Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

gfplux

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

Under PR, the 2010 government would have been a conservative/UKIP coalition, and we would have left the EU with a clean Brexit by now.

Did you vote in the referendum in 2011 about PR? Only 4 out of 10 people did so.
It was heavily rejected 68% to 32%

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011

Enterprise_1701C

gfplux wrote: »

Did you vote in the referendum in 2011 about PR? Only 4 out of 10 people did so.
It was heavily rejected 68% to 32%

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011

I voted - against.

I also seem to recall that the lib dems reneged on their promise to back the boundary changes that they said they would back if we had a referendum on PR.

The only reason they wanted PR was because it is the only way they would get close to government on a regular basis. Looking at the way it affects elections on the continent it would appear to be a bad idea.

buglawton

Looking at the way that first-past-the-post affects elections in the UK, it would appear to be a bad idea.

Herzlos

buglawton wrote: »

Looking at the way that first-past-the-post affects elections in the UK, it would appear to be a bad idea.

It completely defeats the point in voting for smaller parties and results in a lot of strategic voting. You're often either voting for the not-tory or not-labour. That's not a good way to find out what the electorate want.

Having a few UKIP MPs isn't a big deal. We have some anyway but they are rolled into the Tories.

Enterprise_1701C

Herzlos wrote: »

It completely defeats the point in voting for smaller parties and results in a lot of strategic voting. You're often either voting for the not-tory or not-labour. That's not a good way to find out what the electorate want.

Having a few UKIP MPs isn't a big deal. We have some anyway but they are rolled into the Tories.

But the whole idea is to vote for the MP you want to represent you in your locality.

gfplux

As we count down to talks over the Transition period deal this is a HEAVILY biased piece from Infacts.
https://infacts.org/next-tricky-talks-transition/

Infacts are well know for being anti Brexit but it is an interesting read for both sides. I have not managed to find anything from the Brexit side suggesting what Britain expects to achieve in the talks. However you can perhaps use the Infacts article and reverse everything they say.

System

Thrugelmir wrote: »

She always has been personally involved. As the PM Mrs May meets the other heads of state on a frequent basis. :cool:

Must be a quiet newsweek.

Oh come on. You don't think moving Robbins was indicative of Mrs May becoming MORE directly involved in negotiations and taking MORE control.

System

gfplux wrote: »

Infacts are well know for being anti Brexit but it is an interesting read for both sides. I have not managed to find anything from the Brexit side suggesting what Britain expects to achieve in the talks. However you can perhaps use the Infacts article and reverse everything they say.

A talking head on Bloomberg a couple of days ago reckoned that sterling was being priced with the expectation that behind the scenes negotiations on the transition were already well advanced.

I can't find any evidence that's the case although I'm sure the more formal negotiating structure headed by Davis is just a front and that May/ Robbins are involved outside of that structure.

Some of the more strident brexiteers won't be very happy but personally I expect the transitional arrangements to look exactly the same as full EU membership. That's the whole point of them - to provide a period of known rules to allow a orderly transition to the new rules.

tracey3596

ilovehouses wrote: »

Oh come on. You don't think moving Robbins was indicative of Mrs May becoming MORE directly involved in negotiations and taking MORE control.

Oh come on. You're doing no more than trying to perpetuate a myth. It's time you stopped paying so much attention to the pro-EU propaganda so prevalent in mainstream UK media.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-fantasises-about-seeing-david-davis-sidelined-in-brexit-talks-v2lrqw8rn

Since you probably won't have access to The Times, here's a version from the same group of publications.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5230303/eu-bosses-fantasise-about-seeing-david-davis-sidelined-after-brussels-chief-negotiator-holds-talks-with-senior-uk-official-and-not-brexit-secretary/

You go on about this as if there's been no similar happenings on the EU side when we've all seen Juncker, Tusk, Barnier, Verhofstadt, and others competing for more control. Yet there's no carp about sidelining or "increased involvement" when for example Juncker went running to Merkel after he had met May in Downing Street or when Macron met Barnier in July to add his twopenceworth.

It looks like you're beyond clutching for straws, rather you're making last desperate dives.

Herzlos

So Farage is claiming that it's all about Immigration, despite protests from most internet Brexiteers that it's about trade and control. He's also saying that Barnier admitted that migration hasn't even been discussed yet. Should it have been? Have team Brexit got a stance on migration yet? Any impact reviews?

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

But the whole idea is to vote for the MP you want to represent you in your locality.

Indeed it is, but with essentially a 2 party state that's not how it actually works.
I suspect there are a lot more people who'll vote for Tory to keep a Labour MP out (holding their nose or otherwise) and visa versa than either party would like to admit. There was a campaign up here by the Tories "Vote Labour, get SNP", for instance. Most pro-Tory propoganda/comments I've seen tend to be anti-Labour instead "just think how bad Labour would have done it", "anything but Corbyn" and so on.