If Brexit is cancelled, how will you vote on the next GE?
Poll: If Brexit is cancelled, how will you vote on the next GE?
Total Members Polled: 978
Discussion
Kermit power said:
I think there is only one manifesto they could possibly come up with that might give them a chance...
1. We are in government to deliver Brexit.
2. As a single issue party only interested in delivering Brexit, we will preserve all other current government policies unchanged.
3. On the day the UK leaves the EU, we will call a General Election
I was thinking the other day this is what Mr Farage should do with the Brexit party with an amendment to part 3. (No reason why they shouldn't stand afterwards with different policies).1. We are in government to deliver Brexit.
2. As a single issue party only interested in delivering Brexit, we will preserve all other current government policies unchanged.
3. On the day the UK leaves the EU, we will call a General Election
No need to worry about the quality of the candidates, just kick out the anti-democrats and get people in who will vote to deliver the referendum result. Then back to normal.
I would put money on him winning a lot of seats if he did that.
Northbloke said:
I was thinking the other day this is what Mr Farage should do with the Brexit party with an amendment to part 3. (No reason why they shouldn't stand afterwards with different policies).
No need to worry about the quality of the candidates, just kick out the anti-democrats and get people in who will vote to deliver the referendum result. Then back to normal.
I would put money on him winning a lot of seats if he did that.
I think you're overestimating his "draw". Sure - we had a 67% turnout for the referendum (or whatever it was). So 17.4 million "leave" votes.No need to worry about the quality of the candidates, just kick out the anti-democrats and get people in who will vote to deliver the referendum result. Then back to normal.
I would put money on him winning a lot of seats if he did that.
Of these how many are actually such raving fanatic NP&E-style Brexiteers that give that much of a toss that they are going to vote for them instead of their usual (eg. in the north west) Labour incumbent? Few million?
At best they'll manage a few seats like they did at their best showing.
Dog Star said:
Northbloke said:
I was thinking the other day this is what Mr Farage should do with the Brexit party with an amendment to part 3. (No reason why they shouldn't stand afterwards with different policies).
No need to worry about the quality of the candidates, just kick out the anti-democrats and get people in who will vote to deliver the referendum result. Then back to normal.
I would put money on him winning a lot of seats if he did that.
I think you're overestimating his "draw". Sure - we had a 67% turnout for the referendum (or whatever it was). So 17.4 million "leave" votes.No need to worry about the quality of the candidates, just kick out the anti-democrats and get people in who will vote to deliver the referendum result. Then back to normal.
I would put money on him winning a lot of seats if he did that.
Of these how many are actually such raving fanatic NP&E-style Brexiteers that give that much of a toss that they are going to vote for them instead of their usual (eg. in the north west) Labour incumbent? Few million?
At best they'll manage a few seats like they did at their best showing.
Derek Smith said:
Given the turnout - 37% - there's little to extrapolate from this election.
It says nothing.
One might have thought that the minor parties might well have done a lot better. The libdems in particular must be gutted. They need a rebranding; they've dropped from nearly 18% of the vote to just 4.6. A disaster despite being up on the last election.
I think the turnout is the message. It says nothing.
One might have thought that the minor parties might well have done a lot better. The libdems in particular must be gutted. They need a rebranding; they've dropped from nearly 18% of the vote to just 4.6. A disaster despite being up on the last election.
Why bother even voting.
I don't think it will change much overall as politicians won't care. If there was only a 10% country wide turnout they'd still celebrate the victory and carry on as normal.
London424 said:
I think the turnout is the message.
Why bother even voting.
I don't think it will change much overall as politicians won't care. If there was only a 10% country wide turnout they'd still celebrate the victory and carry on as normal.
It'a a by-election!Why bother even voting.
I don't think it will change much overall as politicians won't care. If there was only a 10% country wide turnout they'd still celebrate the victory and carry on as normal.
Take a look here. That gives you all the turnouts for every by-election since 1997, and this one is slap bang in the middle of average.
All it really says is that the people of Newport give no more of a toss for politics now than the average constituency has for the past two decades or more...
Dog Star said:
At best they'll manage a few seats like they did at their best showing.
Maybe, maybe not.A large number of Remainers seems very blase about the blatant duplicity going on in Parliament presumably because it's going their way (to be fair I know a couple of Remain voters who are just as appalled as I am).
However, from my Vox Pop of friends, family and email contacts there are many normally apathetic mild mannered folk who are absolutely spitting feathers about this. No they're not the pitchfork wielding types but they are the actual voting type.
Given the referendum had the biggest turn out ever and also that UKIP under Nige actually won the last Euro elections (before this betrayal!) then I would say the raw materials are there for a big change.
The biggest drawback is as you say most people care more about normal stuff (schools, jobs, health etc) so up until now wouldn't risk putting in untried people into power and would be content with a protest vote. KP's suggestion is a good solution to overcome that barrier. That is the challenge for any new party for me.
The more I think about it the more I like it. The Coopers, Soubrys, Grieves of this world absolutely do need kicking out on their ear for their behaviour.
It would also allow the main parties to sort out their differences (and split if necessary) and come back with a proper choice for the people with a new found realisation that they are our servants not our masters.
Edit:
Meant to add that the Lib Dems were practically wiped out over Tuition fees and that was hardly their fault as they were just a weak partner in a coalition. So the precedent is there. This betrayal is much, much worse.
Edited by Northbloke on Friday 5th April 17:47
Libdems agreed to tuition fees to get a vote at proportional representation, which was never going to pass. So they sold their future for a pointless question with only one answer.
It’s so easily forgotten by the young that tuition fees were down to Tory policy not libdem.
I can see a substantial libdem bounce back in some areas. Tory voters will drift away.
It’s so easily forgotten by the young that tuition fees were down to Tory policy not libdem.
I can see a substantial libdem bounce back in some areas. Tory voters will drift away.
TTmonkey said:
Libdems agreed to tuition fees to get a vote at proportional representation, which was never going to pass. So they sold their future for a pointless question with only one answer.
It’s so easily forgotten by the young that tuition fees were down to Tory policy not libdem.
I can see a substantial libdem bounce back in some areas. Tory voters will drift away.
Not if they have any idea of the history of tuition fees.It’s so easily forgotten by the young that tuition fees were down to Tory policy not libdem.
I can see a substantial libdem bounce back in some areas. Tory voters will drift away.
Actually, Labour originally introduced tuition fees. Subsequent governments including Labour increased them during their sitting. Libdems suffered at the end as part of the coalition where Nick Clegg made key pre-election promises with no hope of being elected with a majority that he could not negotiate to completion in coalition with the Tory party.
Whose fault is that? I would suggest Mr Nick “the EU army is just a fantasy” Clegg.
SeeFive said:
TTmonkey said:
Libdems agreed to tuition fees to get a vote at proportional representation, which was never going to pass. So they sold their future for a pointless question with only one answer.
It’s so easily forgotten by the young that tuition fees were down to Tory policy not libdem.
I can see a substantial libdem bounce back in some areas. Tory voters will drift away.
Not if they have any idea of the history of tuition fees.It’s so easily forgotten by the young that tuition fees were down to Tory policy not libdem.
I can see a substantial libdem bounce back in some areas. Tory voters will drift away.
Actually, Labour originally introduced tuition fees. Subsequent governments including Labour increased them during their sitting. Libdems suffered at the end as part of the coalition where Nick Clegg made key pre-election promises with no hope of being elected with a majority that he could not negotiate to completion in coalition with the Tory party.
Whose fault is that? I would suggest Mr Nick “the EU army is just a fantasy” Clegg.
As you rightly point out, it's hugely ironic that the likes of TTmonkey think young people blame the Libdem for a Tory policy which was actually a Labour policy, and in a similar vein, look how many people blame Thatcher for killing the coal industry when Labour closed far more pits than she did.
Is it maybe that the Tories just can't bring themselves to credit the Labour Party with anything good?
After all, the writing was on the wall for coal with trains and ships moving to diesel power, the rise of central heating and double glazing and the introduction of clean air legislation, so why not credit Labour with starting the march towards the future?
Equally, student loans are intrinsically fair. If the taxpayer funds your degree and you then earn more than average, why shouldn't you pay it back? Is it fair that lower paid, non degree educated workers support your success?
I imagine there are probably other things the Tories get blame for as well. Why put up with it?
Kermit power said:
Equally, student loans are intrinsically fair. If the taxpayer funds your degree and you then earn more than average, why shouldn't you pay it back? Is it fair that lower paid, non degree educated workers support your success?
But someone earning more than average will be "paying it back" in the form of higher tax anyway. And where do you draw the line: why stop at degrees and not extend it to A-levels and apprenticeships?Zigster said:
Kermit power said:
Equally, student loans are intrinsically fair. If the taxpayer funds your degree and you then earn more than average, why shouldn't you pay it back? Is it fair that lower paid, non degree educated workers support your success?
But someone earning more than average will be "paying it back" in the form of higher tax anyway. And where do you draw the line: why stop at degrees and not extend it to A-levels and apprenticeships?Thanks to Blair's ludicrous 50% target, many people now go who really shouldn't, which makes too overall burden impossible to support without something like this.
There's also the living costs, in most cases, which don't tend to apply at A level or apprentice level as people usually stay at home. I don't see that the previous system of higher earners having to directly fund their own kids through Uni and indirectly those of others through tax funded grants was ever particularly fair?
fatboy18 said:
PositronicRay said:
fatboy18 said:
Just amazed that the Blue party still have 24% of the votes here!
Wondering how many of the voters here are London based?
London is predominantly Labour. Wondering how many of the voters here are London based?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40176349
Zigster said:
Kermit power said:
Equally, student loans are intrinsically fair. If the taxpayer funds your degree and you then earn more than average, why shouldn't you pay it back? Is it fair that lower paid, non degree educated workers support your success?
But someone earning more than average will be "paying it back" in the form of higher tax anyway. And where do you draw the line: why stop at degrees and not extend it to A-levels and apprenticeships?so reasonable for students to pay for degree.
Maybe fees should be cheaper for useful degrees which add value / are needed for UK business ?
bigdog3 said:
That poll at top of page is stunning 
Good sample size of 818 votes but skewed distribution because PistonHead posters are not fully representative of UK electorate.
But if the trend is anything like accurate, we are close to a political revolution
PH is male-dominated, and dare I say by a fair proportion of grumpy and vocal aging men. It is therefore heavily biased towards leave, around 2 to 1 whereas the rest of the country are close to evenly split. So no I don’t think we are close to political revolution. Good sample size of 818 votes but skewed distribution because PistonHead posters are not fully representative of UK electorate.But if the trend is anything like accurate, we are close to a political revolution
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff