in a blue state, you don't matter.

That would create issues and overly complicate things. Say each constituency had 10 seats up for grabs, does that mean every party needs to field 10 nominees? Does every voter get 10 votes, one for each seat? What if you have an even split between two parties with opposite views eg Brexit. Would that constituency be classed as leave or remain? Essentially what you're proposing is merging constituencies but your multiple seats idea is essentially what we already have now. For example, London is split into multiple constituencies. Your idea seems to be to class it as one constituency with multiple seats. So each area zone of London is classed as a seat. People vote and the winner in their area gets that seat. At the end of the night, London will have so many seats labour, so many seats tory, etc. Who goes to represent London in Parliament? Are you sending all of the 10 seat winners to parliament? Are you only sending the party with the higher percentage of seats? it seems to present a "too many cooks" situation.

People can't complain about the result of the vote if they didn't go and vote. They should've voted.

I think name calling, like referring to people who disagree with your view point remoaners is negative and does nothing to bring the country together. The country has been divided so why shouldn't MP's? Most of the MP's were acting in good faith. Its not a case of trying to stop Brexit. Its a case of trying to find the best possible deal for everyone. The deal we now have isn't that deal. It strips away all sorts of basic human rights and will not protect jobs.

I don't think leaving No Deal on the table makes any difference. The European Union want shot of us at this point anyway. Besides this isn't a game.

I wasn't calling anyone here a remoaner if that's what you're thinking. There's a difference between being a remainer and a remoaner. A remainer voted remain but accepts the democratic result of the referendum even though it's not their preferred outcome. The aim would then be to try and get the best deal possible.

A remoaner is someone who doesn't want to accept the result of the referendum and is actively trying to thwart Brexit at every turn in some form or another such as constantly delaying it or (in the case of what the lib dems were planning to do) call it off altogether or even put it to another vote in the hopes that the public will vote remain because there fed up of the palaver and then THAT is the result that should be honoured rather than the one they didn't want because it only counts if the vote goes the "right" way.

SOME remainer MPs were trying to act "in good faith" by accepting the result but not selling the country down the river. HOWEVER, others were adamant that Brexit was the wrong choice and should be stopped at any cost regardless of it being the democratic will of the people.

It isn't a game in the sense that it will change the future of the country. However it is a battle between who's going to back down first. The EU were starting to get twitchy when the October deadline was looming and it didn't look like Boris was going to back down. Because of this, Boris was successful in getting the backstop removed from the withdrawl agreement which is what the major sticking point was of the original agreement.

There will be bumps along the road, that much is certain, but to be honest I don't think anyone expected there not to be. The UK will be better off in the long run outside of the EU.

Slender majority in case of Brexit - very slender size O. Yeah I don't have a choice but to 'suck it up and deal with it' but I'm not going to do so meekly or in silence. If nothing we do matters all that matters is what we do - I'm not going to change my mind just because others don't agree with me.

Do you accept the result of the referendum, yes or no? You don't have to like it, you can complain about it all you want because it wasn't what you wanted, but do you accept that leaving was what the majority of people voted?

That's the difference between a remainer and a remoaner.

 

[TriBel]

I think this is sad.

And will Europe accept Boris is a good guy or make England see him as a dick?

It doesn't take Europe to make me see him as a d*ck (and I'm not on my own. Many Lexiters I know held their nose while voting Tory). He's embarrassing and abhorrent. An absolutely detestable liar who avoided all scrutiny during the campaign and is now rescinding on promises made in the manifesto. You only get "living wage" if the economy's strong enough. The nurses' bursary doesn't include fees. He's increasing police numbers - to the level they were before the Tories cut them. Workers' rights will not be protected by the Brexit Bill. He's managed to get the Queen's Speech done in less than a week after claiming it needed five weeks and proroguing Parliament for that reason. He lied about the Irish Border and he wants to build yet another bloody bridge despite being told it's not feasible. He's gone back on the Lord Dubs amendment to the Brexit Bill:

Alf Dubs (Twitter): "Appalling and deeply distressing that the government is threatening to scrap the right of refugee children to be reunited with their families here". As Eddie Mars described him, he's "a nasty piece of work" and the Tories are back to being the "nasty party". Labour's case wasn't helped by the right-wing bias of the English media.

He was a terrible FS; he'll be a worse PM.

@DeadlyDuo - my point was NOT that the Tories didn't win the election. It was that a) voting patterns suggested there was no longer a mandate for Leave (the Remain vote was split) and b) FPTP is unfair to everyone other than the two main parties (Farage complained about this at the last election) - the Green vote is an example. PR works well enough in Europe.

Had the ERG voted for May's deal (Johnson's deal is May's with a different font) Brexit would be over and done. Personally, I think it'll be a pile of dog's vomit but frankly, I don't give one of Bercow's Flying Flamingos - I'm off to Scotland in the hope that Sturgeon makes a unilateral declaration of independence.

 

[WillowFromBuffy]

@DeadlyDuo

It is no *my* idea. I did not invent the political system for 87 of the countries in the world.

And it is not that complicated. If a constituency has 10 seats, then each seat equals an MP and each MP gets one vote in parliament. The constituency could have 4 Tory MPs, 5 Labour MPs and 1 Lib Dem MP. To get this result, the Tories would have to get approximately 40 % of the votes, Labour would have to get about half and the Lib Dems would have to get 10 %.

And yes, each party would have to have a list of candidates.

Britain still has the first-past-the-post system, which is fine. But it is a fact that most Brits voted for remain parties. And I don't understand your argument about how that isn't fair to say, because they're not all the same party. It's still true.

 

[katmobile]

I think this is sad.

It doesn't take Europe to make me see him as a d*ck (and I'm not on my own. Many Lexiters I know held their nose while voting Tory). He's embarrassing and abhorrent. An absolutely detestable liar who avoided all scrutiny during the campaign and is now rescinding on promises made in the manifesto. You only get "living wage" if the economy's strong enough. The nurses' bursary doesn't include fees. He's increasing police numbers - to the level they were before the Tories cut them. Workers' rights will not be protected by the Brexit Bill. He's managed to get the Queen's Speech done in less than a week after claiming it needed five weeks and proroguing Parliament for that reason. He lied about the Irish Border and he wants to build yet another bloody bridge despite being told it's not feasible. He's gone back on the Lord Dubs amendment to the Brexit Bill:

Alf Dubs (Twitter): "Appalling and deeply distressing that the government is threatening to scrap the right of refugee children to be reunited with their families here". As Eddie Mars described him, he's "a nasty piece of work" and the Tories are back to being the "nasty party". Labour's case wasn't helped by the right-wing bias of the English media.

He was a terrible FS; he'll be a worse PM.

@DeadlyDuo - my point was NOT that the Tories didn't win the election. It was that a) voting patterns suggested there was no longer a mandate for Leave (the Remain vote was split) and b) FPTP is unfair to everyone other than the two main parties (Farage complained about this at the last election) - the Green vote is an example. PR works well enough in Europe.

Had the ERG voted for May's deal (Johnson's deal is May's with a different font) Brexit would be over and done. Personally, I think it'll be a pile of dog's vomit but frankly, I don't give one of Bercow's Flying Flamingos - I'm off to Scotland in the hope that Sturgeon makes a unilateral declaration of independence.

I wish I could join you and @ Deadly Duo I did ruddy vote I voted Remain as did most people in London and for the party most likely to get the Tories out in this case Lib Dem as did most people in London.
If I'm a remoaner I'm a remoaner. You won and I'll remind of that the first time something happens that ruins your day as a result of it and the rest of the teeny tiny majority.

 

[ILLYRIAN]

In response to what the previous posts were,
the way I see it at each local election, most* people vote for a local person, many vote for a party, but not many will vote for the current leader of the party. As the party may change its leader. Therefore did the majority of voters vote for Boris? As far as I'm concerned no DeadlyDuo says yes. Then he goes on about the ten seat thing, once again I'd ask the question did the voters vote for a local person party or Boris.
I almost got the opinion that someone was trying to explain how the voting system works. Many folk in government have done that and failed.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

I think this is sad.

That poll can only be counted as indicative rather than accurate because, unless they asked every voter in the country their age and who they voted for, then the results are only limited to those they asked. Plus if the survey was done in London, then that is more a remain based area compared to other places in the UK so the results are going to reflect that.

He's increasing police numbers - to the level they were before the Tories cut them.

The Tories had to make cuts because the previous Labour government left the country in debt with a note saying "The money is all gone".

Alf Dubs (Twitter): "Appalling and deeply distressing that the government is threatening to scrap the right of refugee children to be reunited with their families here".

But isn't that part of the immigration problem? The children get sent over first and as they're unaccompanied they have to be taken in, then the family arrive shortly afterwards claiming it's their "human right" to be a family.

As Eddie Mars described him, he's "a nasty piece of work" and the Tories are back to being the "nasty party". Labour's case wasn't helped by the right-wing bias of the English media.

Labour had so many issues, the media was the least of their problems.

Had the ERG voted for May's deal (Johnson's deal is May's with a different font) Brexit would be over and done. Personally, I think it'll be a pile of dog's vomit but frankly, I don't give one of Bercow's Flying Flamingos - I'm off to Scotland in the hope that Sturgeon makes a unilateral declaration of independence.

The sticking point of May's deal was the backstop which would've kept the UK tied to the EU indefinitely but without a say in things. Boris' deal got rid of the backstop. Somethings may be the same as in May's deal because they were the acceptable parts.

And it is not that complicated. If a constituency has 10 seats, then each seat equals an MP and each MP gets one vote in parliament. The constituency could have 4 Tory MPs, 5 Labour MPs and 1 Lib Dem MP. To get this result, the Tories would have to get approximately 40 % of the votes, Labour would have to get about half and the Lib Dems would have to get 10 %.

And yes, each party would have to have a list of candidates.

Britain still has the first-past-the-post system, which is fine. But it is a fact that most Brits voted for remain parties. And I don't understand your argument about how that isn't fair to say, because they're not all the same party. It's still true.

What happens if voters all vote for one particular candidate from a party whilst various other candidates from another party get significantly less votes but more spread around between candidates. You're then getting a misrepresentation of voting. I'll try to explain what I mean.

Imagine Sunnydale was a constituency with 4 seats. You have the Scooby Party {Buffy, Willow, Xander, Giles) with the mandate that humans aren't food, and the Whirlwind party (Spike, Drusilla, Darla, Angelus) with the mandate that humans are basically "happy meals on legs". 800 voters (for simplicity sake) vote for the candidates, assuming each voter only gets one vote for one candidate.

Buffy gets 300 votes.
Spike gets 150
Drusilla gets 100
Darla gets 80
Angelus gets 25
Willow gets 55
Xander gets 45
Giles gets 45

The Scooby party combined score is 445 compared to The Whirlwind Party's combined score of 355. This suggests that Sunnydale supports the Scooby Party mandate over the Whirlwind one.

However, the top 4 candidates are:
Buffy (Scooby Party)
Spike (Whirlwind Party)
Drusilla (Whirlwind Party)
Darla (Whirlwind Party)

That means that the Whirlwind Party have a 75% representation compared to the Scooby Party's 25%

However, if Buffy only had 250 votes (which still makes her the leading candidate) and the other 50 had gone to one of the other Scooby party members thus beating out Darla, the Scooby Party would then have a 50% representation. The Scooby Party lost out because too many people voted for Buffy rather than spreading out the vote amongst the other scoobies.

Does that makes sense or does it just sound completely random?

In response to what the previous posts were,
the way I see it at each local election, most* people vote for a local person, many vote for a party, but not many will vote for the current leader of the party. As the party may change its leader. Therefore did the majority of voters vote for Boris? As far as I'm concerned no DeadlyDuo says yes. Then he goes on about the ten seat thing, once again I'd ask the question did the voters vote for a local person party or Boris.
I almost got the opinion that someone was trying to explain how the voting system works. Many folk in government have done that and failed.

Labour lost the election because of Corbyn being labour leader and thus potentially prime minister. Nobody wanted Corbyn as prime minister. The Boris factor is part of why the Conservatives have done so well in this election. When May called an election in 2017, the tory majority was lost.

 

[AlphaFoxtrot]

I hate the European Union, but I don't think Leave has sufficient consensus, especially for major constitutional change. What I would aim for, is allying with the other dissenting nations to force a settlement against Franco-German hegemony, or, restructure the alliance to create an Anglo economic zone, co-existing along side a Continental Zone that has greater integration than the UK can stomach at the moment. And remind both Ireland and Scotland that there is no freedom from the English, only freedom through the English.

 

[WillowFromBuffy]

@DeadlyDuo

First, you have to have to choose which party you vote for. Say I vote for the Scooby party. On the ballot there is a list of candidates. Giles is listed as the top candidate, but I want Tara to be my representative. I can then write a "1" next to Tara's name, signifying that I want her to be the top candidate. But Anya is too right wing for me, and she has a history as a serial killer, so I cross her name out.

I go from this:

1. Rupert Giles
2. Buffy Summers
3. Willow Rosenberg
4. Alexander Harris
5. Tara Maclay
6. Anya Made-up Maiden Name
7. Daniel Osborne

To this:

4. Rupert Giles
2. Buffy Summers
3. Willow Rosenberg
6. Alexander Harris
1. Tara Maclay
6. Anya Made-up Maiden Name
5. Daniel Osborne

Say the election ends with the Whirlwind party getting 75 % percent of the votes (as they had cheated by turning most of Sunnydale's population into vampires). If there are 4 seats to be filled by Sunnydale, then the Whirlwind party will get 3 of those. The Scooby party will get one seat. That's a loss, but it is not a complete loss. I get to have one representative from my constituency. And maybe the Scooby party does better in other constituencies and ends up in government in Whedonverse parliament, forming a coalition with Angel Investigations Party, the Serenity Crew Party, the Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. Party and the L.A. Branch Dollhouse Party.

A proportional system is exactly what it sounds like. The number of seats a party gets correlates directly to the amount of votes they got on a national basis.

And with proportional representation, there is no such thing as gerrymandering. It can't exist within such a system.

 

[Mr Trick]

That would create issues and overly complicate things. Say each constituency had 10 seats up for grabs, does that mean every party needs to field 10 nominees? Does every voter get 10 votes, one for each seat? What if you have an even split between two parties with opposite views eg Brexit. Would that constituency be classed as leave or remain? Essentially what you're proposing is merging constituencies but your multiple seats idea is essentially what we already have now. For example, London is split into multiple constituencies. Your idea seems to be to class it as one constituency with multiple seats. So each area zone of London is classed as a seat. People vote and the winner in their area gets that seat. At the end of the night, London will have so many seats labour, so many seats tory, etc. Who goes to represent London in Parliament? Are you sending all of the 10 seat winners to parliament? Are you only sending the party with the higher percentage of seats? it seems to present a "too many cooks" situation.

People can't complain about the result of the vote if they didn't go and vote. They should've voted.



I wasn't calling anyone here a remoaner if that's what you're thinking. There's a difference between being a remainer and a remoaner. A remainer voted remain but accepts the democratic result of the referendum even though it's not their preferred outcome. The aim would then be to try and get the best deal possible.

A remoaner is someone who doesn't want to accept the result of the referendum and is actively trying to thwart Brexit at every turn in some form or another such as constantly delaying it or (in the case of what the lib dems were planning to do) call it off altogether or even put it to another vote in the hopes that the public will vote remain because there fed up of the palaver and then THAT is the result that should be honoured rather than the one they didn't want because it only counts if the vote goes the "right" way.

SOME remainer MPs were trying to act "in good faith" by accepting the result but not selling the country down the river. HOWEVER, others were adamant that Brexit was the wrong choice and should be stopped at any cost regardless of it being the democratic will of the people.

It isn't a game in the sense that it will change the future of the country. However it is a battle between who's going to back down first. The EU were starting to get twitchy when the October deadline was looming and it didn't look like Boris was going to back down. Because of this, Boris was successful in getting the backstop removed from the withdrawl agreement which is what the major sticking point was of the original agreement.

There will be bumps along the road, that much is certain, but to be honest I don't think anyone expected there not to be. The UK will be better off in the long run outside of the EU.



Do you accept the result of the referendum, yes or no? You don't have to like it, you can complain about it all you want because it wasn't what you wanted, but do you accept that leaving was what the majority of people voted?

That's the difference between a remainer and a remoaner.

No, I get the meaning. I just think its a negative term which has no place in political discussion. I believe its a person's right to fight tooth and nail for something they believe in. If a political truly believes Brexit in all its forms is going to leave the country worse off then I think they should be allowed to express that. What's interesting about how things have changed the last few years is that if Labour had come out as a remain party or at the very least had nailed down a clear direction then they may have stood a better chance at winning the last Election.

I think your giving Boris way too much credit on that one. The backstop was part of May's Brexit deal. It went away because her deal didn't get through parliament. To be honest I'm not even sure if the backstop has gone away. I haven't heard anything saying that. I think the only reason it got voted through parliament last time (which by the way made the Election we just had pretty pointless), was because things were dragging on too much and MP's knew they could still have a say on things (which sadly has now been taken away from them). I don't think the European Union at any stage in the last year has feared us. Why would they when we have made such a pigs ear of things? They agreed May's deal. They agreed Boris's deal.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

Since I am safely away from anything European and I don't get a feel for the politics, for all of you who are there, what do you think the probability is that the EU can survive Brexit? In fact, what is the probability that the EU will collapse under its own weight? I could easily imagine Germans saying, "Why should we subsidize Greece where civil servants retire at age 55 with a 90% pension when Germans do not retire until age 67?" I could imagine France saying the same thing. And trying to normalize such things will be extremely unpopular.

The EU barely qualifies as a democracy since its three parts do not necessarily reflect voters' wishes. The European Council is the 28 national governments but it is subject to compromise because getting 28 governments to work hand-in-glove to accomplish something is never easy. The European Commission negotiates trade agreements and anti-trust laws but its president is not elected directly; he is selected by the third part, the European Parliament. This parliament is voted directly but with 751 members the vote is diluted and its members cannot propose bills and have limited control over the budget.

I expressed the opinion once that Brexit would be short-term pain for long-term gain. I am not so sure I was right but in terms of democracy, I am more certain I was right.

 

[WillowFromBuffy]

I have no idea how long the union will last. I doubt anyone really knows. It feels quite fragile at the moment. If there was another economic crisis, then it would probably dissolve.

I guess the problem is that the idea of Europe isn't that strong. The British don't seem to think of themselves as European. We certainly don't, and we're not technically in the union. I think the desire for a united Europe is stronger on the continent.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

First, you have to have to choose which party you vote for. Say I vote for the Scooby party. On the ballot there is a list of candidates.

VOTE THE SCOOBY PARTY!

BUFFY SUMMERS: STAKING A CLAIM FOR WOMEN IN POLITICS


VOTE THE WHIRLWIND PARTY!

SPIKE: STICKING TWO FINGERS UP TO AUSTERITY

VOTE THE SCOOBY PARTY!

WILLOW ROSENBERG: STANDING UP TO THE FIREFLY MENACE

VOTE THE WHIRLWIND PARTY!

DRUSILLA: LIFTING THE LID ON INJUSTICE

VOTE THE SCOOBY PARTY!

XANDER HARRIS: EYEING UP THE POTENTIAL FOR CHANGE

VOTE THE WHIRLWIND PARTY!

DARLA: ELIMINATING CORRUPTION IN THE WORKPLACE

VOTE THE SCOOBY PARTY!

RUPERT GILES: SUPPORTING LITERACY IN SCHOOLS

VOTE THE WHIRLWIND PARTY!

ANGELUS: ENCOURAGING THE CONTINUED DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT ARTIFACTS

 

[ILLYRIAN]

Aahh Brexit, uuurrrrr. Even the name is getting old hat. I wonder what name Europeans have
for the English push to get out of the joint European market (or whatever its called).

Boris and the Tory Nutters?

 

[Mr Trick]

'Councils must have the power to run bus services for people, not profits'

Leadership hopeful Lisa Nandy says decade of austerity has forced cuts in bus services - but Labour councils like Nottingham have produced very successful long-term plans for public transport networks

www.mirror.co.uk

If anyone can inject fresh life into the Labour party and get them back on track it is Lisa Nandy. Importantly she is from a working class background and is in touch with working class voters and the main issues effecting the country. Another positive is she is open to collaboration (something the last leader wasn't). Sadly the signs are the party will just play it safe and go for another white, London based middle class male. Hope I'm wrong of course.

 

[TriBel]

'Councils must have the power to run bus services for people, not profits'

Leadership hopeful Lisa Nandy says decade of austerity has forced cuts in bus services - but Labour councils like Nottingham have produced very successful long-term plans for public transport networks

www.mirror.co.uk

If anyone can inject fresh life into the Labour party and get them back on track it is Lisa Nandy. Importantly she is from a working class background and is in touch with working class voters and the main issues effecting the country. Another positive is she is open to collaboration (something the last leader wasn't). Sadly the signs are the party will just play it safe and go for another white, London based middle class male. Hope I'm wrong of course.

I don't know enough about Nandy to comment but I think they'll go for Starmer. The Daily Mail must think so too because they've already started a smear campaign. 😡

 

[Dora]

I wish I could join you and @ Deadly Duo I did ruddy vote I voted Remain as did most people in London and for the party most likely to get the Tories out in this case Lib Dem as did most people in London.
If I'm a remoaner I'm a remoaner. You won and I'll remind of that the first time something happens that ruins your day as a result of it and the rest of the teeny tiny majority.

1.4 million tiny ? 1 is tiny but still a majority

 

[Mr Trick]

I don't know enough about Nandy to comment but I think they'll go for Starmer. The Daily Mail must think so too because they've already started a smear campaign. 😡

He's the favourite as we speak. And that's what I mean. He's too similar to Corbyn and unlikely to bring the change that Labour need. The party is crying out for its first female leader and a fresh forward thinking one at that.

 

[TriBel]

@Mr Trick Except Starmer was firmly remain and not a career politician. I didn't dislike Corbyn but they might have done better in the election with Starmer. I can take him or leave him.

That aside - it looks like Dr Rosena Allin-Khan will get through to the next round for Deputy. I want her! I don't care what her stance is, I just want to see the Daily Mail readers' heads explode! 😀 Brains, beauty and a Muslim woman who's half Polish. 😱

Rosena Allin-Khan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mr Trick]

I'm not bothered about Starmer being a firm re-mainer. There's no chance of over turning Brexit now. Its just what sort of Brexit we get. There are more important issues. I'm willing to give him a chance to prove me wrong. But there are better more progressive candidates I think.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

It sounds like a number of you will be posting to the "I'll Get Over It" thread once Brexit goes ahead.

European history has been dominated in the last two centuries by diplomatic entanglements that ultimately forced most countries into wars, even those countries who had no interest in fighting. Will there will be an economic Archduke Ferdinand in Europe's future? Some issue that will happen in one country and cause the economy of the EU to fall like dominoes across all the countries? And since all wars are economic in origin, out of Europe's economic rubble, will there be more wars? Britain's parachute may have opened just in time.