And then there were none

[jeremyp]

Are you suggesting that Douglas Carswell should not have resigned from UKIP? It would have the appearance of "honourable" behaviour but one thing which is clear, in our uncodified constitution, is that individuals not parties are elected.

So you keep saying and you are right by the letter of the law, but you ignore the reality that almost everybody votes for the individual standing for the party that they sympathise with.

The honourable thing would be to resign and stand again in the ensuing by-election (much like he did when he left the Tories to join UKIP). However that's not going to happen this time because, as an independent, Carswell will have no party to fund his campaign.

[Sebastian Toe]

Yes, but that doesn't alter the fact that the current election system is farcical.

I agree, but if electoral reform is needed, how will it be achieved and when?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is one reason, digressing slightly (and briefly), some of us in Scotland don't want to be part of Brexit given the above context.

Yes I think the lack of consultation indicates the swing to English nationalism.
Thatcher did this with the poll tax and that was the start of her political downfall and was a prelude to mugging off sections of the English vote.

England can expect I think some barefaced inequity probably to do with taxation since the tories have a terrific penchant for the gamble.

[Harrowby Hall]

So you keep saying and you are right by the letter of the law, but you ignore the reality that almost everybody votes for the individual standing for the party that they sympathise with.

The honourable thing would be to resign and stand again in the ensuing by-election (much like he did when he left the Tories to join UKIP). However that's not going to happen this time because, as an independent, Carswell will have no party to fund his campaign.

Yes, jeremyp, I know I keep saying it. And I agree with you about "the honourable thing" (But we are dealing with politicians, here.)

I was trying to make a reasoned comment on Sassy's post. She appeared (to me) to suggest two possible alternative reactions:

One was that leaving a party should precipitate a by-election. As we have (I think) agreed - that is not a constitutional requirement but might be construed as being honourable.

The second appeared to be that if an MP resigned from a party there should be a reserve, or substitute, waiting to immediately replace him or her. Presumably this would occur without any election and would represent the dominance of party over individual. How democratic!

[Jack Knave]

Unfortunately for UKIP Jack the Conservatives have decided that if there is going to be an English Nationalist party of the right it is going to be them.

As we know the Conservatives are as trustworthy and sincere as the Labour party - they both sway all over the place. May has taken on Labour and UKIP policies in order to try to cover their ground and cut them out of the picture but this type of tactic often back fires. So in the present, short term, they look like the "new" English Nationalist party of the right but that can't last very long with all that is going on in British politics at the moment.

[Jack Knave]

I think here that Vlad has hit the nail squarely on the head.

Mrs May's recent and continuing actions suggest that "Brexit means Brexit" really means "I have discovered a device which will ensure the continued dominance of the Conservative Party. If I can capture the support of the 3.8 million who voted for UKIP that will be the next General Election sewn up."

Theresa May, just like her immediate predecessor, is putting party interest before the national interest. Of course, she will justify this by saying that what is in the Conservative Party's interest is in the nation's interest.

Sadly that was given a little boost when UKIP missed an open goal in Stoke. But the damming compromises May will have to do for Art 50 negotiations will show her up and then UKIP can call upon the 17 million to see her for what she is by her not honouring the Brexit vote, and that they, UKIP, are the true champions of the Brexit and have been from the very start.

[Nearly Sane]

Sadly that was given a little boost when UKIP missed an open goal in Stoke. But the damming compromises May will have to do for Art 50 negotiations will show her up and then UKIP can call upon the 17 million to see her for what she is by her not honouring the Brexit vote, and that they, UKIP, are the true champions of the Brexit and have been from the very start.

The idea that the 17 million were somehow united in a pure vision when UKIP can have a punch up in a small meeting, and Banks has gone off to insult Cars well for being autistic and both of them have left UKIP is a the winner of Cognitive Dissonance of The Day

[Jack Knave]

Yes, jeremyp, I know I keep saying it. And I agree with you about "the honourable thing" (But we are dealing with politicians, here.)

I was trying to make a reasoned comment on Sassy's post. She appeared (to me) to suggest two possible alternative reactions:

One was that leaving a party should precipitate a by-election. As we have (I think) agreed - that is not a constitutional requirement but might be construed as being honourable.

The second appeared to be that if an MP resigned from a party there should be a reserve, or substitute, waiting to immediately replace him or her. Presumably this would occur without any election and would represent the dominance of party over individual. How democratic!

With your second comment I could see a party somehow forcibly removing a problem backbencher and parachuting in a sycophantic replacement.

[Harrowby Hall]

With your second comment I could see a party somehow forcibly removing a problem backbencher and parachuting in a sycophantic replacement.

I think that Sassy somehow believes that replacing someone with views other than those of the majority would be sustaining the democratic will. It would, of course, be a significant step along the road to a totalitarian state.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sadly that was given a little boost when UKIP missed an open goal in Stoke. But the damming compromises May will have to do for Art 50 negotiations will show her up and then UKIP can call upon the 17 million to see her for what she is by her not honouring the Brexit vote, and that they, UKIP, are the true champions of the Brexit and have been from the very start.

Deciding whether May has honoured the Brexit vote when we've actually Brexitted? What's going on? When will Brexit be good enough for you guys?
The writing was on the wall when Reckless stood in the Strood by election. It was a protest vote and when interviewed by the BBC the cross section chosen said they would vote differently come the 2015 election.....and they did. What UKIP have found out is that you cannot be Leader and underdog at the same time.
The Conservative party is the most successful political entity on the planet......Think of John Carpenter's ''the Thing''

[Jack Knave]

Deciding whether May has honoured the Brexit vote when we've actually Brexitted? What's going on? When will Brexit be good enough for you guys?
The writing was on the wall when Reckless stood in the Strood by election. It was a protest vote and when interviewed by the BBC the cross section chosen said they would vote differently come the 2015 election.....and they did. What UKIP have found out is that you cannot be Leader and underdog at the same time.
The Conservative party is the most successful political entity on the planet......Think of John Carpenter's ''the Thing''

I don't fully follow that. What I'm saying, like Cameron, May has taken a hard stance now to make it look as if she is doing the honours for Brexit but will gradually water things down as she hits her head against the EU wall. This will be UKIP's chance to call her traitor and rally the 17 million votes (or as many as they can) to them. I feel there is going to be a GE before 2020, but not too sure what will actually trigger it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't fully follow that. What I'm saying, like Cameron, May has taken a hard stance now to make it look as if she is doing the honours for Brexit but will gradually water things down as she hits her head against the EU wall. This will be UKIP's chance to call her traitor and rally the 17 million votes (or as many as they can) to them. I feel there is going to be a GE before 2020, but not too sure what will actually trigger it.

My advice to UKIP would be to quit while you're ahead as you'll ever be. If Brexit messes up economically that is going to be far more damaging than getting or not getting a bit here and a bit there from Europe. Whoever is carrying Brexit will lightening rod for the brexit voter. Gove, Leadsom, (to some extent Boris), Farage, Banks and Carswell are already distancing themselves from the epicentres and it looks like Corbyn will stay in long enough for May to end up the one who fails.
Any future statement that Brexit didn't work because it wasn't Brexit enough will be as convincing as Ken Livingstone's analysis that people voted Thatcher because Labour was not left wing enough.

If people lose from Brexit and UKIP can't direct them on how to win from it. Then it's no use to anyone.

[Jack Knave]

My advice to UKIP would be to quit while you're ahead as you'll ever be. If Brexit messes up economically that is going to be far more damaging than getting or not getting a bit here and a bit there from Europe. Whoever is carrying Brexit will lightening rod for the brexit voter. Gove, Leadsom, (to some extent Boris), Farage, Banks and Carswell are already distancing themselves from the epicentres and it looks like Corbyn will stay in long enough for May to end up the one who fails.
Any future statement that Brexit didn't work because it wasn't Brexit enough will be as convincing as Ken Livingstone's analysis that people voted Thatcher because Labour was not left wing enough.

If people lose from Brexit and UKIP can't direct them on how to win from it. Then it's no use to anyone.

But that epicentre is May and co., and if she starts back tracking on her hard Brexit (whatever that means) and starts giving things away, then those who voted for Brexit will be looking for a party to keep that hard Brexit. The focus I'm talking about/looking at  here is the ratification vote in parliament at the end. If May is forced to have an early election then this could be the arena it is carried out in. And UKIP could the party champion those 17 million Brexit voters.

[jeremyp]

Yes, jeremyp, I know I keep saying it. And I agree with you about "the honourable thing" (But we are dealing with politicians, here.)

I was trying to make a reasoned comment on Sassy's post. She appeared (to me) to suggest two possible alternative reactions:

One was that leaving a party should precipitate a by-election. As we have (I think) agreed - that is not a constitutional requirement but might be construed as being honourable.

The second appeared to be that if an MP resigned from a party there should be a reserve, or substitute, waiting to immediately replace him or her. Presumably this would occur without any election and would represent the dominance of party over individual. How democratic!

I think constituencies should have the ability to trigger a recall vote. If your MP does something you don't like, a petition signed by a certain proportion of the constituents could trigger a by election.

[jeremyp]

I don't fully follow that. What I'm saying, like Cameron, May has taken a hard stance now to make it look as if she is doing the honours for Brexit but will gradually water things down as she hits her head against the EU wall.

We can only hope so.

If your head hits the wall, it is the height of stupidity to carry on banging it.

This will be UKIP's chance to call her traitor and rally the 17 million votes (or as many as they can) to them. I feel there is going to be a GE before 2020, but not too sure what will actually trigger it.

17 million is only 34% of the electorate or a quarter of the population as a whole. Given the unholy mess we seem to be in, I expect some of them may have changed their minds by now.

[Jack Knave]

17 million is only 34% of the electorate or a quarter of the population as a whole. Given the unholy mess we seem to be in, I expect some of them may have changed their minds by now.

Well some. But more voted in the referendum than they have in the GEs, so your stats don't really count for too much as it is those who bother to vote and where those votes go.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I agree, but if electoral reform is needed, how will it be achieved and when?

The Labour Party helped to scupper the only real chance of electoral reform in my lifetime. As far as I am concerned the confused old lefty & his chums from the seventies can stay on the opposition benches for the rest of their naturals.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well some. But more voted in the referendum than they have in the GEs, so your stats don't really count for too much as it is those who bother to vote and where those votes go.

You can change your mind following a general election as you'll get another vote in a maximum of 5 years. There is no such guarantee for referendums, which is why in many cases they require a much greater threshold for change than merely a raw majority of those that voted.

[Jack Knave]

You can change your mind following a general election as you'll get another vote in a maximum of 5 years. There is no such guarantee for referendums, which is why in many cases they require a much greater threshold for change than merely a raw majority of those that voted.

In theory we could have a referendum to re-join the EU given a decent amount time from the last June one - say a generation or so.

[ProfessorDavey]

In theory we could have a referendum to re-join the EU given a decent amount time from the last June one - say a generation or so.

Or we could have one on the actual deal when it has been agreed and before it is enacted. Not to do so means we risk making the biggest change in the UK in decades without any actual mandate for the actual deal. Why does that scare you so much - perhaps you are worried that the deal that the UK will be able to get will be so bad that it couldn't gain the support of the electorate.

[Jack Knave]

Or we could have one on the actual deal when it has been agreed and before it is enacted. Not to do so means we risk making the biggest change in the UK in decades without any actual mandate for the actual deal. Why does that scare you so much - perhaps you are worried that the deal that the UK will be able to get will be so bad that it couldn't gain the support of the electorate.

Only if the referendum is on accepting the deal or going onto WTO rules, as the referendum on whether to leave or not has been decided on already.

[ProfessorDavey]

Only if the referendum is on accepting the deal or going onto WTO rules, as the referendum on whether to leave or not has been decided on already.

Nope - what if people would actually prefer remaining to either 'real' brexit options of a deal or WTO. The original referendum was lopsided with a clear and know option on one side (remain) and a collective of theoretical brexits on the other - including many which were simply fantasy and others that are mutually incompatible.

No actual and deliverable brexit has been tested electorally against remaining. Once we have a deal then it should be tested against remaining. Only then can anyone justifiably claim there is a mandate for the actual brexit (not some hypothetical, undeliverable, cake and eat it brexit).

Why are you so scared - are you perhaps just a tad worried that we will end up with a pig's ear of a deal, clearly bad for Britain, and one that the electorate wouldn't prefer to the option of remaining.

If the brexiters are so confident of getting a great deal, why are they so worried about putting that deal to the electorate - surely they'd be completely confident of winning a second referendum against remaining.

[Jack Knave]

Nope - what if people would actually prefer remaining to either 'real' brexit options of a deal or WTO. The original referendum was lopsided with a clear and know option on one side (remain) and a collective of theoretical brexits on the other - including many which were simply fantasy and others that are mutually incompatible.

No actual and deliverable brexit has been tested electorally against remaining. Once we have a deal then it should be tested against remaining. Only then can anyone justifiably claim there is a mandate for the actual brexit (not some hypothetical, undeliverable, cake and eat it brexit).

Why are you so scared - are you perhaps just a tad worried that we will end up with a pig's ear of a deal, clearly bad for Britain, and one that the electorate wouldn't prefer to the option of remaining.

If the brexiters are so confident of getting a great deal, why are they so worried about putting that deal to the electorate - surely they'd be completely confident of winning a second referendum against remaining.

That would give the EU a very strong hand. They would stick their heels in and present us with a very soft Brexit i.e. essentially still in the EU and so they would win either way. The nation voted for Brexit and that is what we should go for.

And as it goes the Leave lot did set out some firm parameters like on immigration and "Taking Control"  and ceasing to be a member of the Single Market.

[ProfessorDavey]

That would give the EU a very strong hand.

The reverse is also true - it massively strengthens May's hand in negotiations if she is able to say to the EU that she needs to get any proposed deal past the electorate.

[ProfessorDavey]

And as it goes the Leave lot did set out some firm parameters like on immigration and "Taking Control"  and ceasing to be a member of the Single Market.

And also being in the single market, and in the customs union, and £350M for the NHS etc etc. There was absolutely no clearly defined view on brexit would mean from the Leave side - it was deliberately portrayed as all things to all people.