Theresa May calls General Election on 8th June.

[furnessvale]

I have a soft spot for Manchester.

Would that be Chat Moss, into which it could be deposited and covered over?

 

[bramling]

What a choice this country faces on June 8th. A Labour Party who can't even get basic maths right. Or a Tory party hell bent on destroying the relationship with our biggest trading partner and destroying the NHS. Never been so ashamed to be British.

It wasn't the Conservative party who put the country on the Brexit path. They offered the country the chance to vote and a decision was made - given the way the result went I don't think anyone can fairly criticise the Conservative party for correctly judging and responding to the mood of the country. Indeed, some big-hitters within the Conservative party were rather strongly in favour of remain, not least the then Prime Minister and Chancellor.

I'm proud that Britain had the confidence to hold a referendum and deliver a result, and is acting upon that result. It's called democracy, and it's one of many good things where Britain has set an example to the rest of the world.

It will be interesting to see what verdict the country delivers on 8th June, and I for one will be particularly interested to see what happens in Scotland. Sturgeon's face has been like thunder ever since the election was called, one possible path is the SNP start to be regarded as having "peaked".

 

[EM2]

It wasn't the Conservative party who put the country on the Brexit path. They offered the country the chance to vote and a decision was made

So they gave us the referendum, but it wasn't them that 'put us on the Brexit path'?
No referendum = no Brexit.

 

[northwichcat]

It wasn't the Conservative party who put the country on the Brexit path. They offered the country the chance to vote and a decision was made - given the way the result went I don't think anyone can fairly criticise the Conservative party for correctly judging and responding to the mood of the country. Indeed, some big-hitters within the Conservative party were rather strongly in favour of remain, not least the then Prime Minister and Chancellor.

Cameron and Osborne being in favour of Remain might have resulted in more people voting Leave than who would otherwise have done as it made Leave seem more anti-establishment.

There were a couple of big errors with the referendum. The first is the question was a simple In/Out question so it's not possible to say whether over 50% of voters are happy with soft Brexit or hard Brexit. If it had contained multiple options and you had to rank them in order the result would have been more meaningful.

The second is the result wasn't legally binding and the government didn't have a threshold. If 50.00001% had voted Remain and something significant changed a few years after the result then a new referendum would be entirely reasonable, but if 90% had voted Remain and the EU did one thing which some people didn't like then it would be unreasonable to demand a new referendum.

 

[northwichcat]

So they gave us the referendum, but it wasn't them that 'put us on the Brexit path'?
No referendum = no Brexit.

You might also recall Ed Milliband saying before the last election "We won't have a referendum on EU membership so a vote for Labour is a vote to Remain in the EU."

 

[bramling]

So they gave us the referendum, but it wasn't them that 'put us on the Brexit path'?
No referendum = no Brexit.

No, it was the referendum result which did that.

I'm sick of hearing the Conservative party somehow blamed or held responsible for Brexit. Regardless of party politics, in my view full credit to them for having the referendum and acting upon the result. It would be very wrong for Britain to be remaining in the EU when majority public opinion was clearly against that path. I've already had the first four decades of my life inside the EU against my personal wishes - that's my bit of compromise done.

For all we know, part of the reason for the (relatively unexpected) Conservative majority at the 2015 election may well have been voters were attracted to the idea of an in/out EU referendum. I certainly was, although personally it didn't have any effect on my vote.

 

[northwichcat]

I've already had the first four decades of my life inside the EU against my personal wishes - that's my bit of compromise done.

So how did being in the EU disadvantage you when you were in full time education?

Should we also have a referendum on getting rid of the monarchy given how much that affects us and none of us chose it?

 

[Barn]

There were a couple of big errors with the referendum. The first is the question was a simple In/Out question so it's not possible to say whether over 50% of voters are happy with soft Brexit or hard Brexit. If it had contained multiple options and you had to rank them in order the result would have been more meaningful.

But we all know what would have happened in that event. Depending on the options presented, the clear winner would have been either "I want to see fundamental reform and then I'd like us to stay once this is achieved" or "I want us to leave and have a fully comprehensive future agreement which replicates all the good parts of membership".

Neither of these are in the direct gift of the UK Government to provide. The only things which the UK can unilaterally do are to stay or to leave.

 

[northwichcat]

But we all know what would have happened in that event. Depending on the options presented, the clear winner would have been either "I want to see fundamental reform and then I'd like us to stay once this is achieved" or "I want us to leave and have a fully comprehensive future agreement which replicates all the good parts of membership".

Neither of these are in the direct gift of the UK Government to provide. The only things which the UK can unilaterally do are to stay or to leave.

No. Cameron had got the reforms he thought were a good idea and the referendum was based on staying in the EU on the new terms or leaving. Multiple options would have been something like:
- Remain
- Let's have 5 years of the new terms and review again
- Leave EU but remain in single market
- Leave EU and also leave single market if neccessary

 

[EM2]

No, it was the referendum result which did that.

Tripe.
Even if the referendum had come up with a Remain win, the clamour would have continued until another referendum was agreed. And again. And again. And again.
And all because Cameron was running scared of UKIP.

 

[Dave1987]

It wasn't the Conservative party who put the country on the Brexit path. They offered the country the chance to vote and a decision was made - given the way the result went I don't think anyone can fairly criticise the Conservative party for correctly judging and responding to the mood of the country. Indeed, some big-hitters within the Conservative party were rather strongly in favour of remain, not least the then Prime Minister and Chancellor.

I'm proud that Britain had the confidence to hold a referendum and deliver a result, and is acting upon that result. It's called democracy, and it's one of many good things where Britain has set an example to the rest of the world.

It will be interesting to see what verdict the country delivers on 8th June, and I for one will be particularly interested to see what happens in Scotland. Sturgeon's face has been like thunder ever since the election was called, one possible path is the SNP start to be regarded as having "peaked".

Well I truly hope you are happy with the devastating effect it is going to have on the economy. Why do you think May won't commit to not raising taxes? Because she knows she will need to raise them post Brexit. Literally thousands of jobs are going to be lost.

 

[bramling]

Tripe.
Even if the referendum had come up with a Remain win, the clamour would have continued until another referendum was agreed. And again. And again. And again.
And all because Cameron was running scared of UKIP.

And why might Cameron have been scared of UKIP? Because people were voting for them. So it was, quite reasonably, a political party being responsive to public opinion. Isn't this how things are supposed to work?

I totally don't buy that it was to settle internal party issues either. These internal issues had been present for many years, yet a referendum had never seriously appeared on the table.

Political parties form when enough people feel strongly about a set of values or issues. With the current state of Labour, a section of the stage is currently unoccupied, and if the current situation persists then it's quite possible we may see a new party form in the medium term.

 

[bramling]

Well I truly hope you are happy with the devastating effect it is going to have on the economy. Why do you think May won't commit to not raising taxes? Because she knows she will need to raise them post Brexit. Literally thousands of jobs are going to be lost.

Effect it *may* have on the economy. My view is that remaining in the EU was not a consequence-free choice either. For what it's worth I factored in potential economic impacts in my vote.

Where the remain side may struggle *if* there is a negative economic impact, is that I suspect many people will simply lay the blame on the EU rather than anywhere else. I have a strong feeling people will see it as the EU who have steadily moved the goalposts since we originally joined, thus leaving us in the position where remain was an unattractive, even unworkable, option.

 

[Geezertronic]

So they gave us the referendum, but it wasn't them that 'put us on the Brexit path'?
No referendum = no Brexit.

Cameron called the bluff of the UK Population and was surprised by the result. Hence he hot-footed it out of Number 10 very sharpish

 

[meridian2]

The problem is not with a European union, it's with the European Union. It's incapable of being reformed in it's current form. Listen to this sequence from former EU insider Yanis Varoufakis from 44.45 to understand what the EU has become:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MORRo-B1xCY

 

[bramling]

No. Cameron had got the reforms he thought were a good idea and the referendum was based on staying in the EU on the new terms or leaving. Multiple options would have been something like:
- Remain
- Let's have 5 years of the new terms and review again
- Leave EU but remain in single market
- Leave EU and also leave single market if neccessary

It couldn't be done like that as that would rather bias the result in favour of remain.

What *could* have been done is one simple question - do you wish to leave or remain - followed by a supplementary section, if you voted leave do you wish to remain in the single market or not. I suspect the general consensus would have been something along the lines of "On balance I'd rather remain in the single market, but not if it forces us to accept certain conditions in particular freedom of movement".

 

[EM2]

And why might Cameron have been scared of UKIP? Because people were voting for them. So it was, quite reasonably, a political party being responsive to public opinion. Isn't this how things are supposed to work?

A party that had a grand total of one MP? So why wasn't he pandering to the Greens that had one MP? Or the SNP with fifty-six?

 

[bramling]

A party that had a grand total of one MP? So why wasn't he pandering to the Greens that had one MP? Or the SNP with fifty-six?

What has total of MPs got to do with it? Vote share can have a big impact too, and UKIP were achieving quite significant vote shares at the time, and quite possibly Cameron had access to polling data suggesting this trend would continue?

 

[najaB]

For all we know, part of the reason for the (relatively unexpected) Conservative majority at the 2015 election may well have been voters were attracted to the idea of an in/out EU referendum.

It was largely due to Labour projecting an image of incompetence. Though there are some disturbing parallels between the 2015 UK general election and the 2016 American presidential election: unexpectedly large win for the conservative party, in no small part due to a pervasive social media campaign which cast doubts on the electability of the progressive/liberal candidate.

 

[northwichcat]

It couldn't be done like that as that would rather bias the result in favour of remain.

Rubbish. People who voted Remain may well have voted 'Leave but remain in the single market' had that option been available.

 

[EM2]

What has total of MPs got to do with it? Vote share can have a big impact too, and UKIP were achieving quite significant vote shares at the time, and quite possibly Cameron had access to polling data suggesting this trend would continue?

Because under FPTP, vote share counts for nothing.

 

[bramling]

Rubbish. People who voted Remain may well have voted 'Leave but remain in the single market' had that option been available.

I meant that the vote would be split potentially four ways. Some people might have been content with more than one of the leave options.

 

[northwichcat]

It was largely due to Labour projecting an image of incompetence. Though there are some disturbing parallels between the 2015 UK general election and the 2016 American presidential election: unexpectedly large win for the conservative party, in no small part due to a pervasive social media campaign which cast doubts on the electability of the progressive/liberal candidate.

Labour got 9,552,436 votes when they won in 2005 and 9,347,304 when they came second in 2015. If so many Scots hadn't switched to the SNP Labour would have got more votes than they got in 2005 and still come behind the Tories.

 

[bramling]

Because under FPTP, vote share counts for nothing.

Yes it does. If we have a hypothetical two-way election where party A would get 60% of the vote and party B would get 40% of the vote, party A wins. If party C comes along and takes 30% of the vote from party A, the result is now party A gets 30%, party B gets 40% and party C gets 30%, now party B has won.

I'm not suggesting the above hypothetical example is in way indicative of what effect UKIP may have had, but it illustrates that vote share is important to political parties and in determining results. No political party wants to see their vote share decline.

 

[northwichcat]

I meant that the vote would be split potentially four ways. Some people might have been content with more than one of the leave options.

That's why you look at second and third votes with that style of voting, so if round 1 was

- Remain 21%
- Let's have 5 years of the new terms and review again 32%
- Leave EU but remain in single market 28%
- Leave EU and also leave single market if neccessary 19%

You'd then review second choice votes and if necessary third choice votes, rather than declaring a winner on first choice votes.

 

[EM2]

Yes it does. If we have a hypothetical two-way election where party A would get 60% of the vote and party B would get 40% of the vote, party A wins. If party C comes along and takes 30% of the vote from party A, the result is now party A gets 30%, party B gets 40% and party C gets 30%, now party B has won.

How many MPs has party B returned?
UKIP got a 12% vote share in 2015, and returned one MP. SNP got a 5% vote share and returned fifty-six MPs.
Vote share counts for nothing.

 

[fowler9]

You can't make any changes to the EU once you are out of it. If we are so bloody powerful that people think they are going to bend to our wishes when we are out of it then why not stay in and do the same. I'm sorry but whilst the EU may have been on a hiding to nothing you have to be a bloody idiot to think you'll have more control by leaving.

 

[Barn]

No. Cameron had got the reforms he thought were a good idea and the referendum was based on staying in the EU on the new terms or leaving. Multiple options would have been something like:
- Remain
- Let's have 5 years of the new terms and review again
- Leave EU but remain in single market
- Leave EU and also leave single market if neccessary

You haven't taken my example much further.

"Remain in single market" on what terms? Which court adjudicates disputes? What input do we have on standards?

When is it "necessary" to leave the single market under the fourth option?

These aren't really matters which can easily be put to a referendum.

 

[bramling]

How many MPs has party B returned?
UKIP got a 12% vote share in 2015, and returned one MP. SNP got a 5% vote share and returned fifty-six MPs.
Vote share counts for nothing.

My example was in a single constituency. Obviously things will vary from constituency to constituency, but a few constituency results can hold the balance of power.

Regarding 2015:

Firstly, it's easy to be wise after the event. When preparing his 2015 manifesto, Cameron didn't have the luxury of knowing how things were going to turn out.

Secondly, we can't say how much impact his referendum pledge might have had, as we don't know what the result would have been had the pledge not been there. For all we know it might have drawn a fair few voters, not just from UKIP but potentially also from Labour, and been enough to tip the balance of seats in favour of the Conservative majority.

No sensible politician will ever work on the basis of vote share doesn't matter. We'll see next month what happens to Corbyn's share of the vote, and how that translates into MPs.

 

[EM2]

No sensible politician will ever work on the basis of vote share doesn't matter. We'll see next month what happens to Corbyn's share of the vote, and how that translates.

Labour's vote share could go up, but they could still lose seats. It could go down, and they could gain seats.
In the final reckoning, nothing matters apart from the number of MPs.