EPTSNP 3
Brexit 1
Lib dem 1
Cons 1
Labour will finish fifth with just 9.3% of the votes - down from 26% in 2014.
![[image loading]](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/7329/production/_107118492_results_graphic_16x9_final.jpg)
UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 529
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4381 Posts
SNP 3 Brexit 1 Lib dem 1 Cons 1 Labour will finish fifth with just 9.3% of the votes - down from 26% in 2014. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
|
Kerotan
England2109 Posts
The Union is fucked. Scotland is the abused party in a devolution relationship. Yes, Westminster could drag Scotland out of the EU and yes, Westminster could negate the independence vote that follows, but then any party that has ever touched the idea of Brexit will have to wait 20 years if not longer to claim a seat. Any party running in Scotland would have to run on a further devolution/Independence, because the way Scotland has been treated is an absolute joke. Furthermore, its a hard sell to say "Brexit, will of the people" "IndyRef, not the will of the people" And they will point to IndyRef 1, but things have changed, as they are wont to do. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
(here is to be considered that conservatives make up 9.1% out of the 23.2%) Great success, clearly the majority of the UK wants no deal Brexit. Queue mental gymnasts pointing out how this is "the landslide win" they projected. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4381 Posts
Hypothetical, if the Lib Dems actually get a second referendum and leave wins again then what do the Lib Dems do? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On May 27 2019 10:40 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: As opposed to the mental gymnasts adding up votes for several parties and claiming Brexit didn't win. Hypothetical, if the Lib Dems actually get a second referendum and leave wins again then what do the Lib Dems do? Still presumably have their pro Europe stance I imagine. Leave probably won’t win again, if the wind is still blowing leave and the Brexit party’s ascent is proof of that Farage should have been calling for a second referendum himself. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On May 27 2019 10:40 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: As opposed to the mental gymnasts adding up votes for several parties and claiming Brexit didn't win. Hypothetical, if the Lib Dems actually get a second referendum and leave wins again then what do the Lib Dems do? I forgot. There's the one dense guy that doesn't understand how a parliament works. Here's a hint. There's seats. It doesn't matter who "the biggest party" is, if the opposition is bigger. See, that's called "democracy". I know, a hard concept to grasp for some, but believe me, it's actually what it is. In fact, that was made very clear in the last snap election and the result thereafter. I know, easy to forget. Lets briefly point out that your side made this election about Brexit. The majority of people did not vote for the Party that's literally called Brexit Party. It is the biggest single party, but that does mean jack shit if the opposition is bigger. Again. If you put all these people who got elected today into a room, and they have a vote on Brexit, Brexit will lose. Because, again, hard to understand but bare with me, that's how democracy works. More people for one cause = winning side. 40>35. To argue that the big picture in a parliamentary election it doesn't matter is just flatout idiotic. That's why even though Tories won the snap election by numbers, it was considered a disaster/mistake. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4381 Posts
On May 27 2019 10:54 Wombat_NI wrote: Still presumably have their pro Europe stance I imagine. Leave probably won’t win again, if the wind is still blowing leave and the Brexit party’s ascent is proof of that Farage should have been calling for a second referendum himself. Are we at least in agreeance that a vote for the brexit party is a harder signal than a vote for the greens is to remain? 25% of Greens voted leave in 2016. 30% of LibDems voted leave in 2016. ![[image loading]](http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LR-by-party.jpg) The current situation works well for Farage, no need for him to call for a second referendum.He can continue to go on about democracy being ignored by out of touch westminster politicians. If Labour starts calling for 2nd referendum they're going to lose seats outside of London.Many will go to Lib Dem regardless.Can't see a majority government forming at next election right now. It is the biggest single party, but that does mean jack shit if the opposition is bigger. Again. If you put all these people who got elected today into a room, and they have a vote on Brexit, Brexit will lose. Because, again, hard to understand but bare with me, that's how democracy works. More people for one cause = winning side. 40>35. Whats hard to understand about 25% of Greens voted leave in 2016. 30% of LibDems voted leave in 2016 vs 4% of UKIP voting remain. | ||
|
Kerotan
England2109 Posts
On May 27 2019 11:01 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Are we at least in agreeance that a vote for the brexit party is a harder signal than a vote for the greens is to leave? 25% of Greens voted leave in 2016. 30% of LibDems voted leave in 2016. The current situation works well for Farage, no need for him to call for a second referendum.He can continue to go on about democracy being ignored by out of touch westminster politicians. If Labour starts calling for 2nd referendum they're going to lose seats outside of London.Many will go to Lib Dem regardless.Can't see a majority government forming at next election right now. Whats hard to understand about 25% of Greens voted leave in 2016. 30% of LibDems voted leave in 2016 vs 4% of UKIP voting remain. I do like the idea of that poll graph, but 2016 was 3 years ago, so new polls are needed. Normally I woouldn't say so, but UK politics has been such a shit show for the past 3 years so it would be not super surprising if attitudes changed. Furthermore, Opinion polling, even judged against the opinion polling prior to EU ref, is markedly up from where it was. -also farage can call for a second referendum all he wants, but he still doesn't, rather ironically for a party all about parliamentary sovereignty have a single MP. - Oh also those ashcroft polls were conducted online so... | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Whats hard to understand about 25% of Greens voted leave in 2016. 30% of LibDems voted leave in 2016 vs 4% of UKIP voting remain. Ahm.. Okay...? More Conservatives voted remain than Labours leave, so? So? Let me briefly remind you. You are making this a "Brexit decision poll" (and so does Farage). It doesn't matter what people voted for in 2015 (btw it wouldn't matter in any case). The people here had a choice between Brexit parties and non Brexit parties. Why would a Brexiter vote "Green" when chances are that it doesn't matter anyway (btw, green and lib dems combined didn't reach 4m votes in 2015, so even if you take that as a fact, it wouldn't change anything unless you're suggesting that these percentages are the exact same now with brexiters somehow changing from tories to Lib Dems?!)? A Brexiter will have voted accordingly. Zaros is a good example. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On May 27 2019 11:01 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Are we at least in agreeance that a vote for the brexit party is a harder signal than a vote for the greens is to remain? 25% of Greens voted leave in 2016. 30% of LibDems voted leave in 2016. The current situation works well for Farage, no need for him to call for a second referendum.He can continue to go on about democracy being ignored by out of touch westminster politicians. If Labour starts calling for 2nd referendum they're going to lose seats outside of London.Many will go to Lib Dem regardless.Can't see a majority government forming at next election right now. Whats hard to understand about 25% of Greens voted leave in 2016. 30% of LibDems voted leave in 2016 vs 4% of UKIP voting remain. I mean marginally yes, I go to Green Party fundraisers and social events over here, I’ve yet to meet one who isn’t pro-EU but they undoubtedly do exist. It’s a solid election for parties outside of the decision making table, or who lack splits on the European issue and a terrible election for anyone else. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4381 Posts
On May 27 2019 11:21 m4ini wrote: it wouldn't change anything unless you're suggesting that these percentages are the exact same now with brexiters somehow changing from tories to Lib Dems?!)? No I'm not claiming that.I am claiming that the percentage of people in Lib Dems and Greens who support leave is higher than the percentage of people voting Brexit Party supporting remain.Lib Dem wouldn't be 30% leave now but it wouldn't surprise me to see 10-15% leave amongst Lib Dem/Green.Brexit remain would be around the same as for UKIP, 3-4%. We're talking about a one policy party - Brexit Party - vs parties that have more than one policy. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On May 27 2019 11:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: No I'm not claiming that.I am claiming that the percentage of people in Lib Dems and Greens who support leave is higher than the percentage of people voting Brexit Party supporting remain.Lib Dem wouldn't be 30% leave now but it wouldn't surprise me to see 10-15% leave amongst Lib Dem/Green.Brexit remain would be around the same as for UKIP, 3-4%. We're talking about a one policy party - Brexit Party - vs parties that have more than one policy. But how is that an argument, do we just use some wishful thinking to determine if you're right (or, if Brexit won) or not? You do understand that what we have here is you claiming something impossible to prove rather than going by actual numbers? Hell. I would even concede to some extend if this was a general election. It wasn't. It was an election that technically matters jack shit for the UK. It's as likely (if not more) that those green Brexiters voted Brexit Party instead of green, because in the end it obviously doesn't matter. This election was around a single issue. Farage literally spelled it out. You don't get to go back now and argue that people voted on other things to try and make it sound as if Brexit gained the majority "if you take some percentages here and there and give it to the Brexit Party". If anything, the only thing that this really proves is that everyone arguing against a general election is a lying hypocrite. edit: your point gets further demolished purely by the Tory/Labour result btw. People clearly didn't give a shit about "other" policies, did they (as a sidenote, i'm happy that both got slugged, though i would've liked to see Labour being hit even harder). edit2: it's not even that i'm entirely opposed to that argument, it's just something that doesn't work in this case. If you claim victory, it has to be on actual numbers, not some arbitrary number that we have to pull out of our asses. Lets be real. A disenfranchised Tory Brexiter will not have voted for Lib Dem regardless of policies, especially since Lib Dem made very clear that they're pro-remain. There's zero argument there. You could say that Tories went over for policies, okay. That means that Brexit isn't as important as decent politics (if they are, i'll be honest i don't even know what LD is running on). | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4381 Posts
On May 27 2019 11:49 m4ini wrote: But how is that an argument, do we just use some wishful thinking to determine if you're right (or, if Brexit won) or not? You do understand that what we have here is you claiming something impossible to prove rather than going by actual numbers? If the EU elections were only about a single issue, Brexit, then why didn't more Green voters vote Lib Dem. I'm the only one with actual numbers here, with the 2016 by party leave/remain voting intention although i agree that some newer numbers would be better. The wishful thinking is adding up numbers of several parties and claiming that you somehow 'won'.It's impossible to prove that 100% of Green voters would vote remain in a referendum so what is the point of claiming that? 29 seats, i'm happy with that. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On May 27 2019 11:59 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: If the EU elections were only about a single issue, Brexit, then why didn't more Green voters vote Lib Dem. I'm the only one with actual numbers here, with the 2016 by party leave/remain voting intention although i agree that some newer numbers would be better. The wishful thinking is adding up numbers of several parties and claiming that you somehow 'won'.It's impossible to prove that 100% of Green voters would vote remain in a referendum so what is the point of claiming that? 29 seats, i'm happy with that. First of all, i'm pretty sure that you know there are newer numbers out there (from the same poller even), you just "forgot" to point them out. They already swayed massively in two years, let alone 4. You have jack shit for numbers. What you do have is the argument that "not everybody is a remainer who voted green". That's factual. You have zero idea what that number is. It's not my fault that you're too dense to understand how a parliamentary democracy works. Yes, that's exactly what you do. If you don't have a majority in parliament, you don't win. That's how it works. You don't have a majority in parliament. That's why Tories lost in the last GE even though they got 42% of the votes. How desperate are you, to just ignore the fact that you indeed need to add up everything to get the picture? It's so simple it hurts. If one number is bigger than the other, you lose. If your opposition is stronger in numbers, you lose. If you have to "polish" your number by creating a coalition (remember DUP?), that's okay. If that number then is still smaller than the opposition, again, you lose. And i don't need to prove what a green voter voted 5 years ago, since your side made this "an opinion poll". It doesn't matter what they voted 5 years ago. It matters if someone casted a vote for Brexit today, or if he didn't. I know you're desperate to cling to prettier numbers, but these are indeed facts. edit: As for why greens wouldn't vote LibDem, why would they? Green is pro EU. They literally ran/campaigned on that, unambiguously. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4381 Posts
On May 24 2019 07:48 Zaros wrote: Dan Hannan thinks Cons will get 0 MEPs Hannan actually retained his seat. Wins all round tonight. As for why greens wouldn't vote LibDem, why would they? Green is pro EU. They literally ran/campaigned on that, unambiguously. To avoid vote splitting. You realise if all Change UK voters had voted Lib Dem then Lib Dems would have won more seats.If all greens voters had voted Lib Dem as well they'd have won more again.But of course not all green voters would have voted Lib Dem.So we're going around in circles here.I'm sure we can all agree that Change UK was a total waste of time though. And I'm not 'desperate'. The news everywhere is how well the Brexit Party has done, gaining 5 seats from the UKIP result in 2014. It's another great victory for Farage and democracy. | ||
KwarK
United States43540 Posts
On May 27 2019 12:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Hannan actually retained his seat. Wins all round tonight. To avoid vote splitting. You realise if all Change UK voters had voted Lib Dem then Lib Dems would have won more seats.If all greens voters had voted Lib Dem as well they'd have won more again.But of course not all green voters would have voted Lib Dem.So we're going around in circles here.I'm sure we can all agree that Change UK was a total waste of time though. EU elections use the regional list PR system, not FPTP. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4381 Posts
On May 27 2019 13:03 KwarK wrote: EU elections use the regional list PR system, not FPTP. North-East England results. Change UK cost Lib Dems a seat there. Brexit 38.7 Labour 19.4 Lib Dem 16.8 Change UK 4 | ||
|
KwarK
United States43540 Posts
On May 27 2019 13:13 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: North-East England results. Change UK cost Lib Dems a seat there. Brexit 38.7 Labour 19.4 Lib Dem 16.8 Change UK 4 Shoulda woulda coulda. When there are fewer seats than voters you'll always have rounding issues where if some people had voted differently it would have changed it. But the issue is far smaller than in FPTP. Tactical voting in PR systems isn't really a thing. I suspect you didn't know the EU election wasn't FPTP. | ||
| ||
