|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: voting advice
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
I'm a Scot but believe strongly in the United Kingdom. I don't want Scotland to return to the pre 1707 days. Normally I decide who to vote for in a General Election based on issues such as the economy, foreign policy etc. However, since the referendum, I feel that we are living in a new constitutional uncertainty which divides us and overshadows all other issues. I don't want to discuss the pros and cons of independence v the Smith commission proposals. I would like views on which party I should vote for on Thursday to ensure that a second independence referendum does not take place within the foreseeable future (let's say 25 years). I know a second referendum isn't in any party manifesto, not even SNP, but which party in government at Westminster is most likely to resist SNP demands for a second referendum in the event of an SNP landslide at Holyrood next year?
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Since there aren't SNP demands for a second referendum it doesn't seem to make much difference. At the moment, even a vote for the SNP isn't related to independence. There isn't at present any momentum for a referendum - we've just had our say, and said 'no'. There may be a mood for a referendum within your 25 years, but I don't see anything that would put it on the cards in the next 5 - except if we have a referendum on the EU and the UK votes to leave while the majority of Scotland votes to stay in.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
Alan, SNP have not ruled out a second referendum being in their manifesto for Holyrood in 2016. If SNP form the Scottish government at Holyrood, particularly with an increased majority over 2011, will not the SNP put huge pressure on the Westminster government to grant a second referendum, particularly if SNP hold any leverage in a minority administration at Westminster? Who will best resist this at Westminster?
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
PS Alan, I agree that a UK referendum vote to leave the EU would be a game-changer if Scotland voted to remain in the EU although I believe it is highly unlikely that the UK as a whole would vote to leave the EU in 2017, if the EU referendum does happen.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Alan, SNP have not ruled out a second referendum being in their manifesto for Holyrood in 2016. If SNP form the Scottish government at Holyrood, particularly with an increased majority over 2011, will not the SNP put huge pressure on the Westminster government to grant a second referendum, particularly if SNP hold any leverage in a minority administration at Westminster? Who will best resist this at Westminster?
First I think it will be foolish for the SNP to push for an early referendum. A manifesto commitment to work towards another referendum in due time is certainly possible, for them to aim for that within the term of the next Scottish Parliament is very unlikely to be a vote winner for them. Put simply, I think a large portion of those who voted Yes are either satisfied with additional devolved powers (being basically what they wanted in the first place) or are wanting to see how things work out with a combination of greater devolved powers and a large SNP presence in Westminster. There would need to be some very significant developments (eg: the unlikely event of an 'out' vote on EU membership) before a referendum is going to have a chance of exceeding 45% for Yes. The SNP know that, so they might flag up their long-term goal of independence, but they're not going to be stupid enough to gamble their influence in Holyrood and Westminster on an early referendum.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
I agree Alan. I will probably vote Labour, although I feel a Conservative government are much less likely to concede a referendum within the generation timescale which was talked about in 2014, in the absence of some other major constitutional upheaval.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
If the SNP put another referendum in their Holyrood manifesto, and there is a landslide in favour of it, what democratic right would Westminster have to ignore it? The growth in SNP membership, and current opinion polls suggests that many Scots who rejected independence during the referendum are having second thoughts.
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
(from South of the border, so lots of ignorance)
Short answer, I don't think it matters so long as you make it clear to them where, as far as your concerned, the mandate ends. In any case it's complicated, with lots of feedback.
It seems there's a number of questions that are tied in to one. Basically your 1 person in a constituency, and that's 1 constituency among many. So who you vote for and who gets in is only tangentially related.
Focusing on the Westminster side
The 3 obvious effect will be either making a referenda physically impossible, making the union attractive (by being nice), or making the union attractive by being 'Successful'.
I'd have thought that a Con government might resist a referendum more firmly than Lab but would be more likely to do things that make a referendum much more justifiable (and to increase the chances of it's succeeding when it does happen).
In any case in 25 years the government will change, any legislation would be of dubious validity (at least morally*) that I don't think it really makes much difference.
As to working with the SNP, Ed possibly had the chance but I think has committed against it. So Labours advantage there is pretty much gone.
So that leave economic or social competence, I think we can neglect that having any effect...
(which overall might leave the Tories slightly ahead)
*unless scottish mp's vote for it, or the legislation reflects other moral thingy's (pace N Rhodesia)
On the Scottish contribution and in particular your seat. Obviously a Tory/Lab/LD MP will give some legitimacy to any anti-independence controls, and contribute to the party in power.
It may be that the party you want to get in and the party, where there's enough like you to make a difference don't add up in which case things get very complicated*. On the other hand
*Possibly related is the Sun's split personality (assuming central control).
Finally on your vote, ignoring the direct effects.
Voting for the SNP could be taken for support of second referendum, one way to resolve this is to say "no it isn't" and to point out if they try to spin it as a mandate they'll be caught out when it terms they've misjudged and that will really knock it into touch.
Voting for either of the others will possibly give them more of an incentive to claim support from Westminster, which if you are a minority might backfire when they do something stupid.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
What about the other policies the various parties advocate, the personal qualities of the individual candidates, and how much prospect their is of them getting in. If you don't want to vote for party X and the seat is even potentially marginal, you might want to vote for the other candidate who has the best chance of getting in. If you don't want to vote for X and it's a safe X seat, then vote for the party you really prefer.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
My constituency is a choice between Conservative and UKIP. It's like trying to choose between Sauron and Voldemort, so I will cross my fingers and vote Labour anyway (though I think Ed M is very misguided on promising no coalition with the SNP).
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I've got a choice of Conservative.
The LibDem points out that he is the nearest challenger, with a very iffy graph, designed to make it look as though he had more than half the Con vote last time. UKIP has posted a billet-doux. There was probably a Labour one. Nothing from the Greens (A Boleyn, female, very local name. Amelie, not Anne.)
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
For a safe seat, they must be getting worried. I've just had another Tory missive.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
To answer the OP:
1/ Don't vote SNP under any circumstances.
2/ Who is most likely to defeat the SNP in your constituency? Vote for them.
If not having another referendum is your key issue that is the way forward. (And equally if you want another referendum any time soon vote SNP.) The thing is that none of the other parties want a referendum on Scottish Independence and will do everything in their power to stop one. To be honest, I would be surprised if there was another referendum during the next parliament because the only people who can call one are the UK government and they are likely to take the line "we just had what you described as a once in a generation referendum and we ain't calling another one. End of" All bets will be off, however, if the Tories have a referendum on the EU and Scotland votes to stay in and England votes to leave. So you might want to think about voting Labour because that uncertainty will then not arise if they win. The Tories will hold such a referendum and the Lib Dems, who will almost certainly back the Tories in a hung parliament, will go along with it. There is no point in voting in such a way as to influence the parliament after next because there is no way of knowing how things will look at that juncture. If you want to stop a referendum in this parliament, and that is your main objective, vote for Labour in the first instance and, if that is not viable in your constituency, vote for the Lib Dem or the Tory candidate (in no particular order of importance).
Obviously, if the reverse were true one should vote for the SNP. And failing that, tactically, for the Tories or Lib Dems because a Brexit opposed by most Scots is more likely under Cameron's watch. (Although, given the polls, there seems little point for SNP voters to vote tactically - unlike unionists).
But in either event, there is little point in deliberating as to whether another referendum is going to happen under, say, Priti Patel or Dan Jarvis in 2027 because nothing you do between now and Thursday will have any effect one way or the other. If the question is: for whom should I vote to prevent another referendum on Thursday, the answer is: your Labour candidate, assuming that they are a seat where they are the main challenger to the SNP.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Blue is the colour where I live so I just vote for the candidate who has the best chance of changing the colour - unless that happened to be UKIP in which case I'd be tempted to join an insurrectionist movement.
I've only once voted in an election where the outcome was close and so had a small part to play in unseating a very right wing Tory. It was a good day for democracy.
I suppose my prejudices are showing but I'm probably genetically averse to ever putting my cross in the Blue box. I might manage it if the only alternative were UKIP I suppose but only as a stopgap while plotting the revolution.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarasa
Shipmate
# 12271
|
Posted
Mine is a Lib Dem/Conservative marginal. Between us the family have had enough bumf from both parties to paper the parlour. I know who I'm voting for even though I'm not keen. DO wish we had PR.
--------------------
'I guess things didn't go so well tonight, but I'm trying. Lord, I'm trying.' Charlie (Harvey Keitel) in Mean Streets.
Posts: 2035 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yangtze
Shipmate
# 4965
|
Posted
I"m in Labour 28% majority. So far I've had exactly two leaflets: one from Labour and one from UKIP. Guess no-one else is bothered about my vote which is shame.
As for the OP - if you don't want an independent Scotland then don't vote SNP. Suspect all the rest of them are as likely as each other to bow, or not bow, to SNP demands to another referendum (which, as has been said, is not on anyone's cards at the moment) so you might as well go back to the other things you decide your vote on.
FWIW.
--------------------
Arthur & Henry Ethical Shirts for Men
organic cotton, fair trade cotton, linen
Sometimes I wonder What's for Afters?
Posts: 2022 | From: the smallest town in England | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I'm in a safe Tory seat. We've had the free mail-shot from the Conservatives, Labour and UKIP, a newspaper from Labour and something from the Action on the NHS people. The seat next door is a wafer thin Tory-Labour marginal and every politico in my seat is desperately campaigning in that one.
Mildly irksome but under the current rules of the game, largely rational.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Despite my carefully avoiding election guff on broadcasts, I have picked up an idea that Cameron will resurrect the boundary changes notion for any coalition deal. And I seem to recall that the proposed changes were all designed to make more safe blue seats. Like the one I have very thoughtlessly moved to. Gerrymandered.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Despite my carefully avoiding election guff on broadcasts, I have picked up an idea that Cameron will resurrect the boundary changes notion for any coalition deal. And I seem to recall that the proposed changes were all designed to make more safe blue seats. Like the one I have very thoughtlessly moved to. Gerrymandered.
Sort of, although the last lot of boundary changes were put in over the 13 years of Labour, are well out date demographically, and are arguably currently gerrymandered in Labour's favour. IIRC correctly, Labour can get a majority with about 5 percentage points fewer in the polls than the Tories need.
Cameron's proposed reforms would have equalised constituency sizes across the nation, and arguably not so much gerrymandered as levelled the playing field (inasmuch as it can be levelled in a FPTP system - I want STV+ anyway). The LibDems nixed it in a fit of pique when the AV referendum didn't go their way.
So, just bear in mind that the current boundaries actually stack the decks in Labour's favour. That they still can't pull clear says rather more about them...
[ 06. May 2015, 20:41: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
This particular constituency, I read on an analysis site in 2010, had had added to it some sections of a more marginal constituency to the north, one part of which voted consistently Labour (and still does). This, apparently, had the effect of removing the chance of LibDems forming a realistic challenge to any Conservative. Presumably some other part of it to the south migrated elsewhere. There's not much chance of gerrymandering round here in favour of Labour. The bit I'm in, though, probably may have been intended to remove some blue voters from the north - didn't work last time, though. It was fun living there - my vote counted.
As a side effect, there are no reasonable lines of communication with the head town, as all the roads flow naturally north. I heard today of someone who went to the head town by bus the other day. This meant she had to catch a bus almost to the Thames, before catching another to go twice as far, all the way through the Downs. Ludicrous.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I was interrupted mid-edit by a phone call. I was going to say that I too want a proper PR system, and it was a shame that instead of having a referendum on choosing to have a system that would be carefully researched after the referendum, we had to have one on a single weak and unconvincing system. I used to run classroom elections on transferable votes!
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
The proposed changes also created nonsense constituencies such as Merseybanks, which would have been a random blob of the north and south banks at the point where the Mersey is at its widest and there is no crossing at all until Runcorn, several miles outside the constituency. The two halves of the constituency have never had any real social connection, thanks obviously to the river.
A Tory friend of mine ranted at length at the time that all the proposed Merseyside constituencies seemed to have been generated by a computer with no local knowledge or awareness of natural features.
In any case I am not sure that equal sized constituencies make sense in a Westminster system. Constituencies are predicated on the assumption that identifiable geographical areas have interests in common, so that you can meaningfully talk about the interests of Ricardusborough East. It is not suggested that any random agglomeration of umpteen thousand people have interests in common.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Of course, there is only constituency size that will produce a result acceptable to everyone in the constituency. A constituency of one voter. However constituencies larger than that are organised will be some form of compromise.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Sure - my point is that if you're worried about votes being of unequal worth, you want a PR system, not FPTP.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
There are a number of different sorts of proportional voting. If it were fair why does there need to be more than one different form?
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
If I remember correctly, mathematically all voting systems give unreasonable results. To me that suggests that the more voting systems we can employ the better...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
If I remember correctly, mathematically all voting systems give unreasonable results. To me that suggests that the more voting systems we can employ the better...
"Can give" unreasonable results. You are correct that a voting system which meets all desirable criteria in all cases is provably impossible. This is Arrow's impossibility theorem (at least for ranked methods).
You can, however, distinguish between voting systems that are really horrible, and ones that are usually not too bad, and you can identify cases where the choice of voting system wouldn't affect the result, and ones where it does.
In vague terms, if an election makes the "wrong" choice between two similar candidates, I'm not sure that it matters much. Our plurality system is clearly very bad when there are two similar candidates and a dissimilar one (splitting the left-wing vote between red and yellow to let blue win is a problem, as is splitting the right-wing vote between blue and purple to let red (or yellow) win.
With a two-party dominant system, this isn't a problem - the choice between similar candidates happens within the party, or in a primary.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
Probably a bit late now to make this point but, there may be arguments about legitimacy after this election.
This is constitutional nonsense. However, in such a situation public opinion may be swayed by the number of votes. So even in a very safe seat, your vote could still be very important.
Yes our system is broken but please vote anyway.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Constituencies are predicated on the assumption that identifiable geographical areas have interests in common, so that you can meaningfully talk about the interests of Ricardusborough East. It is not suggested that any random agglomeration of umpteen thousand people have interests in common.
I suspect that the idea of all the people in R East having the same interests is becoming less true as well. What is more representative? A member for R East who shares (roughly) the politics of 40% of the people who showed up to vote, or a multi-member R and surrounding areas constituency that allows the representatives of the greater R area to more closely match the aggregate opinions of their constituents?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Given a multi-cameral parliament, that could possibly be addressed
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
No problems with legitimacy although there will be the usual (IMO justified) complaints about parties getting far more votes than seats.
At the moment (one seat left to come) result is:
Conservative 330
Labour 232
SNP 56
DUP 8
LibDem 8
Plaid Cymru 3
Sinn Fein 3
SDLP 4
UUP 2
Independent (in Northern Ireland) 1
UKIP 1
Green 1
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I suspect that the idea of all the people in R East having the same interests is becoming less true as well. What is more representative? A member for R East who shares (roughly) the politics of 40% of the people who showed up to vote, or a multi-member R and surrounding areas constituency that allows the representatives of the greater R area to more closely match the aggregate opinions of their constituents?
Indeed - and in the Victorian era Ricardusborough may well have returned several members to Parliament. The idea that single-member constituencies are a hallowed British tradition like real ale and the monarchy is something of an anachronism.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Not only did we have multi-member constituencies until relatively recently, we only got rid of the ability of some people to cast more than one vote in the 1940s - prior to then a business owner could vote in the constituency he lived in and where his business was located, and graduates of some universities could vote for members to represent their university, and if you were an Oxbridge graduate with a business you could have three votes.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
