View Poll Results: What will be the result of the 2019 Election?

Voters
3. You may not vote on this poll
  • Big Conservative majority (400+ seats)

    1 33.33%
  • Medium Conservative majority (350-399 seats) - correct (364-5)

    0 0%
  • Small Conservative majority (<350 seats)

    1 33.33%
  • No majority; Conservatives govern

    0 0%
  • No majority: Labour governs

    0 0%
  • Small Labour majority (<350 seats)

    0 0%
  • Medium Labour majority (350-399 seats)

    0 0%
  • Big Labour majority (400+ seats)

    0 0%
  • Other

    1 33.33%
Page 39 of 46 FirstFirst ... 293738394041 ... LastLast
Results 571 to 585 of 689
  1. #571
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    You mean a rather thin majority (51.9%) of those (72.2%) who actually voted, meaning that only 37.5% (not a majority at all) actually voted to leave. Of course it is what it is and those who didn't vote in effect consented to whatever the rest decided. But it's simply not the case that a "majority of Britons" expressed any particular view.
    And a "majority of Britons" definitely didn't vote for a no deal Brexit, since they were repeatedly told by Johnson and others that this would never happen.

  2. #572
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    You mean a rather thin majority (51.9%) of those (72.2%) who actually voted, meaning that only 37.5% (not a majority at all) actually voted to leave.
    51.89% to 48.11%, so a 3.78% margin. But then Cameron won the 2015 election by winning only 36.9% of the vote. So there was more support for Brexit than for the winning party of most elections.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Of course it is what it is and those who didn't vote in effect consented to whatever the rest decided.
    That's the case with all other elections. And elections in recent history have had lower turnouts: a nadir of 59% in 2001, and rising to 61% in 2005, 65% in 2010, 66% in 2015 and 69% in 2017, but still much less than the Brexit referendum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    But it's simply not the case that a "majority of Britons" expressed any particular view.
    OK then, but by that reasoning, "majority rules" hardly applies in any election in the western world.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  3. #573
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    39,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    51.89% to 48.11%, so a 3.78% margin. But then Cameron won the 2015 election by winning only 36.9% of the vote. So there was more support for Brexit than for the winning party of most elections.
    It's not a valid comparison as you're comparing a Yes/No vote with the primary vote of one of many parties. Had the same election been conducted under Australia's system then the two-party preferred vote for the Tories in 2015 would have been more than 52%.

    That's the case with all other elections. And elections in recent history have had lower turnouts: a nadir of 59% in 2001, and rising to 61% in 2005, 65% in 2010, 66% in 2015 and 69% in 2017, but still much less than the Brexit referendum.
    That's all true, and it's the same thing. Somebody has to win, but that still doesn't mean the majority of all people who could have voted supported the winner.

    OK then, but by that reasoning, "majority rules" hardly applies in any election in the western world.
    Nor is it realistic to expect it to in that sense.

    I think this trend of outsourcing major decisions to voters unnecessarily is silly, but nonetheless a government that went to an election with a policy of doing so was so resoundingly elected that it pretty clearly would have won under a fair electoral system. And also there has been an election since where voters could have installed a No Brexit Party had there been overwhelming concern about the vagueness of it all. But it still doesn't mean there's majority support of all Britons for any course of action, even broadly.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  4. #574
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    It's not a valid comparison as you're comparing a Yes/No vote with the primary vote of one of many parties. Had the same election been conducted under Australia's system then the two-party preferred vote for the Tories in 2015 would have been more than 52%.
    Fair point.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  5. #575
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,762

    Even-handed article about points that both sides of Brexit are missing

    The Economic Discussion on Brexit That Isn't Happening
    Few discussions on the economic outcomes of Brexit find their way into Brexit media discourse. Why?
    Graham Cunningham, FEE, 31 August 2019

    Millions of words have now been expended arguing the economic case for and against Brexit. It is a sad reflection on the economic literacy of the British political class and its media commentariat that so few of these arguments have been informed either by hard economic data or any deep understanding of the British economy.

    The following is not an attempt at a definitive Brexit cost/benefit analysis but rather is intended to outline some of the underexplored economic realities that might have made for a more constructive debate. (“Remain” arguments alternate with “Leave” arguments to avoid the suspicion of some covert agenda here.)
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  6. #576
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,448
    There has been plenty of discussion of the economic effects of a no-deal Brexit. The problem is that the supporters of this repeatedly claim that all the economic problems (and other issues, like the 'backstop') are imaginary. Here is a detailed listings of the economic horrors awaiting it if the UK leaves without a deal.

  7. #577
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    39,301
    Parliament resuming tomorrow.

    Tory cabinet meeting tonight, quite a bit of speculation about a possible election before Oct 31, but this would need Labor's consent.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  8. #578
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    39,301
    Motion to take control of the agenda will be dealt with tonight around 3:30 am AEST.

    If it succeeds, debate on the anti-NoDealBrexit bill will take place tomorrow around midnight - 4 am AEST.

    However, if the rebels take hold of the agenda then Johnson intends to seek an election for October 14.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  9. #579
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    39,301
    Oh Johnson just lost his majority (which was a combined Conservative/DUP majority anyway). A Tory, Phillip Lee, quit the party and joined the Liberal Democrats.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 04-09-2019 at 12:58 AM.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  10. #580
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Oh Johnson just lost his majority (which was a combined Conservative/DUP majority anyway). A Tory, Phillip Lee, quit the party and joined the Liberal Democrats.
    Mark Stein put it:

    As for Brexit, Boris and his opponents are now engaged in a battle for control of the calendar between now and October 31st. Today the Johnson ministry lost its majority in the House of Commons when a "Tory rebel" called Philip Lee crossed the floor and joined the Liberal Democrats. "Tory rebel" broadly translates as "establishment suck-up happy to subvert the will of the people", but it remains to be seen how many others will be willing to do what Lee did. Boris' advantage is that the many forces ranged against him in his own party and the opposition are in complete disagreement about what they actually want and even when they know what they want (no Brexit at all) are too slippery to say it. Judging from the polls, the public is beginning to pick up the whiff of evasion and shiftiness.

    If the last three years have taught anything, however, it's that these "rebels" calling for "people's votes" feel largely immune from the vox populi. For a just about functioning Westminster system, the next few weeks of parliamentary jockeying could prove the most constitutionally testing since the Australian dismissal.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  11. #581
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,448
    There's no 'will of the people', of course, in British politics, only the decisions of the Parliament. Which has voted to stop the 'no-deal' Brexit which people didn't vote for in the referendum.

  12. #582
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,448
    The Court of Session in Scotland has ruled that Johnson's prorogation of Parliament was illegal.

  13. #583
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,448
    And now the Supreme Court has also ruled it illegal!

    The 11 judges ruled unanimously. They said the case was “justiciable”, and subject to the law. Giving the judgment, Lady Hale said: “The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the government for centuries.” They then ruled that the decision to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had “the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.” Lady Hale added: “No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court.”

    In the most striking part of its ruling, the court said the speakers in both the Commons and Lords can now reconvene both houses immediately. The judges upheld the court of session’s ruling that prorogation was void. They also stated that the privy council’s decision to ask the Queen to suspend parliament was also “unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed.” In effect, Baroness Hale said, “parliament has not been prorogued”.

  14. #584
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    And now the Supreme Court has also ruled it illegal!

    The 11 judges ruled unanimously. They said the case was “justiciable”, and subject to the law. Giving the judgment, Lady Hale said: “The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the government for centuries.” They then ruled that the decision to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had “the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.” Lady Hale added: “No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court.”

    In the most striking part of its ruling, the court said the speakers in both the Commons and Lords can now reconvene both houses immediately. The judges upheld the court of session’s ruling that prorogation was void. They also stated that the privy council’s decision to ask the Queen to suspend parliament was also “unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed.” In effect, Baroness Hale said, “parliament has not been prorogued”.
    The UK fortunately doesn't have the American abomination of judicial review. Sir Peter Marshall, former Assistant Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, argues Supreme Court: on Shaky Ground:

    Sir Peter Marshall argues that the Supreme Court were unconvincing in stating that their judgement was not about Brexit. The Court ignores the reasons why no deal is still an issue including the difficulties made for the PM by parliament and the way in which Brussels has played fast and loose with its own rules. The use of judicial power to try to thwart the biggest vote in British history represents an outrageous intrusion into politics by eleven individuals none of whom we can vote out.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  15. #585
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,762
    'Spineless disgrace - let me tell them TRUTH' Geoffrey Cox in OUTSTANDING rant in Commons
    GEOFFREY COX launched into an explosive attack against Parliament in the House of Commons, raging it is a "disgrace” and questioning their “moral right to sit”.
    By PAUL WITHERS, Express, 25 Sep 2019

    Geoffrey Cox’s six great points in the Commons:

    1. “The time is coming when even these turkeys won’t be able to prevent Christmas."
    2. "This spineless gang on the frontbench have not got the guts to put an election motion into providence because most of them do not want their leader in power."
    3. "This cowardly Parliament should have the courage to face the electorate, but it won’t. It won’t because so many of them are really about preventing us leaving the European Union."
    4. "Denying the electorate the chance of having its say this Parliament is a dead Parliament. It has no moral right to sit on these green benches."
    5. “They could vote no confidence at any time, but they are too cowardly."
    6. ”Twice they have been asked to let the electorate decide whether they should sit in their seats while they block 17.4 million votes - this Parliament is a disgrace."
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Australian state politics and elections thread
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 1232
    Last Post: 20-09-2020, 06:05 PM
  2. Replies: 6410
    Last Post: 19-09-2020, 02:42 PM
  3. NZ elections and politics
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: 22-05-2020, 11:18 AM
  4. Replies: 81
    Last Post: 29-03-2012, 09:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •