Voting to remain

[TheArtfulDogger]

The one thing that came out of last night that should make everyone want to vote out is our we come out of Europe and drag Scotland screaming and kicking with us then the SNP will be after another Scottish referendum in 2 years (despite the majority saying they wanted to be part of the U.K.)

Getting rid of the whinging Scott's should be enough to sway anyone's vote imho

[Loz]

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

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

> Getting rid of the whinging Scott's should be

> enough to sway anyone's vote imho

As so very tempting as that may be, even that wouldn't be enough to vote Brexit!

Interestingly, the block grant to Scotland last year was ?26.985bn. So we could keep the EU, dump Scotland and be quids in!

(Yes, yes, I know that's not a net figure...)

[Blah Blah]

Dumping Scotland means we face a future of perpetual Tory rule. I think that should frighten people more than being in or out of the EU.

[Henry_17]

Scary, frightening, terrifying, upsetting.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> Dumping Scotland means we face a future of

> perpetual Tory rule. I think that should frighten

> people more than being in or out of the EU.

Doubtful. People's voting and party manifestos will always change to ensure that the government changes regularly.

Besides, the biggest threat now is a minority SNP pulling the strings gleefully of a Labour coalition government.

[Blah Blah]

I'd rather have a SNP Labour coalition than a Tory party that are making us all poorer and bashing the disabled at will. And I disagree on people's voting patterns. History does not support that view. The FPTP system would ensure the Tories stay in power for a very long time.

[DulwichFox]

Good point raised by Liam Fox on the Andrew Marr Show.

If the question on the 23rd June was 'Should we (the UK) Join the E.U' and the answer was no..

.. then we should vote to leave.

DulwichFox

[Michael Palaeologus]

Rubbish. The analysis of a simpleton.

Joining a group for the first time means that you have little initial influence, few long term allies and and no sustained economic engagement.

We have been part of the EU for decades and so would be walking away from the significant influence that we have had, letting down long term allies and leaving behind significant invesrment.

[Blah Blah]

Completely agree Michael.

[Seabag]

I quite liked this article

Set aside your predjustice of both David Mitchell/The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/29/eu-referendum-parliament-leaders-david-cameron-david-mitchell

In short, I'm not sure I'm qualified to make a decision on such a massive issue

[mikeb]

I like David Mitchell but he's wrong about this. Why should 650 MPs be any better able to make this decision than the public? I mean, have you ever met a 'normal' MP? They are mostly experts in climbing the greasy pole of politics (with a very small number of honourable exceptions on both sides of the House).

And @Michael, honestly whatever little influence we have had in the EU (including when it was much smaller) will rapidly decrease as it reorganises itself to preserve the Euro.

I feel no democratic affinity with the EU or EC or Donald Tusk or even worse Juncker. And even though I've voted in EU elections, I have no idea of any MEPs other than Farage or the political cycle of the European parliament (apart from its ridiculous decamping to Strasbourg every month).

Despite all this, I'm still not decided - and I recognise that this is a a really important and long-term decision. But I am still waiting for a _positive_ reason to vote to remain: a sort of "how I learned to stop worrying and love the EU".

Edited - PS Welcome back Huguenot

[Otta]

mikeb Wrote:

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

> Why should 650 MPs be any better able to make this

> decision than the public?

I think the key word there is "should". Our MPs SHOULD be in a better informed position, and do what is best for the country.

But I think the real point is that most of us don't really fully understand the inner workings of the EU, and they're not being explained to us. This thing will be won by the side that can scare the most people with myths and predictions based on "I reckon".

[Earl Aelfheah]

Cameron didn't agree to a referendum because he wanted the people to have their say. He made the decision from a place of political weakness. All of this was really about Cameron temporarily fending off attacks from within his own party and clinging on to power for a bit longer.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> And I disagree on people's voting patterns. History does not support that view.

Of course people's voting patterns change - that's why we have a government change every few elections. People will always tire of a government and want change. Considering also that we're in the middle of the biggest shift towards smaller parties in post-industrial history and the Labour party being virtually wiped out in Scotland by a newly-rampant SNP. I'd say history does indeed support that idea.

[Blah Blah]

This is correct. UKIP is the reason Cameron offered a referendum and given the narrowness of the majority, he was probably right to do it. But you then have to ask what else would they agree to, just to secure votes. That for me is everything that is wrong with government (pretty much all over the Western World). They've sold the idea of neoliberal consumerist individualism and now can only win elections if they give the people what they think they want, whether that want is actually good for the future of the country or not.

I have also argued all along that too many people don't know enough about the EU to make any kind of informed decision either way. So we have a decision that could adversely affect our future economy (again in either direction) being based on single issues that appeal to some gutteral response from a place of ignorance, and the politicians are happy to appeal to that, again on both sides.

Half the problem of course is that there will be no perfection whether we stay or leave. Both outcomes have serious pros and cons - hence my earlier point that yes or no ignores the complexity of the issue. Why aren't we being asked if we can just be part of the common market like Norway and Switzerland for example?

[Blah Blah]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Blah Blah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > And I disagree on people's voting patterns.

> History does not support that view.

>

> Of course people's voting patterns change - that's

> why we have a government change every few

> elections. People will always tire of a government

> and want change. Considering also that we're in

> the middle of the biggest shift towards smaller

> parties in post-industrial history and the Labour

> party being virtually wiped out in Scotland by a

> newly-rampant SNP. I'd say history does indeed

> support that idea.

I don't call bouncing between two parties a major shift in anything. Historically the electorate hasn't really shifted at all. A comparatively small number of swing voters have always decided elections, until that is, recently - and only then because of the major shift away from Labour in Scotland. That's my point. The party that holds the centre ground (whether they also stand on the right or left)usually wins.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> I don't call bouncing between two parties a major shift in anything. Historically the

> electorate hasn't really shifted at all.

Stats just don't back that:

- In 1951 Conservatives and Labour between them gained 96.8% of the vote.

- In 1979 it was 80.8%

- In 1997 it was 73.9%.

- In 2015 it had dropped to 67.3%.

> The party that holds the centre ground (whether they also stand on the right or left)usually wins.

So then a Tory party still wouldn't rule in perpetuity. Unless every other party (both in existence and any that might emerge) is monumentally stupid and stays further from the centre than the Tories.

[root]

Loz Wrote:

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

...

>

> So then a Tory party still wouldn't rule in

> perpetuity. Unless every other party (both in

> existence and any that might emerge) is

> monumentally stupid and stays further from the

> centre than the Tories.

Is that a challenge?

[Blah Blah]

If you look at the corresponding fugiures for turnout for those years Loz you will also see a high point of turnout in 1950 that drops steadily and plummets in 2015. So all that's really happened is a drop in people voting (except for a spike at the high point of Blair). As we all know, it's younger generations that increasingly are not voting and it was only a matter of time before that made for a significant drop - especially given the way that neo-liberal economics has basically trashed their futures. That's what's going on. And instead of the main parties fighting for that vote, you have them working to hang onto the grey vote instead, whilst changing absolutely nothing to help young people, who are facing increased burdens of debt just to get a higher education or housing etc.

Check out the first graph here for what I am pointing out on turnout.

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

[maxxi]

Even with the news that 'leave' has a slight lead in some polls I can't quite believe the powers-that-be* don't have something Lisbon-Treaty-ish up their sleeve in the event of that happening.

Maybe scrapping the EU and renaming it the European Democratic Family (thus making the referendum null) and promising a vote on the EDF within the next ten years etc etc...

*I think this should be read in a Somerset accent but don't know why.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> If you look at the corresponding fugiures for turnout for those years Loz you will also see a

> high point of turnout in 1950 that drops steadily and plummets in 2015. So all that's really

> happened is a drop in people voting (except for a spike at the high point of Blair).

I fully agree that there has ALSO been a drop in turnout, but that has been in conjunction with the change in voting habits I noted. You aren't really trying to say that the massive move away from the big two in those stats is due to a drop in turnout, are you? Because the maths for that sort of claim just doesn't work.

People are voting less AND, of those that are, are voting in increasing numbers for smaller parties. You've rather helped to prove my point.

[Blah Blah]

'People are voting in increasing numbers for smaller parties.'

But prior to 2010, that wasn't significantly the case, with the Libdems being the sole beneficiaries of swings away from Labour and the Tories. You are trying to argue that the shifts of the last six years somehow are part of a trend from the 1950's onwards. That just isn't the case. And under FPTP, the votes of smaller parties don't count for anything. It would also be naive to not link the shifts of the last six years to the crash of 2008. The rise of extremes on both the right and left always follow economic collapse - that is nothing new.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> 'People are voting in increasing numbers for

> smaller parties.'

>

> But prior to 2010, that wasn't significantly the case, with the Libdems being the sole

> beneficiaries of swings away from Labour and the Tories.

Doesn't matter where the votes went - it was a change in voting patterns.

> You are trying to argue that the shifts of the last six years somehow are part of a trend

> from the 1950's onwards. That just isn't the case.

Look at the stats. I say again - there has been a change in voting patterns from the 50's to today. I'm not saying there is a consistent change. There have been all sorts of changes. Which leads to...

> And under FPTP, the votes of smaller parties don't count for anything.

Of course they do - they count as not being votes for the two big parties, which they, in years gone by, would have been. If anything, FPTP makes these vote losses more critical, not less. Under AV, most of these votes would have ended up back with Labour. Under FPTP they are pure losses.

How can the SLDP breaking away from Labour not had an effect on Labour's chances? How can the SNP sweeping Scotland not effect Labour's chances? How can the Greens getting their vote share up not effect Labour's chances? How can UKIP's vote share going up not effect Labour in the north and Tories in the south?

UKIP's rise is a good case in point - a large movement of previously left-wing Labour votes going to a right-wing party.

> It would also be naive to not link the shifts of the last six years to the

> crash of 2008. The rise of extremes on both the right and left always follow

> economic collapse - that is nothing new.

Maybe, maybe not. But it is still a change in voting patterns.

History shows that voting patterns change - I think you've tacitly (and grudgingly) admitted that. And these changes will have an effect on who wins elections. How can they not? People react to the situation. They always will.

[Seabag]

And someone remind me of the anticipated percentage that will actually mark their ballot

35% (that's my wild guesstimate) or about that?

[Blah Blah]

My original point Loz is that it is parties that change to win the centre ground vote, not voters per se. That's where I disagree with you. And what has happened since 2008 is very different to what went before, because of the collapse of the neoliberal dream and the rise of extremems following the crash.

Yes Seabag - the last MEP elections had just a 36% turnout if I remember correctly. It will be interesting to see if the undecideds turnout, or not.