Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

No shit but EU is not that far. This isn't like swapping EU for Australia as some Brexiters were suggesting.

Again, let me stress: you could half the UK's imports from Scotland, double the EU's imports from Scotland, and the UK would still be more valuable than the EU. The status quo is that Scotland is *already* in a single market with the EU; there aren't massive gains to be made.

Ireland is a useful example. Britain is not Ireland's most lucrative EU trading partner - Belgium is. I would bet on a similar future for Scotland

That's because that article is deeply misleading (at least, the headline is).

The statistics show that while Ireland exported €13.7 billion worth of goods to Britain in 2015, exports to Belgium topped €14.5 billion.

A proportion of this is shipped on from Belgian ports to other markets.

It's more than just a portion - it's over 90% of it!

Most export publications consider end-markets - the market where the good or service is consumed. Otherwise, every single nation in Asia trades most with Singapore because everything goes via the Malacca Straits, which is a stupid way of thinking about it. Belgium is ordering these goods to sell them on; if other nations weren't purchasing them from Belgium, Belgium wouldn't be purchasing them from Ireland. If Ireland could chose to trade solely with the UK or Belgium as a final destination for exports, it would chose the UK in a heartbeat - the UK accounts for 33% of Ireland's export, Belgium and Luxembourg together only 2.5% (http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/irl/#Destinations).

Again, this is no better than Brexiteering, and I'm pretty disappointed with any Scot that makes this argument. An independent Scotland just isn't better inside the EU if the UK is out of it, and if you're talking about that, you don't have a realistic picture of what an independent Scotland would look like.

What an independent Scotland would probably actually do is: try and negotiate a single market deal as part of the independence terms with the rUK, start by using the pound but eventually transition to a new currency as part of achieving monetary independence, and attempt to reach some sort of trade agreement with Europe like the one Canada has.

 

[*Splinter]

Again, let me stress: you could half the UK's imports from Scotland, double the EU's imports from Scotland, and the UK would still be more valuable than the UK. The status quo is that Scotland is *already* in a single market with the EU; there aren't massive gains to be made.



That's because that article is deeply misleading (at least, the headline is).



It's more than just a portion - it's over 90% of it!

Most export publications consider end-markets - the market where the good or service is consumed. Otherwise, every single nation in Asia trades most with Singapore because everything goes via the Malacca Straits, which is a stupid way of thinking about it. Belgium is ordering these goods to sell them on; if other nations weren't purchasing them from Belgium, Belgium wouldn't be purchasing them from Ireland. If Ireland could chose to trade solely with the UK or Belgium as a final destination for exports, it would chose the UK in a heartbeat - the UK accounts for 33% of Ireland's export, Belgium and Luxembourg together only 2.5% (http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/irl/#Destinations).

Again, this is no better than Brexiteering, and I'm pretty disappointed with any Scot that makes this argument. An independent Scotland just isn't better inside the EU if the UK is out of it, and if you're talking about that, you don't have a realistic picture of what an independent Scotland would look like.

What an independent Scotland would probably actually do is: try and negotiate a single market deal as part of the independence terms with the rUK, start by using the pound but eventually transition to a new currency as part of achieving monetary independence, and attempt to reach some sort of trade agreement with Europe like the one Canada has.

If you replace "Belgium" with "the EU", is the article fair? Would Ireland choose the UK over the EU?

I don't doubt that an independent Scotland would be worse off, but I'm surprised if the distance argument is still as relevant, and that Scotland would rather trade with the UK than the EU (which seems to rely on the distance argument).

 

[CTLance]

Oh, no doubt.

And y'all can bet your sorry behinds that we will continue to whine about it from dawn to dusk.

 

[Blackhead]

Let's suppose the UK's demand for Scottish exports halves, and that the EU's demand for Scottish exports doubles. Guess what: the rUK would actually still account for a larger portion of Scotland's exports than the EU would! And we're already having to push ourselves deeply into fantasy land to get here; the UK will get hit by Brexit hard, but its import propensity isn't going to half, the EU is growing, but at current growth rates it will take about 142 years before the EU's export propensity has doubled.

Again, this is Brexit talk. It's like saying: the United States is a bigger market than the EU, we're better off negotiating with the US. Well, no: trade is more than just a matter of who's biggest. You trade more with your neighbours because transportation costs are lower, you trade more with people you share a language with because it makes it easier providing services, and so on.

Want to understand trade? Think gravity: size and distance matter. Scotland-UK is greater than Scotland-EU. Jupiter is big, but the moon moves tides.

Again, let me stress: you could half the UK's imports from Scotland, double the EU's imports from Scotland, and the UK would still be more valuable than the UK. The status quo is that Scotland is *already* in a single market with the EU; there aren't massive gains to be made.



That's because that article is deeply misleading (at least, the headline is).



It's more than just a portion - it's over 90% of it!

Most export publications consider end-markets - the market where the good or service is consumed. Otherwise, every single nation in Asia trades most with Singapore because everything goes via the Malacca Straits, which is a stupid way of thinking about it. Belgium is ordering these goods to sell them on; if other nations weren't purchasing them from Belgium, Belgium wouldn't be purchasing them from Ireland. If Ireland could chose to trade solely with the UK or Belgium as a final destination for exports, it would chose the UK in a heartbeat - the UK accounts for 33% of Ireland's export, Belgium and Luxembourg together only 2.5% (http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/irl/#Destinations).

Again, this is no better than Brexiteering, and I'm pretty disappointed with any Scot that makes this argument. An independent Scotland just isn't better inside the EU if the UK is out of it, and if you're talking about that, you don't have a realistic picture of what an independent Scotland would look like.

What an independent Scotland would probably actually do is: try and negotiate a single market deal as part of the independence terms with the rUK, start by using the pound but eventually transition to a new currency as part of achieving monetary independence, and attempt to reach some sort of trade agreement with Europe like the one Canada has.

Alright if you want to quibble the numbers:

The top export destinations of Ireland are the United States ($28.5B), the United Kingdom ($19.2B), Belgium-Luxembourg ($18.2B), Germany ($10.8B) and France ($7.98B).

I guess Scotland should skip both UK and the EU and follow gravity to US then?

sacarsm aside, I fully acknowledge that UK is Scotland's biggest trade partner and will remain so for the immediate future following a Brexit/Scoxit. It's misleading of you though to claim that will always be so due to proximity. The long term better bet for Scotland is the EU

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If you replace "Belgium" with "the EU", is the article fair? Would Ireland choose the UK over the EU?

If you replace Ireland with the EU, the argument becomes a little fairer. The UK is 33% of Ireland's final export destinations, the EU is 34%. Ireland is literally right on the knife-edge between single market with the UK vs. the EU being more valuable. (EDIT: apologies, this are the import destinations not export destinations, although it doesn't change the argument - more expensive import goods affects consumers too!)) Given institutional inertia and the immense economic costs of trying to leave and the time delay involved in trying to sort out all the various legal shenanigans, they should stay in the EU, quite comfortably as a decision, but at the same time, Brexit will hit Ireland economically really, really hard. I actually mentioned this is in an earlier post - it's not Germany the UK should be going to if it wants a good deal, it needs to be Ireland.

I don't doubt that an independent Scotland would be worse off, but I'm surprised if the distance argument is still as relevant, and that Scotland would rather trade with the UK than the EU (which seems to rely on the distance argument).

I mean, it's not just distance, that's a simplification - there's things like shared language, cultural ties, familial links, all sorts of things that just add up. I mean, put it this way: if leaving the EU was entirely costless and could be done instantly, Ireland would be right on the borderline with respect to whether they should exit the EU or not, and barring Northern Ireland, Ireland is separated by open sea from the UK. Now compare Scotland's position to Ireland.

Choosing to join the EU over having a comprehensive trade agreement with the UK would be an even bigger act of economic folly than Brexit was in the first place, when you look at the relationships of the economies involved.

Note that I'm not making an argument against Scottish independence. I'm saying that: if Scotland becomes independent, and if the rUK is not in the single market, Scotland should not join the EU. Therefore, if Scotland wants to join the EU after independence, it is imperative that Scotland does everything it can to prevent hard Brexit. Which I think is Sturgeon's current plan. She's smart, and she knows all of the stuff I've just pointed above. The long term bet is absolutely not, in any way, joining the EU, if the rUK is outside the single market.

To argue otherwise, you have to say that the UK's imports from Scotland will over half, and the EU's imports from Scotland will over double. That's just madness. It's borderline delusional.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Worth remembering that if the pound stays low relative to the Euro then trade between Scotland and rUK is likely to increase not decrease, as domestic products become cheaper relative to their European counterparts.

 

[Kabouter]

If you replace Ireland with the EU, the argument becomes a little fairer. The UK is 33% of Ireland's final export destinations, the EU is 34%. Ireland is literally right on the knife-edge between single market with the UK vs. the EU being more valuable. (EDIT: apologies, this are the import destinations not export destinations, although it doesn't change the argument - more expensive import goods affects consumers too!)) Given institutional inertia and the immense economic costs of trying to leave and the time delay involved in trying to sort out all the various legal shenanigans, they should stay in the EU, quite comfortably as a decision, but at the same time, Brexit will hit Ireland economically really, really hard. I actually mentioned this is in an earlier post - it's not Germany the UK should be going to if it wants a good deal, it needs to be Ireland.

Otoh, what can Ireland do to convince, say, Lithuania to agree to a deal favourable to the UK that hurts the rights of their citizens?

I mean, it's not just distance, that's a simplification - there's things like shared language, cultural ties, familial links, all sorts of things that just add up. I mean, put it this way: if leaving the EU was entirely costless and could be done instantly, Ireland would be right on the borderline with respect to whether they should exit the EU or not, and barring Northern Ireland, Ireland is separated by open sea from the UK. Now compare Scotland's position to Ireland.

Bingo.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Otoh, what can Ireland do to convince, say, Lithuania to agree to a deal favourable to the UK that hurts the rights of their citizens?

Very little, but they might be inclined to do what they can, where as the French response would probably be "bof". The UK is going to get a terrible deal regardless, though, I think we all know that at this stage.

Bingo.

Yup, and you're a Dutchman saying this from a near neutral perspective with little invested interest in either Scotland or the rUK.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Note also that Sturgeon now says she wants to protect Scotland's 'access' to the single market, not membership. Her language has altered slightly, along with some Labour MPs actually. I think there is a building consensus that the UK will not remain members of the single market and the work now is trying to secure some sort of trade deal.

 

[Acorn]

Independence is a matter of when not if unless national politics become less geographically distorted or if we finally get the "home rule" we were promised.

Might not happen in next decade but it'll happen in my lifetime unless things change drastically.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Independence is a matter of when not if unless national politics become less geographically distorted or if we finally get the "home rule" we were promised.

Might not happen in next decade but it'll happen in my lifetime unless things change drastically.

I'm less certain of this. I think that the next decade or so will be critical, but I think the risk independence runs is something like what happened in Quebec - political parties don't stay fresh forever. Eventually 1997 Blair turns into 2009 Gordon Brown. As late as 2005 people were confident the Conservatives wouldn't be back in power for another decade - but things change. If the SNP become discredited, then independence takes a big hit, the same way that after PQ's corruption scandals, the independence movement in Quebec never really revived at the same strength. So I think it's a difficult problem for Sturgeon. She has to time it just right: she needs to wait until the independence movement is as strong as possible, but without waiting so long the SNP risk becoming worn out and haggard in the way that political parties in office too long tend to do.

I think if Scotland isn't independent by ~2030, they probably won't be at any risk of doing so for generations after that. However, that said, that doesn't mean I don't think Scotland going independent is unlikely - right now, I think it hangs in the balance. I just am very unconvinced by the notion of inevitability in politics. I think it compares quite well to Brexit - if this referendum had been won, nobody would have called another one for a good decade or so, which would have been enough time for a proper recovery to kick in (at least hopefully) and too long for Farage to have been taken credibly, and eventually the whole issue would have just subsided. You only get so many shots in politics and I think the SNP have at most one left. Whether they take it? 50/50. Depends how well Sturgeon plays events.

 

[Dougald]

Independence is a matter of when not if unless national politics become less geographically distorted or if we finally get the "home rule" we were promised.

Might not happen in next decade but it'll happen in my lifetime unless things change drastically.

Agreed. I would put money on Scotland leaving before I die

But I think pushing for another referendum so soon after the last is pretty crazy. Don't the polls show there hasn't really been much movement of opinion in Scotland towards independence since Brexit?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Agreed. I would put money on Scotland leaving before I die

But I think pushing for another referendum so soon after the last is pretty crazy. Don't the polls show there hasn't really been much movement of opinion in Scotland towards independence since Brexit?

If anything, they've shown a very mild tilt towards No - I guess because people are worried about uncertainty? But yeah, there have been five post-Brexit Scoxit polls - 49/41, 51/45, 46/43, 49/44, and 48/41, all for stay, with every poll within the MoE of 48/43. Could still be a pro-independence win if undecideds broke heavily for Yes, but given which way they broke last time, I wouldn't be confident.

(http://whatscotlandthinks.org/quest...sh-independence-referendum-if-held-now-a#line)

 

[Blackhead]

Agreed. I would put money on Scotland leaving before I die

But I think pushing for another referendum so soon after the last is pretty crazy. Don't the polls show there hasn't really been much movement of opinion in Scotland towards independence since Brexit?

Polls won't matter so much until campaigning for another referendum starts and Brexit vote has taken away some key propaganda points against independence.

 

[Acorn]

I'm less certain of this. I think that the next decade or so will be critical, but I think the risk independence runs is something like what happened in Quebec - political parties don't stay fresh forever. Eventually 1997 Blair turns into 2009 Gordon Brown. As late as 2005 people were confident the Conservatives wouldn't be back in power for another decade - but things change. If the SNP become discredited, then independence takes a big hit, the same way that after PQ's corruption scandals, the independence movement in Quebec never really revived at the same strength. So I think it's a difficult problem for Sturgeon. She has to time it just right: she needs to wait until the independence movement is as strong as possible, but without waiting so long the SNP risk becoming worn out and haggard in the way that political parties in office too long tend to do.

I think if Scotland isn't independent by ~2030, they probably won't be at any risk of doing so for generations after that. However, that said, that doesn't mean I don't think Scotland going independent is unlikely - right now, I think it hangs in the balance. I just am very unconvinced by the notion of inevitability in politics. I think it compares quite well to Brexit - if this referendum had been won, nobody would have called another one for a good decade or so, which would have been enough time for a proper recovery to kick in (at least hopefully) and too long for Farage to have been taken credibly, and eventually the whole issue would have just subsided. You only get so many shots in politics and I think the SNP have at most one left. Whether they take it? 50/50. Depends how well Sturgeon plays events.

A lot depends on a govt scotland votes for actually getting into power at the UK Level. Either directly (suddenly switch en masse back to labour)or in a coalition which grows ever more unlikely by the day.

The longer people go without seeing any results from their ballot the more unrest and detachment from the rest of the UK will grow. The SNP will eventually falter but the electoral system we have here is designed for coalitions not majorities anyway. I can't see anything stopping them from being the largest party even with a big drop off for the next few elections.

Edit also the tories banging the scary scots drum every election won't help feeling up here.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

A lot depends on a govt scotland votes for actually getting into power at the UK Level. Either directly (suddenly switch en masse back to labour)or in a coalition which grows ever more unlikely by the day.

The longer people go without seeing any results from their ballot the more unrest and detachment from the rest of the UK will grow. The SNP will eventually falter but the electoral system we have here is designed for coalitions not majorities anyway. I can't see anything stopping them from being the largest party even with a big drop off for the next few elections.

Yes, I agree with this - but it's why I think it's very unlikely that independence is inevitable. People will tire of the Conservatives eventually, they always do, and so Labour, or at least some replacement, will be back. At the same time, the Conservatives are recovering in Scotland. There's a generation that don't remember Thatcher, and that brand is losing its toxicity (sadly!). If you have Labour at the UK and a recovering Conservatives in Scotland, then the gap between the two political systems starts to close. So the question is whether the SNP can do it before the gap shuts too much, rather than it just being a matter of waiting.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Even as recently as 1992 the Tories only got 4% less vote-share in Scotland than Miliband did in the whole UK in 2015, 3% less than Brown got in 2010. It's not like anti-conservative sentiment is part of the lifeblood of Scotland; There are right leaning people there just like there are anywhere and right now the only party they have to vote for is one that's tainted. As more people grow up with Cameron being their go-to memory of the Tories rather than Thatcher, and with Ruth being basically great, I don't see it being a simple case of SNP vs Labour for all eternity.

 

[Acorn]

Yes, I agree with this - but it's why I think it's very unlikely that independence is inevitable. People will tire of the Conservatives eventually, they always do, and so Labour, or at least some replacement, will be back. At the same time, the Conservatives are recovering in Scotland. There's a generation that don't remember Thatcher, and that brand is losing its toxicity (sadly!). If you have Labour at the UK and a recovering Conservatives in Scotland, then the gap between the two political systems starts to close. So the question is whether the SNP can do it before the gap shuts too much, rather than it just being a matter of waiting.

The Conservatives mostly recovered due to very wisely putting themselves forward as the only real unionist force whilst lab was committing seppuku. Also, conservatives here aren't the same as someone like IDS or Fox (I use them because even though they're scottish they wouldn't stand a chance here).

I still think as soon as conservatives mask slips or labour recover they'll be back into the doldrums but who knows.

In regards to Scotland actually getting a govt it votes for I don't see how it happens. It would require all scottish seats or the vast majorty to go Labour and a Blair like push into areas of England Labour very rarely come close to winning aswell as Lib Dems getting the south west back.

The likelihood of those happening at the same time seems extremely unlikely to me.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

In regards to Scotland actually getting a govt it votes for I don't see how it happens. It would require all scottish seats or the vast majorty to go Labour and a Blair like push into areas of England Labour very rarely come close to winning aswell as Lib Dems getting the south west back.

The likelihood of those happening at the same time seems extremely unlikely to me.

So, if Labour had less seats than the Conservatives, but Labour + SNP had a enough seats for a majority, I don't possibly see how the SNP could do anything other than at least support Labour on a confidence and supply basis. Otherwise, every time the Conservative government did something to harm Scotland, SLab can just go: the Conservatives are only there because the SNP lets them be there. And it'll do damage to the SNP because it would be true, in the same way that not voting Clinton is de facto voting Trump.

So I don't think Labour's problem is winning back Scottish seats, per se, it's winning back enough English ones that Lab + SNP works. That's still probably something that won't be achieved until ~2025 at least, but it's incredibly unlikely that the Conservatives can stay in power indefinitely; some day Labour will rebuild, be it the Labour party as we know it or something else. That's why my guess is that Scoxit has until about 2030 to happen. By 2030, the Conservatives will probably have recovered a lot more in Scotland and the SNP diminished, and conversely Labour recovered in England and the Conservatives diminished; you'd have to be a brave man to bet on the status quo enduring forever in such turbulent times.

 

[Acorn]

Even as recently as 1992 the Tories only got 4% less vote-share in Scotland than Miliband did in the whole UK in 2015, 3% less than Brown got in 2010. It's not like anti-conservative sentiment is part of the lifeblood of Scotland; There are right leaning people there just like there are anywhere and right now the only party they have to vote for is one that's tainted. As more people grow up with Cameron being their go-to memory of the Tories rather than Thatcher, and with Ruth being basically great, I don't see it being a simple case of SNP vs Labour for all eternity.

They are mostly concentrated in the Borders and some areas up north (that are actually more liberal) seatwise. Most right wing votes are in areas where there will always be a left wing tilt which means they are mostly wasted in FPTP and only useful on regional lists in scottish elections generally.

 

[Acorn]

So, if Labour had less seats than the Conservatives, but Labour + SNP had a enough seats for a majority, I don't possibly see how the SNP could do anything other than at least support Labour on a confidence and supply basis. Otherwise, every time the Conservative government did something to harm Scotland, SLab can just go: the Conservatives are only there because the SNP lets them be there. And it'll do damage to the SNP because it would be true, in the same way that not voting Clinton is de facto voting Trump.

So I don't think Labour's problem is winning back Scottish seats, per se, it's winning back enough English ones that Lab + SNP works. That's still probably something that won't be achieved until ~2025 at least, but it's incredibly unlikely that the Conservatives can stay in power indefinitely; some day Labour will rebuild, be it the Labour party as we know it or something else. That's why my guess is that Scoxit has until about 2030 to happen. By 2030, the Conservatives will probably have recovered a lot more in Scotland and the SNP diminished, and conversely Labour recovered in England and the Conservatives diminished; you'd have to be a brave man to bet on the status quo enduring forever in such turbulent times.

So in your scenario they've got bits of middle England back and they would throw that away for govt with the SNP?

Lib/Lab sure England would could take that but Lab/Snp would be scorched earth for anyone in a middle England seat even in a confidence and supply arrangement. The press would go nuts.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So in your scenario they've got bits of middle England back and they would throw that away for govt with the SNP?

Lib/Lab sure England would could take that but Lab/Snp would be scorched earth for anyone in a middle England seat even in a confidence and supply arrangement. The press would go nuts.

Doesn't matter if they do it after the election already happens. This is like saying before 2010 "so in your scenario the Lib Dems finally make a resurgence and they would throw that away for govt with the Conservatives?". The only difference is that I think Labour would not fuck around PR and get straight on that shit.

 

[Acorn]

Doesn't matter if they do it after the election already happens. This is like saying before 2010 "so in your scenario the Lib Dems finally make a resurgence and they would throw that away for govt with the Conservatives?". The only difference is that I think Labour would not fuck around PR and get straight on that shit.

Fair point.

And yes one would hope the next time anyone vaguely left wing gets in they get rid of FPTP otherwise they are just continuing to diminish themselves.

I understand what you're saying I just think further distancing is more likely than eventual convergence.

 

[Frankfurter]

I just don't see it, as Crab says there would have to be a monumental shift in balance for what you are suggesting to happen, but hey ho.

In other news, the German finance ministry has calculated that post Brexit Germany will have to pay an extra €4.5 billion a year in contributions in 19/20.

Out of curiosity, could you give a link to the source?

 

[twobear]

Fair point.

And yes one would hope the next time anyone vaguely left wing gets in they get rid of FPTP otherwise they are just continuing to diminish themselves.

I understand what you're saying I just think further distancing is more likely than eventual convergence.

We had a referendum on FPTP and voted to keep it. Changing FPTP strikes me as a political impossibility for at least a generation.

 

[FlammableD]

We had a referendum on FPTP and voted to keep it. Changing FPTP strikes me as a political impossibility for at least a generation.

Oh yeah, that shitshow

 

[CyclopsRock]

They are mostly concentrated in the Borders and some areas up north (that are actually more liberal) seatwise. Most right wing votes are in areas where there will always be a left wing tilt which means they are mostly wasted in FPTP and only useful on regional lists in scottish elections generally.

Maybe, but demographics are always static until they ain't, right? Thatcher shifted the aspirational working class from Labour voters to Tory voters. Blair converted "Mondeo Man" from a Tory voter back to a Labour voter. The SNP ripped at Labour's soft underbelly and made fucking everyone and their dog an SNP voter. They're always static til they ain't.

 

[chadskin]

German cars

AFP: #BREAKING Renault-Nissan boss says needs UK guarantees over Brexit to invest in Sunderland plant

 

[twobear]

German cars

They're bluffing. They know that France and Japan's economy are on the brink of collapse and they desperately need the UK's stable powerhouse of an economy to keep them afloat.

 

[Acorn]

Maybe, but demographics are always static until they ain't, right? Thatcher shifted the aspirational working class from Labour voters to Tory voters. Blair converted "Mondeo Man" from a Tory voter back to a Labour voter. The SNP ripped at Labour's soft underbelly and made fucking everyone and their dog an SNP voter. They're always static til they ain't.

Sure it could happen in the sense anything can but our working class areas have been fairly solidly leftist for generations now and there hasn't been a ton of ideological clothes swapping like England and Wales's working class areas. Not enough to matter anyway.

I suppose stranger things have happened though.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

We had a referendum on FPTP and voted to keep it. Changing FPTP strikes me as a political impossibility for at least a generation.

By 2029, it will have been a political generation, if we're saying that an entire cohort of eligible voters will have been born since the last vote.

 

[Acorn]

By 2029, it will have been a political generation, if we're saying that an entire cohort of eligible voters will have been born since the last vote.

Plus PR is a different question than AV.

 

[twobear]

By 2029, it will have been a political generation, if we're saying that an entire cohort of eligible voters will have been born since the last vote.

Sure. I don't know the demographic breakdown for the AV referendum or how opinions change with age, though. But still, 2029 will be 18 years after the AV referendum, so in any case it's just about a generational gap.

Plus PR is a different question than AV.

Was the actual substance of the alternative relevant? I know that there were plenty of the usual self-sabotaging left-wingers saying they were going to vote to keep FPTP because AV is barely any better, but my impression was that FPTP stayed because their camp successfully convinced people of the 'merits' of that system rather than criticising specific features of AV.

[edit] Of course in addition to the usual lies one can expect from any major Tory initiative to convince the electorate of something.

 

[Acorn]

Sure. I don't know the demographic breakdown for the AV referendum or how opinions change with age, though. But still, 2029 will be 18 years after the AV referendum, so in any case it's just about a generational gap.



Was the actual substance of the alternative relevant? I know that there were plenty of the usual self-sabotaging left-wingers saying they were going to vote to keep FPTP because AV is barely any better, but my impression was that FPTP stayed because their camp successfully convinced people of the 'merits' of that system rather than criticising specific features of AV.

To be honest probably not but it's a way to sell a referendum to the general public. Plus having the govt actually back it after winning a majority historically helps your case (eu vote withstanding).

The AV vote was hardly noticed by the public and there was no enthusiasm from people for a decent ground game to build support against the Mail/Sun steamroller.

 

[twobear]

I also wonder how much of a precedent was set by holding a referendum to change the voting method. Any future hypothetical Labour government might struggle to justify why they aren't holding a referendum again if they try to change the voting system through an act of parliament when it was put to the popular vote before.

Moreover, it might be that a proportional voting system seems like a high priority now precisely because it doesn't look like Labour have a chance in hell of winning a GE any time soon in a FPTP system. But we're imagining just such a future where they are popular enough to win, in which case there'd be less incentive for them to change it (since it would virtually by necessity lower their majority in subsequent elections).

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I also wonder how much of a precedent was set by holding a referendum to change the voting method. Any future hypothetical Labour government might struggle to justify why they aren't holding a referendum again if they try to change the voting system through an act of parliament when it was put to the popular vote before.

Moreover, it might be that a proportional voting system seems like a high priority now precisely because it doesn't look like Labour have a chance in hell of winning a GE any time soon in a FPTP system. But we're imagining just such a future where they are popular enough to win, in which case there'd be less incentive for them to change it.

Eh. At this point, I think most political futures where Labour is back in office involve either a coalition or a minority government, unless we're supposing that Labour doesn't get back into power until the SNP resides. I know Maledict is going to point out Labour won England in 1997, 2001, and 2005, but on the suggested borders even 2005 would have been an English Labour minority.

 

[Acorn]

I also wonder how much of a precedent was set by holding a referendum to change the voting method. Any future hypothetical Labour government might struggle to justify why they aren't holding a referendum again if they try to change the voting system through an act of parliament when it was put to the popular vote before.

Moreover, it might be that a proportional voting system seems like a high priority now precisely because it doesn't look like Labour have a chance in hell of winning a GE any time soon in a FPTP system. But we're imagining just such a future where they are popular enough to win, in which case there'd be less incentive for them to change it (since it would virtually by necessity lower their majority in subsequent elections).

Both good points especially the second. Thanks to the hubris of Brown/Blair they sleep walked the labour party into the boundary review shenanigans, you'd hope they would learn from it. But yeah...

 

[Acorn]

Eh. At this point, I think most political futures where Labour is back in office involve either a coalition or a minority government, unless we're supposing that Labour doesn't get back into power until the SNP resides. I know Maledict is going to point out Labour won England in 1997, 2001, and 2005, but on the suggested borders even 2005 would have been an English Labour minority.

Plus 97/01 were landslides that are historically uncommon for labour.

 

[jufonuk]

"this is just a saga now"

 

[Beefy]

Nissan and other car companies saying they are delaying investment until they know whether there will be tariffs in trade. Some have even said they may move if tariffs are introduced.

Nope not brexits fault though...

 

[kmag]

Nissan and other car companies saying they are delaying investment until they know whether there will be tariffs in trade. Some have even said they may move if tariffs are introduced.

Nope not brexits fault though...

Meanwhile the EU has resigned itself to hard brexit.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/30/uk-heading-for-hard-brexit-say-european-diplomats

 

[Beefy]

Meanwhile the EU has resigned itself to hard brexit.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/30/uk-heading-for-hard-brexit-say-european-diplomats

Yeah Liam Fox mouthing off didn't do any favours

 

[PdotMichael]

Meanwhile the EU has resigned itself to hard brexit.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/30/uk-heading-for-hard-brexit-say-european-diplomats

I mean what else did people expect? Also I still lover the delusion of Brexiters that they have things under control.

 

[chadskin]

So this is real

Mr Johnson told The Sun: “Our policy is having our cake and eating it.

“We are Pro-secco but by no means anti-pasto”.

Half way through the interview with The Sun, he also sang a Bob Marley to describe his tense relationship with the two other Brexiteer Cabinet ministers

Asked about his relationship with Brexit Secretary David Davis and Mr Fox, Boris replied: “We are a nest of singing birds.

“In fact I think Bob Marley once wrote a song which goes, ‘Woke up this morning, smiled with the rising sun, three little birds on my doorstep singing sweet songs.

“A melody pure and true.

“This is my message for you.

“Don’t you worry about a thing cos every little thing is gonna be all right.’”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18897...will-liberate-britain-to-champion-free-trade/

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

The exhilaration I feel is intense, such excite, much wow

 

[JonnyDBrit]

So this is real


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18897...will-liberate-britain-to-champion-free-trade/

...he literally just confessed to wanting to have his cake and eat it too.

He really doesn't get that's not how this situation works, does he?

 

[Funky Papa]

Not sure if unhinged or coked out of his skull.

 

[daviyoung]

So this is real

need a video

 

[Jisgsaw]

need a video

https://youtu.be/XAp7h1nUMIQ

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

Not sure if unhinged or coked out of his skull.

Both? I would say coked though. *sniff*