1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll: General Election 2019 voting intention - Nov 1st - 14th

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Rilot, Nov 5, 2019.

?

Who will you vote for?

  1. Labour

    95 vote(s)
    22.6%
  2. Conservative

    104 vote(s)
    24.8%
  3. Liberal Democrat

    162 vote(s)
    38.6%
  4. SNP

    19 vote(s)
    4.5%
  5. Green

    7 vote(s)
    1.7%
  6. Brexit

    15 vote(s)
    3.6%
  7. UKIP

    1 vote(s)
    0.2%
  8. TIG

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. Plaid Cymru

    2 vote(s)
    0.5%
  10. DUP

    1 vote(s)
    0.2%
  11. Sinn Fein

    2 vote(s)
    0.5%
  12. Independant

    3 vote(s)
    0.7%
  13. Other party

    1 vote(s)
    0.2%
  14. Spoil ballot

    8 vote(s)
    1.9%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 10,376

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    Sorry but I don't agree.

    I am a tory party member, if i was purely voting on personal gain i would be voting Tory at the election, as we stand right now its highly unlikely but for the same reasons.
    I can pretty much guarantee I would be better off under the tories than any other political party.

    As I have said should we deliver a soft brexit, but leavers not accept it, I would say they have to be willing to accept that under those circumstances they have to be willing to risk all for what they want. All options would be available at that point.
    I have also said numerous times I see things such as adopting the Euro, european army (which I am sure would function very much like NATO in practice) as an improvement.
    I actually think delivering Brexit makes them more likely so I am more than willing to take the risk of delivering a soft brexit and if the "winners" decide its not enough I think we should push just as hard in the opposite direction.
    Lets see if they are willing to gamble their brexit vs properly engaging in the EU. I am not so sure they would be personally.
     
  2. FortuitousFluke

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,040

    Location: Cambridgeshire

    On top of that, the system by which it would function is already in operation. As it stands political parties are not homogeneous, they're made up of a group of people with differing views who feel they coalesce around the set of ideals that they consider to be "core". Within the party they form alliances and groups based on where they sit on various points, for the bigger issues the party may be broadly aligned (for the tories for instance the role of the state) for others they will be fairly fractured (Brexit), for those issues where there isn't consensus there is debate, bargaining and deal making within the ruling party which is exactly how coalitions work.

    During the PR debate the most common argument I came up against was "well nothing will ever get done" but looking at our party system, I think there's enough common ground across enough parties for coalition to work perfectly well.

    I think the starkest example is 2015, now I'm no fan of UKIP but it's shameful that during that election they scored 12.5% of the popular vote and yet gained 1 MP, for all intents and purposes that's 1/10th of the population with nearly no representation in Government at all.
     
  3. do_ron_ron

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 10,110

    This is when I think FPTP is not so bad after all.
     
  4. FortuitousFluke

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,040

    Location: Cambridgeshire

    Believe me I'd rather Farage be kept as far from front line politics as possible but at the moment the Country isn't adequately represented. If I want more aligned representation for myself then I've got to grant it to frothy xenophobes who believe that the EU has been infiltrated by a cabal of aliens.
     
  5. StriderX

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 25,402

    No, you can't just use that argument because some roasters wouldn't be elected, it is tainting the main parties regardless, so is of no actual use.

    I'd rather the public had confidence their vote meant something, and the increased definition of MP's rather than the inhomogenous blobs we have. If people want to vote for them, they should be able to have their representatives under scrutiny.
     
  6. FortuitousFluke

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,040

    Location: Cambridgeshire

    Additionally if the threat to the main parties over the last 20 odd years in relation to UKIP had been tangible and external then you might have seen more action taken around the actual causes of Brexit. Implementing a policy of deporting migrants based on the EU's own rules even though it's a net cost, because it's a priority to the populace, actually tackling misinformation rather than utilising it for party political gain, addressing inequality.
     
  7. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 6,346

    The fear with PR is that is hands power to the minorities where the big players are substantially opposed. Imagine Germany where the 3 biggest parties swap a few seats every few years and the Government never really changes and the Germans for whatever historic reasons are happy with that, perma-Government of the bureaucracy/technocracy, the sunny uplands for all those scared of populism.
    But in the UK Labour and the Conservatives never see eye to eye so they now need coalition partners the scramble is now on to find enough seats and you go down the list of acceptable partners until you get a majority. So imagine 2015, you now have

    Conservatives 36.8%
    Labour 30.4%
    UKIP 12.6%
    Lib Dem 7.6%
    SNP 4.7%
    Green 3.8%
    DUP 0.6%
    Sinn Fein 0.6%
    Plaid 0.4%
    UUP 0.4%
    SDLP 0.3%
    Others 2.1%

    Conservatives by plurality get the first crack at forming a Government even if they can agree terms with UKIP they need another partner, the DUP puts them over the line. Like 2017 what do the DUP demand for their votes? What do UKIP demand? OK UKIP and Cons fall out no right wing Government.
    Labour have to appease Lib Dems, easy a few ministers but still way short. They need the SNP, Greens, Plaid, SDLP and Others to form a majority. So now we have a minority coalition Government that has to hand out a Scottish and NI independence vote every Parliament maybe. Greens want to cripple the economy and the SNP are throwing grenades every five minutes.

    Now as we saw with the Good Friday Agreement where Blair threw all the moderates under the bus, the electorate learns you need to elect the nutters to get what you want. So now life gets tough because Labour and Conservatives lose votes from the big tent to the hard left and hard right who now realise they might have a chance in coalition. Hello you've just reinvented Israeli politics.

    Our plurality wins system delivers change when it's needed, the Great Reform Act, Attlee, Thatcher, Blair and delivers in most cases for the last 200 years relatively stable Government the last 5 years notwithstanding. PR is a big punt into turbulent waters to try and achieve some North European dreamland that the UK electorate is never going to deliver.

    At least in my opinion.

    edit: a few typos, still some more probably
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2019
  8. StriderX

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 25,402

    You can't use numbers from FPTP to insinuate what it would be like in PR, people's expectations would change and so would their voting pattern. Lets take indepedence movements, right now it would be resolved with federalisation, something far more likely to occur under PR, and simply ignored/lied about under FPTP.

    So no the threat of things like the SNP can be resolved without them asking for indy every 3 seconds by the electorate getting what they wanted from the beginning, their vote would drop off until they became realistic, like what should happen, but doesn't under our antiquated system.
     
  9. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 6,346

    I accept you can't use FPTP numbers for PR but they're all I have to go on. I assert that actually PR encourages more hardline parties and so the problem becomes worse not better.
     
  10. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 10,376

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    The problem is that the main parties currently do not have to envision working togther. Under a PR system you would probably find there is more chance that the tribalism would disappear and a centrist labour and tory government would find they had more in common than with others. Plus of course you would see more people voting for more parties.
    The extremes tend to be pushed out in PR rather than empowered if you look at how it generally seems to function in europe. Its by no means certain.
    The transition period could however be "interesting"
     
  11. StriderX

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 25,402

    But it also encourages more sensible parties, if they don't want the hardline having a say, then the bigger parties should be listening more faithfully, eventually people would wise up, unfortunately the damage FPTP has done would take a few cycles to work out, which is where PR has it's biggest issue, the transition isn't a short term problem.

    I just feel people deserve this level of definition in politics, rather than being annoyed and disenfranchised. It really doesn't matter in FPTP or PR that people aren't sensible (going by Canada vs Germany), the rot is just better hidden in FPTP, where as in PR it's visible and under the microscope, if people wanted the likes of AfD in power... why should we have a system designed to no allow that, that is somewhat oppressive.

    PR allows people to react in a faithful manner, if that isn't what they want.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2019
  12. chroniclard

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 23, 2014

    Posts: 15,825

    Location: Hertfordshire

    Maybe people are sick of their votes being a waste of time due to people entrenched in voting for their particular colour. Maybe it would encourage more people to vote.
     
  13. Greebo

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 20, 2005

    Posts: 35,029

    Location: Co Durham

    Thing is its been ready for weeks and the Govt delayed releasing well before they had the vote for a GE. that makes me think its not good news for the Govt.
     
  14. Greebo

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 20, 2005

    Posts: 35,029

    Location: Co Durham

    Yeah they are definitely trying to steer the media towards "but that wasnt us, that was the nasty Tory party, we are the new nice Tory party..." I heard Hancock on the radio being challenged over something and his response was the simple "ah but BJ wasnt PM then so its totally different now"
     
  15. garnett

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 25, 2008

    Posts: 6,369

    I still don't follow. You're not saying why you feel soft leave is better than remain. You're hinting that it is to placate Brexiteers. Is that your point?

    If so, I just cannot agree. A soft Brexit throws away our current Germany++ deal benefits, and is demonstrably not going to placate many Brexiteers at all.

    And to imply that to remain - to continue the status quo - is an "extreme" - that seems a bizarre thing to say.
     
  16. Uther

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jun 16, 2005

    Posts: 12,189

    Grieve asking an urgent question in parliament now about Johnson sitting on the Russia interference report. He didn't pull any punches, and it makes the government look as dodgy as ****!
     
  17. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 10,376

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    Placate Brexiters if you want to call it that.
    One things for certain, the country is badly divided, it would help of both sides could be pragmatic and find a solution.
    Unfortunately like parliament, most peoples view seems to be "we should compromise to my position"

    Remain is an extreme when you consider the vote. Whilst I am sure some people were duped, the vast majority on all sides were pretty unaware of most of the facts they needed.

    BUT we cannot close pandoras box on this one. One thing is for sure, I see non delivery of Brexit as high risky. More than anything we need a confirmation, based on what is deliverable.

    This morning I was listening to comment on the reduced threat level in the UK. Was quite interesting. The main threat remains Muslim based, but there is also significant, and rising right wing threat in the UK.
    Whilst its too simple to associate right wing with Brexit to me it helps reinforce the nation that we must get stuff delivered that politicians say they will. People will go on about how its different to the Nazis etc. The one lesson to learn from that is how quickly things can change, and there is seemingly a narrow line between acceptable and not, and how quickly that line can be moved until you dare not speak against it.
    I genuinely think we are on the edge in the UK right now, and we need to diffuse it.
    I see the case of rejoining the Eu as one of the easiest slam dunks ever, once we deliver a country damaging brexit, and dont get me wrong, I see ANY brexit as damaging.
     
  18. JeditOjanen

    Soldato

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 5,096

    Swinson has once again stated that she will never support putting Corbyn in Number 10. When confronted with the fact that Labour would give a second referendum and nobody else would, she said that of course the Lib Dems will back any second referendum legislation. Which will never be proposed, unless Labour form the next government. And she knows it.

    I repeat my sentiment from the last thread: vote Lib Dem, get Tories and hard Brexit. If you want any chance of remaining in the EU, then you must vote Labour whether you like it or not.
     
  19. garnett

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 25, 2008

    Posts: 6,369

    "Whilst I am sure some people were duped, the vast majority on all sides were pretty unaware of most of the facts they needed."

    Do you mean "aware"?

    I just don't see any real version of Brexit mollifying Brexiteers in the way you do. It won't change their betrayal narrative. Whether a subsection of society should be mollycoddled because they are more prone to violence looks like something else you and I might see differently.

    And I still struggle to see the status quo - voted for by 48% and a preferable outcome to many Brexiteers over Brexit variants other than their own - to be "extreme".
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2019
  20. FortuitousFluke

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,040

    Location: Cambridgeshire

    Please hand your bags to the bellhop and take a seat in the lobby, Dolph will be with you shortly.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.