EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[AlterEgo]

Snigger

Tory down. UKIP down. Labour down. Lib dem up.

Is this the Corbyn Effect?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is this the Corbyn Effect?

...or lack of sufficient "Momentum" amongst Labour Party voters...

 

[anme]

Snigger

Tory down. UKIP down. Labour down. Lib dem up.

Decent result for the Tories, bad for Labour, very bad for UKIP and quite good (in a minor way) for the Lib Dems. UKIP look like the biggest losers. Seats like this with low immigration are where UKIP tends to do well and where people are generally in favour of leaving the EU. If UKIP can't make inroads here in a byelection then their influence in British politics may be waning.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If UKIP can't make inroads here in a byelection then their influence in British politics may be waning.

UKIP are a one-trick pony that got the vote that they wanted.

They know this, which is why Farage and Hassam are so desperate to claim that "The Establishment" are trying to stop Brexit. It's the only way they can keep any relevance.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

whose warnings have already failed to come to pass.

Even though we haven't actually left the EU yet, the pound is at its lowest level for a century and real-terms wages are decreasing for the first time since the 60s...the 1860s.

But no, it's all "scare tactics".

 

[miami]

...or lack of sufficient "Momentum" amongst Labour Party voters...

Turnout fell dramatically

In pure numbers,

Turnout: Down 29051
Conservative: Down 17235
UKIP: Down 5290
Lib Dem: Up 106
Labour: Down 7327

Based on these actual numbers it was a disasterous night for Conservatives, Labour and UKIP, all of who lost half their voters (70% in the case of labour)

However what this is more likely to indicate is that only the core activist parts of electorate voted, and the voters who only come out for general elections will go back to the 'core' parties (Labour and Conservative)

However if UKIP can't manage to muster the support in this type of election, it looks very bad for them.

 

[northwichcat]

However if UKIP can't manage to muster the support in this type of election, it looks very bad for them.

Agreed especially in a by-election. The voters knew that electing a UKIP MP wouldn't help to allow either Labour or the Lib Dems get in the government, which may not be the case in a general election. Yet the majority of the pro-Brexit voters continued to vote Conservative.

 

[Howardh]

This is something the Libdems can really get their teeth into. They are the only main party opposed to Brexit, and can sweep up both Labour and Tory remainers.

Looks like the only way Labour can win power is to either be full-on Leave, or full-on Remain, instead of this wishy-washy middle ground.

 

[anme]

This is something the Libdems can really get their teeth into. They are the only main party opposed to Brexit, and can sweep up both Labour and Tory remainers.

Looks like the only way Labour can win power is to either be full-on Leave, or full-on Remain, instead of this wishy-washy middle ground.

I think you're right. Ironically, brexit may well destroy UKIP and revitalise the Lib Dems.

There's not much point to UKIP now - both the Conservatives, and (as far as I can tell) Labour are adopting UKIP positions and not just in terms of leaving the EU. UKIP are basically a single issue party and they have achieved their aim. Why does anyone need them?

On the other hand, the 48% who voted to remain in the EU are no longer really represented in British politics. This is a great demographic for a political party - remain voters are much younger and more prosperous on average than the leavers. There is a tremendous opportunity now for a party to come in and create a vision that's outward looking and optimistic, and not simply negative and blaming others for perceived problems. It won't be a vision for everyone, but it's completely missing from British politics right now. Indeed they can define themselves in exactly these terms - as young, open minded and creating a better, nicer world, as opposed to the "nasty" old people who brought us brexit and Trump. Adversity is a great way to bring people together and a party can win a general election with 36% of the vote...

Will it happen? Who knows. A lot depends on the people who emerge to build this movement. But Trump-ers and leavers are now the establishment. Whatever goes wrong from now on, and whatever problems go unsolved, will be blamed on them. All this shall pass away. It's time to prepare for the next revolution.

 

[Howardh]

Bet May is regretting the 5-year term the coalition introduced. Could do something (maybe delay A50 deliberately to call a no-confidence vote) to call a snap election, although
(a) risks a decent show by UKIP if it's a Brexit issue and being in coalition with them
(b) risks a fightback by the Libdems and despite the weakness of Labour there could be a Lib/Lab/SNP coalition..

But....have Labour ever been in a worse position? I'm just glad that it's the Libdems now grabbing the shift of the vote. Interesting times ahead.

 

[northwichcat]

Bet May is regretting the 5-year term the coalition introduced.

Seems strange that Cameron made such a fuss about Blair standing down and Brown taking over without an election, then he passes legislation to make instances like that easier not harder and his own party have taken advantage of it.

 

[Senex]

On the other hand, the 48% who voted to remain in the EU are no longer really represented in British politics. This is a great demographic for a political party - remain voters are much younger and more prosperous on average than the leavers. There is a tremendous opportunity now for a party to come in and create a vision that's outward looking and optimistic, and not simply negative and blaming others for perceived problems. It won't be a vision for everyone, but it's completely missing from British politics right now.

There's a huge hole in representation now that May has made it quite clear that as far as the Tories are concerned it's only the 52% (i.e. 37%) whose views matter at all. But where would a party that could come in and draw on support from the broad body of Remain voters come from? I can't see it developing out of Corbynist/McDonnellist/Milnist Labour simply because their views of an East European past don't chime with most people, let alone with most Remainers. But I also can't see it building on a LibDem base when too many of the activists in that party seem to be well to the left of Blair's New Labour and so are very unlikely to appeal to Centerist/Moderate Right Tory supporters. And we know how extremely difficult it is for a new party to make a breakthrough in the British FPTP system. I hope you may be right, but I don't quite see how the desirable vision can come about.

 

[Howardh]

There's a huge hole in representation now that May has made it quite clear that as far as the Tories are concerned it's only the 52% (i.e. 37%) whose views matter at all. But where would a party that could come in and draw on support from the broad body of Remain voters come from? I can't see it developing out of Corbynist/McDonnellist/Milnist Labour simply because their views of an East European past don't chime with most people, let alone with most Remainers. But I also can't see it building on a LibDem base when too many of the activists in that party seem to be well to the left of Blair's New Labour and so are very unlikely to appeal to Centerist/Moderate Right Tory supporters. And we know how extremely difficult it is for a new party to make a breakthrough in the British FPTP system. I hope you may be right, but I don't quite see how the desirable vision can come about.

I still think there's plenty of time for a split where the moderates of the Tories and Labour could leave and form the Grand Middle whose sole purpose is to protect the 48 and those who didn't vote Those who DIDN'T vote are still UK subjects and as you rightly say, need looking after too. And they get a vote in 2020. Just because they couldn't give a vote in 2016 because they were either apathetic or apoplectic doesn't mean they don't count.

 

[Trog]

I am getting a bit fed up of both sides claiming a majority by adding the non voters to their blocks. Surely the non voters must normally tend to be people who did not really care either way, and so as a group would straddle the yes/no line in their views. They would thus probably be a lukewarm reflection of society as a whole, with slightly more of them feeling a bit outish and a few less feeling that it might possibly be perhaps slightly the better option to stay a bit in. So it is probably fair to consider the result of the vote if every one had voted being the same as the relative percentages of those who actually did vote in or out.

Although in the case of the Brexit vote where older people who are apparently more likely to vote, tended to be more likely to vote out. The non voters may in fact be shifted towards the it might possibly be perhaps slightly the better option to stay a bit in side.

However actually forcing everyone to vote would in practice probably have resulted in a slightly enhanced out vote, as those prised out of their pits against their will, with no great opinion either way voted in the way they thought would most adversely affect the author of their inconvenience.

 

[Senex]

I am getting a bit fed up of both sides claiming a majority by adding the non voters to their blocks. Surely the non voters must normally tend to be people who did not really care either way, and so as a group would straddle the yes/no line in their views.

In normal elections I don't think that's quite fair. You might care considerably, but live in a constituency where your vote is of no significance, so you might well choose not to vote (as I in fact normally do).

But a referendum is different because all votes do count, and so I think in those one might fairly assume that those who do not vote do not really care. What disturbs me a little in this case is the polling evidence that seemed to shew that a majority of young people were Remainers coupled with the evidence that a very small number of them bothered to go out and vote. It is really possible that their votes, had they bothered, could have made a difference. But why did they not bother to vote if they were really concerned and felt that Remain was better?

 

[dosxuk]

But why did they not bother to vote if they were really concerned and felt that Remain was better?

Lots of young people, who have never known a world outside of the EU, believed that a Leave win was preposterous because of all the advantages the EU brings, especially things like being able to work abroad, cheap roaming and being able to bring (almost) as much cheap booze back across the channel as you want. Couple that with the distrust / disillusionment that lots of young people have with politics in general and you end up with that group who doesn't see the point in voting because it was obviously going to end up with a Remain win.

Now those same young people are disillusioned, and angry at the 52% who've taken away their chances, opportunities and prosperity. Doesn't bode well for the future, especially those coming up to retirement age who will be OAP's by the time that generation get into power.

 

[Howardh]

A fair few wouldn't have voted because there wasn't a "don't know" option. If voters sta away, then there could be many reasons for it. If some felt the information was misleading or complex or badly presented, there was nowhere for them to make that point.

Frankly, had there been a box for "This is a complete load of dog's do-do's from both sides and I'm not voting until I'm treated as an adult by both sides" box, that's where my vote would have gone.

 

[northwichcat]

A fair few wouldn't have voted because there wasn't a "don't know" option. If voters sta away, then there could be many reasons for it. If some felt the information was misleading or complex or badly presented, there was nowhere for them to make that point.

Frankly, had there been a box for "This is a complete load of dog's do-do's from both sides and I'm not voting until I'm treated as an adult by both sides" box, that's where my vote would have gone.

If there had been a box saying "Remain for now. Review again in 10 years time" I might have put an X next to it. I imagine that would have also be an option some Leave voters would have considered that option as some seemed to be more worried about the potential future arrangements of the EU rather than current arrangements.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am getting a bit fed up of both sides claiming a majority by adding the non voters to their blocks. Surely the non voters must normally tend to be people who did not really care either way, and so as a group would straddle the yes/no line in their views.

It's also possible they genuinely didn't know which option was best because of all the lies and misinformation that was circulated. However, I think it's fair to say if we include the non-voters that the majority of the population isn't convinced about either remaining or leaving.

 

[miami]

If there had been a box saying "Remain for now. Review again in 10 years time" I might have put an X next to it.

There was. It was "remain".

There's a review every 5 years, want to leave the EU, simply vote ukip. You only need about 35% of the country to vote to leave and you're set. UKIP PM comes in with a majority, issues article 50 or repeals the EC act, and then issues a vote of no confidence in his own government.

It's also possible they genuinely didn't know which option was best because of all the lies and misinformation that was circulated. However, I think it's fair to say if we include the non-voters that the majority of the population isn't convinced about either remaining or leaving.

In that case that would be a vote to "delegate to those we've trusted to make these massive decisions like going to war". I.E. MPs -- a majority of whom were in favour of remaining.

 

[northwichcat]

There was. It was "remain".

There's a review every 5 years, want to leave the EU, simply vote ukip. You only need about 35% of the country to vote to leave and you're set. UKIP PM comes in with a majority, issues article 50 or repeals the EC act, and then issues a vote of no confidence in his own government.

Who'd only offer hard Brexit as an option and what if people wanted to leave but didn't like some of UKIP's policies e.g. scrapping inheritance tax or putting a proportion of 40p tax rate payers on to a new 30p tax rate?

 

[anme]

Who'd only offer hard Brexit as an option and what if people wanted to leave but didn't like some of UKIP's policies e.g. scrapping inheritance tax or putting a proportion of 40p tax rate payers on to a new 30p tax rate?

How many people have ever found a political manifesto that they agree with 100%? I guess it's very small.

I don't know how to solve this problem.

 

[Domh245]

How many people have ever found a political manifesto that they agree with 100%? I guess it's very small.

I don't know how to solve this problem.

A move to a proportional representation voting system (or at least a move away from FPTP) combined with smaller parties aimed at smaller groups of members, for example Labour could splinter into a group of Corbynites, Blairites, and anything in between. The conservatives could split between moderates and Rees-Mogg-esque characters, etc. It won't raise manifesto approval to 100%, but it'll certainly drag it up a fair way.

 

[northwichcat]

How many people have ever found a political manifesto that they agree with 100%? I guess it's very small.

I don't know how to solve this problem.

In a general election there's a variety of issues to consider. Before the last election Ed Milliband said if Labour won there would be no EU referendum and that a vote for Labour was to remain the EU. Yet it appears a number of voters voted Labour in 2015 but then voted Leave in 2016. I imagine they thought it wasn't worth having a Conservative PM for another 5 years just to potentially allow us to leave the EU.

UKIP seem to think the answer is mix some left wing policies in with their right wing policies and to claim they are the 'party of the people.' Although, if they got in to government and did that I imagine they'd do a good job of annoying everyone.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There was. It was "remain". There's a review every 5 years, want to leave the EU, simply vote ukip. You only need about 35% of the country to vote to leave and you're set. UKIP PM comes in with a majority, issues article 50 or repeals the EC act, and then issues a vote of no confidence in his own government.

Well then, perhaps those potential UKIP voters decided that the last by-election was not really the time and place to commence a trial run for that aspiration...

 

[Howardh]

A move to a proportional representation voting system (or at least a move away from FPTP) combined with smaller parties aimed at smaller groups of members, for example Labour could splinter into a group of Corbynites, Blairites, and anything in between. The conservatives could split between moderates and Rees-Mogg-esque characters, etc. It won't raise manifesto approval to 100%, but it'll certainly drag it up a fair way.

Think that's more-or-less what they do on the continent. However we seem to be drifting away...:cry:

 

[Tetchytyke]

I am getting a bit fed up of both sides claiming a majority by adding the non voters to their blocks. Surely the non voters must normally tend to be people who did not really care either way

Those who did not vote did not express an opinion either way, I don't think we should try and guess why they did not express an opinion or what that opinion would have been.

But the simple fact is that "the will of the British People" is not clear at all, with only 37% actively wanting Brexit.

The real issue, of course, is that we know Leave won, but nowhere were we given a choice about what that Leave means for us. Trying to use the vote as a mandate for Hard Brexit is as mendacious as it would have been if Remain had won and taken it as a mandate for imposing the Euro and Schengen.

UKIP seem to think the answer is mix some left wing policies in with their right wing policies and to claim they are the 'party of the people.'

Worked for Mussolini.

 

[anme]

Those who did not vote did not express an opinion either way, I don't think we should try and guess why they did not express an opinion or what that opinion would have been.

But the simple fact is that "the will of the British People" is not clear at all, with only 37% actively wanting Brexit.

There's an important point that many people are missing.
Young people overwhelmingly voted to remain.
Old people overwhelmingly voted to leave.
Sadly, approximately 1.5% of the electorate die every year. These are mostly old people, and therefore mostly leave voters.
Assuming the article 50 process runs as expected, the UK will probably leave the EU around March 2019. This is almost three years after the referendum, and approximately 4% of those who voted will have died. By a large majority, these people will have voted to leave.
Therefore, when the UK leaves the EU, the majority of the electorate will have voted to remain.

Is that a fair, reasonable, democratic outcome?

(You might rightly argue that this can happen in any election. However, at a general election, the damage is limited to some proportion of five years. For a referendum, the damage continues forever.)

 

[AlterEgo]

There's an important point that many people are missing.
Young people overwhelmingly voted to remain.
Old people overwhelmingly voted to leave.
Sadly, approximately 1.5% of the electorate die every year. These are mostly old people, and therefore mostly leave voters.
Assuming the article 50 process runs as expected, the UK will probably leave the EU around March 2019. This is almost three years after the referendum, and approximately 4% of those who voted will have died. By a large majority, these people will have voted to leave.
Therefore, when the UK leaves the EU, the majority of the electorate will have voted to remain.

Is that a fair, reasonable, democratic outcome?

(You might rightly argue that this can happen in any election. However, at a general election, the damage is limited to some proportion of five years. For a referendum, the damage continues forever.)

I suppose that depends on whether or not you believe that people get more conservative as they get older. It could be the case that in three years' time, a couple of percent of Remain voters transfer to a Leave position.

 

[furnessvale]

Those who did not vote did not express an opinion either way, I don't think we should try and guess why they did not express an opinion or what that opinion would have been.

But the simple fact is that "the will of the British People" is not clear at all, with only 37% actively wanting Brexit.

The real issue, of course, is that we know Leave won, but nowhere were we given a choice about what that Leave means for us. Trying to use the vote as a mandate for Hard Brexit is as mendacious as it would have been if Remain had won and taken it as a mandate for imposing the Euro and Schengen.

Why not, they have imposed everything else on us for the last 40 years.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why not, they have imposed everything else on us for the last 40 years.

Who's "us"?

 

[miami]

Who's "us"?

And what is "everything"?
And who is "they"?