UK General Discussion: 2017 and onwards, Mayhem

[kyc0705]

Jared O'Mara (Labour MP for Sheffield Hallam) hasn't now voted in the Commons since 18 October (since sexual allegations came to surface). That's more then 25 consecutive missing votes.



Why not resign.... and call a by election....

he was on the committee for women's equality. irony is ruthless.

[MaxQue]

Jared O'Mara (Labour MP for Sheffield Hallam) hasn't now voted in the Commons since 18 October (since sexual allegations came to surface). That's more then 25 consecutive missing votes.



Why not resign.... and call a by election....

he was on the committee for women's equality. irony is ruthless.

Not women's equality. Women AND Equality (which includes disabled people, like him).

[Lumine]

Latest Survation poll has Labour at 45%, Conservatives at 37%.

[Leftbehind]

Again a gap is opening up between Survation (8 pt Lab lead) and the rest of the pack (avg. 2 pt Lab lead) based on youth turnout. This led to them being dismissed prior to the election.

Onto more pressing matters - if Brexit talks hinge upon Ireland forgoing their veto, DUP will need to be persuaded that a sea border makes sense. Surely they can see they'd get the best of both worlds - staying within the UK but privileged access to the SM (which will likely be a boon to their economy)? Even the unionist community support that from the polling I've seen.
 
If their intransigence on the matter means talks hit an impasse, you start to wonder if the government will fall (to say there isn't uniform support for crashing out would be an understatement).

[cp]

If their intransigence on the matter means talks hit an impasse, you start to wonder if the government will fall (to say there isn't uniform support for crashing out would be an understatement).

There's never been a consensus about what Brexit means (yes, yes, Brexit means Brexit), even among the Tories. The cynic in me believes they'll find some way to fudge this, or that one of the major players involved (most likely the Brexit ultras or the DUP) will capitulate, but if they don't this is knife-edge level danger.

Who knows, we may even have an election in time to prevent Trump's visit

[cp]

No one had posted this yet, and it seemed relatively unremarkable until today ...

Survation Poll:
45
37
6

... and until I found out about this delightful tidbit
[this is] the first poll that would give Labour a majority (10) on the Electoral Calculus. Not only that, but it's the first poll where Labour take Boris Johnson's Uxbridge and South Ruislip seat.

[Leftbehind]

Lumine had posted it above mine - frustrating to see it predicts double the majority with half the lead if the roles were reversed.

If their intransigence on the matter means talks hit an impasse, you start to wonder if the government will fall (to say there isn't uniform support for crashing out would be an understatement).

There's never been a consensus about what Brexit means (yes, yes, Brexit means Brexit), even among the Tories. The cynic in me believes they'll find some way to fudge this, or that one of the major players involved (most likely the Brexit ultras or the DUP) will capitulate, but if they don't this is knife-edge level danger.

Who knows, we may even have an election in time to prevent Trump's visit

I suppose the Fixed Term Parliament act scuppers any hope that the DUP removing their support would see the government fall. It'd take the hard Brexit rebels (are there even enough?) to vote for it to reach a 2/3 no confidence. May could limp on, banking on Labour lending them enough support to ensure a soft Brexit is passed and in doing so helping to tar their name in turn (with the public opinion tide turning many within Labour might be unhappy with anything but a 2nd referendum, even the leadership might not be willing to divert from their strategy of letting the disaster engulf the Tories).

I noticed there was some interesting polls showcased on that electoral calculus site:

Immigration control is more important than free trade with the EU:-
43% Disagree (20% strongly)
39% Agree (16% strongly)
17% Don't Know

Preferred House of Lords reform:
37% Fully Elected
27% Abolition
27% Partly Elected
10% Appointed

[cp]

Oops. My bad. Should have read the thread more closely *blush*

I believe the Fixed Term Parliament Act stipulates a 2/3 majority vote for an early election, but not for a vote of no confidence. In the latter case, if the government loses a confidence vote they have 14 days to reestablish that confidence. In the absence of that, once the 14 days passes, the government expires.

In practice, how this would play out is uncertain as it's never been tested, but if the current crisis is the one that does it, I imagine it would play out like this: the PM announces she will agree to the EU's terms on divergence/alignment, the DUP formally pulls their support, someone calls for a vote of no confidence, the DUP vote against the government*, two weeks of frantic fruitless negotiating ensue, the deadline passes and the writ is signed by Xmas.

Hope springs eternal, but I suspect this is unlikely to transpire. More likely would be May being forced to step down due to a leadership challenge and a replacement pursuing a hard border/hard brexit strategy. 


*This is a bigger stumbling block than it may seem. The Tories have a plurality of seats. DUP votes bring them to majority numbers, but in their absence (i.e. if they simply abstained, which they could do even after having pulled their support for the C+S agreement) the 'rump' parliament would still have 316 Tories (+ 1 speaker) and 315 opposition (which includes a number of expelled 'independents' who may not vote against the government anyway).

[Leftbehind]

Thanks for the clarification on the requirements for the FTP - I'd convinced myself it was impossible.

Surely if there was a leadership challenge and May was ousted for someone more committed to a No Deal Brexit there'd be splits or lack of support from enough to whittle down their 317? I don't know how you can go from campaigning to Remain to supporting crashing out with no agreements in place...

Doubtful but could Labour convince DUP that they weren't the threat they're seen as, as at least they wouldn't be erecting borders. If they can (or rather could) work with SF I don't see how having a SF-friendly leadership makes it impossible.

[cp]

I don't know how you can go from campaigning to Remain to supporting crashing out with no agreements in place...

Ask Theresa May

I agree it's basically impossible for Labour to convince the DUP to cooperate. As I understand it, the DUP wouldn't been keen on this for several reasons:

1. They don't like Labour any more than most Tories/rightwingers do;
2. They don't like Corbyn personally, his actions during the Troubles, or his stated plans for a Corbyn-led UK government;
3. The DUP have never been very fond of the Good Friday Agreement in the first place (they did oppose it in 1998), so seeing it scuppered, even if it means a return of a hard border with the RoI is a lot less upsetting than acceding to any regulatory/constitutional break with the UK.

How things play out if there's a Tory leadership race instead of a no confidence vote is anyone's guess. Part of me would like to think that, yes, a number of the remainer Tory MPs would defect or otherwise withdraw their support in the event of a lunatic leaver becoming PM ... but then I remember this is the Tories we're talking about. They'll cling to power no matter what it takes.

[Leftbehind]

I don't know how you can go from campaigning to Remain to supporting crashing out with no agreements in place...

Ask Theresa May

I agree it's basically impossible for Labour to convince the DUP to cooperate. As I understand it, the DUP wouldn't been keen on this for several reasons:

1. They don't like Labour any more than most Tories/rightwingers do;
2. They don't like Corbyn personally, his actions during the Troubles, or his stated plans for a Corbyn-led UK government;
3. The DUP have never been very fond of the Good Friday Agreement in the first place (they did oppose it in 1998), so seeing it scuppered, even if it means a return of a hard border with the RoI is a lot less upsetting than acceding to any regulatory/constitutional break with the UK.

How things play out if there's a Tory leadership race instead of a no confidence vote is anyone's guess. Part of me would like to think that, yes, a number of the remainer Tory MPs would defect or otherwise withdraw their support in the event of a lunatic leaver becoming PM ... but then I remember this is the Tories we're talking about. They'll cling to power no matter what it takes.

May seems to be bullsh**tting her way through it, God knows what she believes. The Lunatic Leavers (good term, *yoink*) certainly have no faith that she's their (wo)man - partly because she is acquiescing to Europe's demands in hope for a deal.

Weren't Scot Cons elected as part of a softening Brexit stance? I just can't see, even if May was replaced by one, that they'd command the support of the Con parliamentary group. Many are going through with it for sake of unity already.

[cp]

What's motivating the Scot Tories I don't know. I believe they all profess a desire for a softer brexit, but so far they've been willing to line up with the government during crucial votes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Up until now everything has been posture and performance though... we shall see, I guess.

[Leftbehind]

Lumine had posted it above mine - frustrating to see it predicts double the majority with half the lead if the roles were reversed.

If you input the Scottish VI published the day later, the prediction for Labour's majority goes down to 4. Reverse the numbers with the Tories and they're predicted to get a majority of 48. Great electoral system.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Great electoral system.

Weren't you one of those Labourites who opposed the AV referendum to stick it to Clegg?

[Leftbehind]

Great electoral system.

Weren't you one of those Labourites who opposed the AV referendum to stick it to Clegg?

lol that's a blast from the past. My opposition wasn't merely sticking it to Clegg - but because I don't consider AV whatsoever an improvement - and in fact had concerns it could be worse primarily because a) it encourages please-all centrism moreso than FPTP b) it'd shut the door on change over outrage of unfairness*.

*Minor parties, even with millions of votes, though never large enough to make it to the main challenger, get their voters used as reliable ammunition for the very party they'd deserted. Questions of fairness would be inevitably shut down with voters ability to preference under AV.

I've always been happy with proportional systems however.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There is neither theoretical reason nor empirical evidence to claim that AV encourages "encourages please-all centrism" anymore than another system.

As for the idea of "let's keep something bad now so we can get something better later", well, it is and has always been one of the most harmful pathologies of the radical left. Seem like people just never learn...

[Blair]

I wasn't old enough to vote in 2011, but most likely would have voted to keep FPTP. Someone I know pointed out the funny trend that FPTP systems often get shifted to become more proportional, and PR systems have limits put in place to make it more like FPTP (thresholds, bloc allocation etc)

I know it's more related to the piss poor understanding of local politics but we have a weird AV system in the London Mayoral Race and no-one really knows how to use it (I know at least 5 people who gave the Greens/Womens' Equality Party a 2nd preference because they 'wanted Sadiq to win')

I'm not sure if's based on anything other than pure chance, but British Politics/FPTP tends to get trapped in era's of small majorities. 1964-1979 springs to mind, where barring '66, the highest majority was what less than 10?

The problem for the Tories is that it's hard to see where in the next election they could improve (beyond a handful of marginals) Just in London alone, seats they won in 2010 and 2015 now have majorities of 5,000-10,000.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The SV used in Mayoral elections is literally the worst election system ever devised, short of bloc votes in multi member constituencies.

Personally I feel AV would help, certainly in Northern Ireland. Would definitely screw over the SNP though.

[Leftbehind]

There is neither theoretical reason nor empirical evidence to claim that AV encourages "encourages please-all centrism" anymore than another system.

As for the idea of "let's keep something bad now so we can get something better later", well, it is and has always been one of the most harmful pathologies of the radical left. Seem like people just never learn...

Yes there is, although you didn't bother to listen when I explained them at the time either so I'm likely banging my head against the wall. If you don't think AV would encourage parties choosing transfer-friendly candidates (centrists) or rather rule out polarising candidates who likely cannot command the support of 50%+ of the constituency's electorate, and risk losing them their seat - I don't know what to tell you.

There are not many constituencies in the country where my politics could gain over 50% support - so not only could I look forward to an Australian Greens type scenario in terms of zero or a solitary seat for millions of votes but even where agreeable leftists have won - and can win on a plurality of votes - they'd be at risk.

Of course you're likely going to accuse me of prioritising tactical advantage over fairness but given none of the voting systems on offer even attempt to achieve fairness I feel pretty justified in my decision.

As for the idea of "let's keep something bad now so we can get something better later", well, it is and has always been one of the most harmful pathologies of the radical left. Seem like people just never learn...

We weren't being offered an improvement so to vote to reject was hardly an act of accelerationism.

[Leftbehind]

"Misogynistic tweets"? Was Twitter even around when these posts were made?

[Antonio the Sixth]

There is neither theoretical reason nor empirical evidence to claim that AV encourages "encourages please-all centrism" anymore than another system.

As for the idea of "let's keep something bad now so we can get something better later", well, it is and has always been one of the most harmful pathologies of the radical left. Seem like people just never learn...

Yes there is, although you didn't bother to listen when I explained them at the time either so I'm likely banging my head against the wall. If you don't think AV would encourage parties choosing transfer-friendly candidates (centrists) or rather rule out polarising candidates who likely cannot command the support of 50%+ of the constituency's electorate, and risk losing them their seat - I don't know what to tell you.

There are not many constituencies in the country where my politics could gain over 50% support - so not only could I look forward to an Australian Greens type scenario in terms of zero or a solitary seat for millions of votes but even where agreeable leftists have won - and can win on a plurality of votes - they'd be at risk.

Of course you're likely going to accuse me of prioritising tactical advantage over fairness but given none of the voting systems on offer even attempt to achieve fairness I feel pretty justified in my decision.

Third-party candidates are just as likely to be at the ideological extremes as they are to be in the center. You obviously had 2010 in mind when you made that post, but then 2015 came along and Labour bled quite a few votes to UKIP. I don't know if these voters would ultimately have second-preffed Labour or the Tories, but at the very least, it would have given Miliband a reason to make more populist appeals rather than try to win over the middle ground - which IIRC is exactly what you wanted.

A solid left-wing force can command a majority of the vote, if faced with a clear enough alternative. The fact that you don't believe it can shows your lack of confidence in your own values, which is another sad pathology of the left.

[Leftbehind]

There is neither theoretical reason nor empirical evidence to claim that AV encourages "encourages please-all centrism" anymore than another system.

As for the idea of "let's keep something bad now so we can get something better later", well, it is and has always been one of the most harmful pathologies of the radical left. Seem like people just never learn...

Yes there is, although you didn't bother to listen when I explained them at the time either so I'm likely banging my head against the wall. If you don't think AV would encourage parties choosing transfer-friendly candidates (centrists) or rather rule out polarising candidates who likely cannot command the support of 50%+ of the constituency's electorate, and risk losing them their seat - I don't know what to tell you.

There are not many constituencies in the country where my politics could gain over 50% support - so not only could I look forward to an Australian Greens type scenario in terms of zero or a solitary seat for millions of votes but even where agreeable leftists have won - and can win on a plurality of votes - they'd be at risk.

Of course you're likely going to accuse me of prioritising tactical advantage over fairness but given none of the voting systems on offer even attempt to achieve fairness I feel pretty justified in my decision.

Third-party candidates are just as likely to be at the ideological extremes as they are to be in the center. You obviously had 2010 in mind when you made that post, but then 2015 came along and Labour bled quite a few votes to UKIP. I don't know if these voters would ultimately have second-preffed Labour or the Tories, but at the very least, it would have given Miliband a reason to make more populist appeals rather than try to win over the middle ground - which IIRC is exactly what you wanted.

A solid left-wing force can command a majority of the vote, if faced with a clear enough alternative. The fact that you don't believe it can shows your lack of confidence in your own values, which is another sad pathology of the left.

Even if I had enough faith it wouldn't much matter - you'd have the uphill task of convincing those in the NEC and CLPs who select the candidates that the hard-left socialist you love but who repels Tories and Liberal voters alike should be the candidate in place of the social democrat who does much better between Liberals and Tory-leaning, with the wider narrative being Labour were going to be anywhere between massacred or handily beaten. Now imagine that writ large.

True - my vote was in the context of 2010 - where I was much more disillusioned with the under-representation of my wing and my views (that were both marginalised and literally dying out within Labour), and winning f**k all representation elsewhere. But I can't imagine the 2015 election as being anything other than a calamity for the left - already trailing the Tories by a substantial amount and the biggest bloc of voters behind them are the die-hard Brexiteers who Cameron has courted with a EU referendum promise! Even in 2017 where it would've helped Labour, you'd have the scenario I painted in the above paragraph.

[Former President tack50]

Great electoral system.

Weren't you one of those Labourites who opposed the AV referendum to stick it to Clegg?

lol that's a blast from the past. My opposition wasn't merely sticking it to Clegg - but because I don't consider AV whatsoever an improvement - and in fact had concerns it could be worse primarily because a) it encourages please-all centrism moreso than FPTP b) it'd shut the door on change over outrage of unfairness*.

*Minor parties, even with millions of votes, though never large enough to make it to the main challenger, get their voters used as reliable ammunition for the very party they'd deserted. Questions of fairness would be inevitably shut down with voters ability to preference under AV.

I've always been happy with proportional systems however.

I wonder, would 2 round voting (the system France uses) be a good enough replacement for the UK? It keeps most of the good parts from FPTP and allows third parties to actually compete.

[Leftbehind]

Great electoral system.

Weren't you one of those Labourites who opposed the AV referendum to stick it to Clegg?

lol that's a blast from the past. My opposition wasn't merely sticking it to Clegg - but because I don't consider AV whatsoever an improvement - and in fact had concerns it could be worse primarily because a) it encourages please-all centrism moreso than FPTP b) it'd shut the door on change over outrage of unfairness*.

*Minor parties, even with millions of votes, though never large enough to make it to the main challenger, get their voters used as reliable ammunition for the very party they'd deserted. Questions of fairness would be inevitably shut down with voters ability to preference under AV.

I've always been happy with proportional systems however.

I wonder, would 2 round voting (the system France uses) be a good enough replacement for the UK? It keeps most of the good parts from FPTP and allows third parties to actually compete.

Personally I'm not fussed with any majoritarian preferential solution - I'd hate to think we'd waste an attempt to change the voting system on something so disappointing.