EU-BREXIT - Page 308 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
By B0ycey
#15054090
Istanbuller wrote:He wouldn't have a majority like this otherwise. It is not just he campaigned to Labour voters who choose to leave the EU. He promised to increase government spending. Corbyn personally lost the election but there wasn't really a difference between him and Boris Johnson.


Johnson only increased the Tory vote share by 1%. That is it. In fact I believe his huge majority came from one reason and one reason alone. When The Brexit party decided to give the Tories a free pass for all their current seats the election was won unless Labour and the Lib Dems did likewise in all seats throughout the UK (except Scotland). They didn't and instead attacked each other worse than they did against Johnson. After all look at the Labour heartlands seats they lost. Labour would have won if they had the Lib Dem votes to their total.

I believe that there will be a moment British state will give up tolerating separatists. SNP will be crushed like what Spain did to Catalans.


Scotland will become independent and the SNP will only grow stronger. But it won't be in this generation as the split is 50-50 and Johnson will ignore Sturgeons request and Sturgeon doesn't have any other option but moan about it - unless she plans on arming her party. Although as leaving the EU is a certainty now I do think Scotland have a moral right to another referendum as Westminster is acting against their best interest. Although winning that referendum would not be good for them with a 7% deficit.
By Rugoz
#15054137
B0ycey wrote:Scrap Trident and suddenly his project becomes very affordable and would be loved by all.


Why would you take away people's nukes? That's just cruel. No wonder the left loses elections.
By B0ycey
#15054141
Rugoz wrote:Why would you take away people's nukes? That's just cruel. No wonder the left loses elections.


Corbyn supported keeping Trident FYI. It is me who thinks it's a waste of time whilst you are in Nato. Isn't the Americans arsenal enough of a deterrent?
User avatar
By Zionist Nationalist
#15054143
B0ycey wrote:Corbyn supported keeping Trident FYI. It is me who thinks it's a waste of time whilst you are in Nato. Isn't the Americans arsenal enough of a deterrent?


NATO wont exist forever

and you cant have a guarantee that the US will protect you in the future
By B0ycey
#15054146
Zionist Nationalist wrote:NATO wont exist forever

and you cant have a guarantee that the US will protect you in the future


...and the renewed Trident won't last forever either. And unless you truly think the UK and US relationship is going to turn nuclear, in which case 4 subs won't do much FYI, I see absolutely no benefit in Trident at all.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15054158
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:No, we can ignore your hypothetical result precisely because of the reasons given by Rugoz.

Also, with FPTP the smaller parties are not necessarily insignificant as the 2 main parties' policies will be influenced by them. See UKIP/Brexit party for a recent quite dramatic example.


I agree with your position, wherever the opportunity presents itself, the people always prefer a clear majority, as opposed to a hung, or fragmented parliament, the situation you mention with Brexit.

In May 2011, that general election also included a referendum on the question of the Alternative Voting system, it was rejected by a 2;1 ratio.

With PR, it again presents itself as being a fairer system, but again, it might produce a more evenly distributed representation of the people's will democratically, but that doesn't in itself make for strong government.

If we look at an analogy, however imperfect, it might be the E.U, arguably, as it has grown in size, so too has the number of representatives, that makes the ability to reach a consensus that reflects the popular will, much more difficult, as a result, it has become more remote, yet more encroaching on it's citizens lives through ever increasing bureaucracy.

More efficient government is achieved by concentrating power to a larger single party, than having the democratic power diluted amongst more political parties in any parliament, that is what makes FPTP more desirable, even if it imperfectly reflects minority views.
User avatar
By Ter
#15054185
B0ycey wrote: In fact I believe his huge majority came from one reason and one reason alone. When The Brexit party decided to give the Tories a free pass for all their current seats the election was won unless Labour and the Lib Dems did likewise in all seats throughout the UK (except Scotland). They didn't and instead attacked each other worse than they did against Johnson.


Yes, true, this was the most important factor for Boris's landslide victory.
I wonder how Nigel Farage will be compensated for his sacrifice. There was talk of making him a Lord lol but i think he is not much interested in that. They could make him Ambassador/High Commissioner somewhere important maybe. Washington ? lol.
User avatar
By Kaiserschmarrn
#15054197
Nonsense wrote:
I agree with your position, wherever the opportunity presents itself, the people always prefer a clear majority, as opposed to a hung, or fragmented parliament, the situation you mention with Brexit.

In May 2011, that general election also included a referendum on the question of the Alternative Voting system, it was rejected by a 2;1 ratio.

With PR, it again presents itself as being a fairer system, but again, it might produce a more evenly distributed representation of the people's will democratically, but that doesn't in itself make for strong government.

If we look at an analogy, however imperfect, it might be the E.U, arguably, as it has grown in size, so too has the number of representatives, that makes the ability to reach a consensus that reflects the popular will, much more difficult, as a result, it has become more remote, yet more encroaching on it's citizens lives through ever increasing bureaucracy.

More efficient government is achieved by concentrating power to a larger single party, than having the democratic power diluted amongst more political parties in any parliament, that is what makes FPTP more desirable, even if it imperfectly reflects minority views.

All good points. I don't have strong feelings when it comes to the voting system. As you say, there are some upsides to FPTP producing more often than not a clear majority. I've recently read that Britain has a comparatively good track record when it comes to governments keeping their manifesto promises and some of this can probably be attributed to the simple fact that they can do so as opposed to having to compromise with a coalition partner.

fokker wrote:How much influence does SNP hold in British parliament? Two party system is designed to "stomp" on minority voters to force them to fall in line and vote for major parties that will not represent them anyway.

The SNP is probably not the best example to make your point, as it benefits from FPTP in Scotland and sends its MPs to the House of Commons. With a 4% vote share they got 48 MPs. Compare to, for example, the LD which got 11 seats with a vote share of 12%.

The SNP, being on the Remain side, has greatly contributed to the recent dysfunction in the House of Commons by ironically opposing the implementation of the Brexit referendum result. Before that, they secured the independence referendum in Scotland and subsequent to that more devolved powers for the Scottish government.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15054203
The SNP, being on the Remain side, has greatly contributed to the recent dysfunction in the House of Commons by ironically opposing the implementation of the Brexit referendum result. Before that, they secured the independence referendum in Scotland and subsequent to that more devolved powers for the Scottish government.

That irony runs through the whole of British politics. Most of the supporters of Brexit are also strong supporters of the Union in the UK, and most supporters of Scottish independence from the UK are strong supporters of the European Union. Lol. What was it Immanuel Kant once said? "Out of the warped wood of human nature, nothing straight was ever made...." Hmm.... :eh:
By fokker
#15054207
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:The SNP is probably not the best example to make your point, as it benefits from FPTP in Scotland and sends its MPs to the House of Commons. With a 4% vote share they got 48 MPs. Compare to, for example, the LD which got 11 seats with a vote share of 12%.

The SNP, being on the Remain side, has greatly contributed to the recent dysfunction in the House of Commons by ironically opposing the implementation of the Brexit referendum result. Before that, they secured the independence referendum in Scotland and subsequent to that more devolved powers for the Scottish government.


I remain convinced SNP voters would disagree with your statement. SNP has zero influence on deciding Britain's policies. Your argument confirms what is wrong with the system - it is highly disproportionate. Libdem votes got lost due to conservatives winning in constituencies. This fact cannot be used to support your argument that SNP has sufficient or even more influence than it deserves (as it represents only 4%). Libdem 11.6% + SNP 3.9% makes 15.5% that would ideally result in 100 seats in 650 seat parliament. But in British system these parties (both Remain) got 59. In two party system minority parties are ignored and have zero influence as leading parties rarely need them to govern. You are attempting to defend something that is not defensible.

Dysfunction in the House of Commons was caused by prime ministers attempting to push through Brexit withdrawal agreements that had no support among political parties, without having majority himself, without any consultations with them, without any compromises. It's absurd to try to blame SNP.

You perhaps need to revisit 2016 referendum results and specifically the results in Scotland. SNP was consistent in its policies and supported Remain side. If I was SNP voter I would expect them to honor 2016 referendum results in Scotland and unlike you, to continue defend those results as they did and not betray Scottish voters. Voter betrayal is what ultimately undermines the democratic system.
User avatar
By Kaiserschmarrn
#15054209
fokker wrote:I remain convinced SNP voters would disagree with your statement. SNP has zero influence on deciding Britain's policies. Your argument confirms what is wrong with the system - it is highly disproportionate. Libdem votes got lost due to conservatives winning in constituencies. This fact cannot be used to support your argument that SNP has sufficient or even more influence than it deserves (as it represents only 4%). Libdem 11.6% + SNP 3.9% makes 15.5% that would ideally result in 100 seats in 650 seat parliament. But in British system these parties (both Remain) got 59. In two party system minority parties are ignored and have zero influence as leading parties rarely need them to govern. You are attempting to defend something that is not defensible.

The fact remains that the SNP has a disproportionate number of MPs and has managed to influence British politics. Maybe you could explain in which country with a proportional system similar nationalist/secessionist parties have more influence and what their achievements are compared to the SNP.

fokker wrote:Dysfunction in the House of Commons was caused by prime ministers attempting to push through Brexit withdrawal agreements that had no support among political parties, without having majority himself, without any consultations with them, without any compromises. It's absurd to try to blame SNP.

Remainers in parliament couldn't accept that they had lost the referendum and democracy depends on the losers accepting results. Since the SNP was part of the Brexit blocking alliance it has to take part of the blame. But I'm talking about influence here and there's no doubt that the SNP did influence what happened.

fokker wrote:You perhaps need to revisit 2016 referendum results and specifically the results in Scotland. SNP was consistent in its policies and supported Remain side. If I was SNP voter I would expect them to honor 2016 referendum results in Scotland and unlike you, to continue defend those results as they did and not betray Scottish voters. Voter betrayal is what ultimately undermines the democratic system.

The vote was about the UK's EU membership. Quite tiring that this basic fact still has to be spelled out to some.

--------------------------------------------

Potemkin wrote:That irony runs through the whole of British politics. Most of the supporters of Brexit are also strong supporters of the Union in the UK, and most supporters of Scottish independence from the UK are strong supporters of the European Union. Lol. What was it Immanuel Kant once said? "Out of the warped wood of human nature, nothing straight was ever made...." Hmm.... :eh:

But the greatest irony surely is that in the Brexit threat I'm being told that small parties have no influence in British politics.

Farage was working to bring about a referendum at a time when the Tories would not tolerate any euroskeptic frontbenchers. And here we are.
By Rich
#15054216
The truth is that Boris and the SNP are selling the same nationalist popularism. In fact its not really that different from the nationalist popularism sold by the Sinn Fein and the DUP. Only the Welsh nationalists have failed to break through. It was noticeable that even the Yorkshire Party managed to get more votes than the Anna Soubry's party.

This great victory owes as much to David Cameron and Teresa May as it does to Boris. Teresa May got the same percentage of the vote as Thatcher in her eighties landslides. It required the clever leadership of all three leaders to get where we are now. To turn the Tories "Europe problem", to turn the threat of UKIP, splitting the right wing vote and ending the Tories 180 years as the natural party of government, into a huge win. But this result should be seen as a massive victory for the establishment. For both its banker and Cultural Marxist wings. Now obviously the Cultural Marxists are not happy, but really if you look deeper this is actually more far more of a victory for Cultural Marxism than it is for Conservatives.

The Tory motto is "party before country." Its kind of fitting then that the guy who claim the victory's motto is "Boris before everything". David Cameron's decision to promise the referendum was a brilliant choice. Without it he wouldn't have got a majority in 2015 and without the majority, Ed Miliband wouldn't have reigned and Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't have become Labour leader. Tory members, got temporary Labour party membership in order to vote for Jeremy Corbyn, again following their motto of "party before country."

Labour are not a mirror image though. They do not put "party before ideology". It was in the interests of the Labour party electorally to see UKIP beat Conservative candidates. It was in the interests of the Labour party electorally to see UKIP establish itself as a credible electoral force in Westminster elections. But it was in the interests of Cultural Marxist ideology that no serious anti immigration party should emerge in Britain as it has on the continent. In the same way it is actually a victory for Cultural Marxism that no serious anti immigration party has emerged in the United States, instead we have the joke figure of Donald Trump.

When ever we have to endure all this drivel about the defeat of the establishment, remember Adolf Hitler. What ever his faults no one can ever accuse him of being a populist, narcissistic, joke figure like Boris or Trump.
By B0ycey
#15054220
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Massive lol at Rich saying May and Cameron are brilliant. They couldn't get out of a paper bag.

It turned out that this mess was actually sorted by tactician Farage. What of Johnson had the Brexit party stood in Tory seats? There was no such move from remain even if they had the numbers. And that was their downfall.
By Rugoz
#15054221
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:The fact remains that the SNP has a disproportionate number of MPs and has managed to influence British politics. Maybe you could explain in which country with a proportional system similar nationalist/secessionist parties have more influence and what their achievements are compared to the SNP.


That's a good thing how?

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:But the greatest irony surely is that in the Brexit threat I'm being told that small parties have no influence in British politics.

Farage was working to bring about a referendum at a time when the Tories would not tolerate any euroskeptic frontbenchers. And here we are.


Brexit is an exception though, because it's an issue that sustains an entire party.

In general FPTP becomes a clusterfuck once you have more than two relevant parties. An electoral system should be immune to strategic voting and the result should represent voter preferences.

It works with two parties vying for the median voter, otherwise it doesn't.
User avatar
By Kaiserschmarrn
#15054225
Rugoz wrote:That's a good thing how?

I'm not arguing that it's a good thing, but that the SNP is a bad example to make the point that smaller parties are irrelevant under an FPTP system.

Rugoz wrote:Brexit is an exception though, because it's an issue that sustains an entire party.

In general FPTP becomes a clusterfuck once you have more than two relevant parties. An electoral system should be immune to strategic voting and the result should represent voter preferences.

It works with two parties vying for the median voter, otherwise it doesn't.

As I said, I don't have strong feelings about this, although I doubt that British politics would be dramatically different without FPTP. Right from the start my main point was that FPTP doesn't necessarily make smaller parties or their policies irrelevant. Another example would be the Greens which have surged in the polls in some counties with proportional systems. They've never had much electoral success in the UK, yet both major parties have adopted the green policies that are now common across most developed countries.
By Rich
#15054231
It takes two to tango, and it takes two sides to maintain a two party system. In Britain the norm is sort of elected dictatorship, as long as the party in power remains united. its notable that both Thatcher and Blair were brought down by MPs in their own party not by the opposition. This is the deal. You risk the other side getting elected in return for a good chance of getting a monopoly on power yourself. And as most politicians and activists suffer from pathological optimism when it comes to their electoral own chances, this is a pretty irresistible deal.

The key thing in the party completion is that you mustn't allow your side to split. And I'm still yet to hear an explanation of how David Cameron was to get his overall majority in 2015, without promising the referendum. We're almost certainly leaving because of the First Past the Post system. Where far right parties have emerged like the France's Front National, or Pegeida, the parties have not been obsessive EU Leavers. However the damage has been done. PR in this election would not have stopped Brexit. In a way I've got nothing to complain about.

All I asked was that if people wanted to leave, they elect a Parliament that wanted to leave. That they have now done. Demanding that representatives implement a major, major policy that they don't believe in was stupid. As I have argued the whole referendum should have been treated with total and utter contempt. I called the Brexiteer fascists, because they were demanding that my representatives implement their policies. Elect your own representatives, was my retort. I've never in my life voted for a candidate that wanted to leave the EU.

But as a democrat I accept the result, nay I embrace the result, because if we are to rejoin it should only be on a democratic basis. In EU elections a British Infidel's vote should carry the same electoral weight as a Belgian Muslim. In the EU council a ministers decision making weight must be proportional to the number of citizens. We should have no more of letting Luxembourg and Irish parasites leach off us. Or indeed Scottish parasites if they end up outside the UK.
Last edited by Rich on 15 Dec 2019 14:51, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15054232
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I'm not arguing that it's a good thing, but that the SNP is a bad example to make the point that smaller parties are irrelevant under an FPTP system.

Proportional representation has the effect of taming the smaller parties. They are drawn into government and in doing so they must moderate their policies. Under FPTP, these smaller parties can remain as loose cannons, and can potentially blow everything up. Which is what UKIP managed to do, and what the SNP may still do. Lol.
By B0ycey
#15054237
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:As I said, I don't have strong feelings about this, although I doubt that British politics would be dramatically different without FPTP.


Of course it would be drastically different. For a start the Tories wouldn't be in power today. Not to mention we have a two party system with clearly an appetite for new parties that cannot gain the rightful power they deserve.

Success isn't down to votes in FPTP. If it were Johnson would be lampooned as May was as their vote share mirror each other. It is down to how well you play in marginal constituencies or how strategic you are in forming alliances.

Right from the start my main point was that FPTP doesn't necessarily make smaller parties or their policies irrelevant. L


There is a difference between the SNP and the Brexit party when compared to the Greens. The SNP and The Brexit Party are nationalist parties, which is becoming popular in due to Western popularism fever. They only draw votes from a democratic that support their goals. To counter that movement main parties will have to address their issues or lose votes where their agenda is paramount. But they will only do the minimum and ultimately ingore their voices too if there isn't a political reason to listen to it. Plus those two parties never stood a chance of winning Westminster and they never even tried. Now compare that to the Lib Dems and the Green who continue to gain vote share, as they are trying to gain a majority as their agenda is national throughout the UK. They will find that almost impossible in FPTP compared to ER hence the reason the Greens are a force in Europe and not in the UK.
By Rugoz
#15054257
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I'm not arguing that it's a good thing, but that the SNP is a bad example to make the point that smaller parties are irrelevant under an FPTP system.


SNP isn't a small party, it's the dominant party within its territory. Obviously regionally dominant parties do well under FPTP.

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:As I said, I don't have strong feelings about this, although I doubt that British politics would be dramatically different without FPTP. Right from the start my main point was that FPTP doesn't necessarily make smaller parties or their policies irrelevant. Another example would be the Greens which have surged in the polls in some counties with proportional systems. They've never had much electoral success in the UK, yet both major parties have adopted the green policies that are now common across most developed countries.


It's unlikely the two major parties have adopted green policies because of the existence of the Green party, more likely because the mainstream has become greener.

With FPTP it's kind of irrational for voters to vote for small parties. Unless they really don't care for anything else or are simply protesting.
  • 1
  • 306
  • 307
  • 308
  • 309
  • 310
  • 326

And when Tony Blair won his landslide election vi[…]

She died at a VERY convenient time for Trump, just[…]

What is Fascism

The Holocaust museum in Washington has a sign war[…]

Good to see that Russia is still producing fine, u[…]