The EU referendum - IN / OUT or Shake it all about.

[Guest MattP]

Re: MEP elections, reform is badly needed here, we should be voting for candidates of the EPP/S&P/ECR not for candidates of our national parties, it makes no sense that there are no candidates put up by the EPP, the biggest voting bloc in the EP, in the UK. All it does is encourage entrenched voting and discourage interest in European politics.

 

I honestly think you'd manage to bring the voter turnout to less than 20% if you did that.

 

I'm a politics obssessive and I wouldn't be arsed to walk 50 yards if I was voting on the basis of the European Parliament groupings, actually I'd probably just go out and vote for the most far-right anti European group I could find.

[Captain...]

I honestly think you'd manage to bring the voter turnout to less than 20% if you did that.

 

I'm a politics obssessive and I wouldn't be arsed to walk 50 yards if I was voting on the basis of the European Parliament groupings, actually I'd probably just go out and vote for the most far-right anti European group I could find.

 

Why would you walk 50 yards when you can't even vote for a candidate in the biggest voting bloc in the parliament, it is like turning up on election day and not having a Conservative candidate on the ballot.

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to have candidates put up by the European Parliament parties backed by national ones, rather than the other way round. A vote for the conservatives doesn't get you a conservative MEP it gets you an ECR MEP who are not the same thing. To be honest the European Parliament is a bit shit, the only use would be if a significant amount of anti-EU and Eurosceptic MEPs were elected preventing legislation from coming through. 

 

In which case your vote for the most far right anti European group would be an accurate reflection of your views.

[Alf Bentley]

Trouble with that argument is it basically boils downs to wanting in because an unelected EU parliament is better than being run by the Tories. We should instead ask if there is anything we need to do to our own democracy to make it more democratic. I think some degree of PR is necessary. It isn't right that a party with 36.9% of a vote and less than 25% support from eligible voters, can have 5 years to do as they please. This isn't good for the country whether it is a Labour or Conservative government.

 

I don't think the EU parliament represents the UK very well. We have no MEPs in the largest alliance (EPP). Most people don't really have a clue what alliance their party of allegiance is involved with and the set up means you aren't sure who your MEP will hang out with anyway because they may have to join a different group.

 

The majority of other member states want a fiscal union with member's own government budgets scrutinised and approved by Brussels. I don't think this is good for the UK. We are quite capable of running our own economy.

 

You don't have to be a big economy to have power in the global market. You just need to have something somebody else wants. Which we do still have in the form of a relatively skilled workforce, and good social and economic infrastructure.

 

I agree with you about PR, but we can forget about that for at least another 5 years, unless the Tory majority implodes sooner (possible, but unlikely).

 

The main argument encouraging me to vote "In" is the need for democratic politics to go international - preferably global - so as to oversee an economy that has gone (partly) global, rather than have a race to the bottom in social conditions, which might benefit the bottom line for global corporations, but not the lives of Joe Public.

 

The European Parliament certainly isn't unelected. We elected it last year! Of course, we didn't elect the German MEPs....but then I didn't elect Westminster MPs for London or Manchester, only Leicester.

The other main EU institutions - the Council and the Commission - might not be directly elected, but we are represented on them, by the PM, cabinet ministers and appointees of the UK govt/parliament. 

 

The fact that we have no MEPs in the main centre-right alliance illustrates my other concern, about what sustained Tory domination will do to this country if we leave the EU. The Tories used to be in that main centre-right grouping, but opted to leave because it wasn't right-wing enough. Their centre-right counterparts in other European countries genuinely believe in "one nation conservatism" - capitalism with a human face, not too much inequality, decent social provision, basic rights etc. The Tories - or at least the dominant Eurosceptic Tory right - don't. They believe in minimal state provision, slashing and burning social provision, reducing employment rights etc. They want to leave the EU in order to compete with Europe through low pay, low tax, low public spending and low employment rights. They represent big capital and want to further the financial interests of big capital by shafting those people in the country who are not beneficiaries of big capital.

 

There are strong arguments for fiscal union, certainly if you go for economic & monetary union, although it would probably need a longish adjustment period. Otherwise you risk "social dumping": i.e. some country tell companies "our workers will work for half other country's pay rates, with lower social provision and we'll undercut everyone on corporation tax.....a bit like Ireland shafts the UK at the moment, undercutting us on corporation tax so that major global corporations fiddle the system and claim that most of their UK business actually takes place in Ireland. You just end up with a race to the bottom, instead of the benefits of economic convergence across the continent, and shared growth that can become self-perpetuating (if the wealth of Spain grows, so does demand for British exports etc.). I'm not familiar with any detailed proposals for fiscal union, but imagine that UK tax and spending would just have to be within certain limits (already the case with many taxes and regulatory measures).

[Alf Bentley]

I'm very worried about this though now, I have fundamental doubts about the legitimacy and fairness of this referendum given it appears the Yes campaign is going to be allowed to spend more than the No campaign and similar to Ireland it appears some of that will be funded by the EU itself, the BBC have a duty to be impartial but receive funding from the same body, the bill being rushed through today doesn't appear to cover these issues.

 

I'm also very concerned about how the establishment will react to a 'Yes' vote, I think they'll see it as a mandate to really plough ahead with their ever closer union and take us to the centre of it. Where do those people vote who want no part of that but desperately want to stay in the free trade agreement?

 

 

Here we go, even before the referendum takes place, the Right is readying itself to dispute the legitimacy of any defeat that it may suffer. It's like the English version of the SNP. We really are heading for a US-style Tea Party situation, a country bitterly divided, in permanent conflict and refusing to accept the democratic legitimacy of any defeat.

 

Did you worry about the Tories being allowed to spend more than Labour at the General Election, Matt? I don't recall you worrying about that.... If you're worried about the Yes campaign having more cash, shouldn't you just find a few billionaire hedge fund managers to ensure that you can spend even more? Isn't that how democracy works?  

 

As for the "pro-left" BBC.... You do know that Labour formally complained about pro-Tory bias during the election campaign, don't you? They complained that the BBC concentrated too much on the issue of SNP influence over a hypothetical minority Labour government - a campaign theme actively promoted by the Tories - to the exclusion of issues like the NHS and planned Tory spending cuts that were raised by Labour. Accusations of bias can cut both ways.

 

What a bitter, divided, horrible country the UK is set to become (or Rump-UK, if the Scots leave)! 

[Captain...]

There are strong arguments for fiscal union, certainly if you go for economic & monetary union, although it would probably need a longish adjustment period. Otherwise you risk "social dumping": i.e. some country tell companies "our workers will work for half other country's pay rates, with lower social provision and we'll undercut everyone on corporation tax.....a bit like Ireland shafts the UK at the moment, undercutting us on corporation tax so that major global corporations fiddle the system and claim that most of their UK business actually takes place in Ireland. You just end up with a race to the bottom, instead of the benefits of economic convergence across the continent, and shared growth that can become self-perpetuating (if the wealth of Spain grows, so does demand for British exports etc.). I'm not familiar with any detailed proposals for fiscal union, but imagine that UK tax and spending would just have to be within certain limits (already the case with many taxes and regulatory measures).

 

I think this is one of my big frustrations with the EU they are promoting freedom of movement and work, but not addressing the inequalities between the countries, this is where I would support a 2 or 3 tier system within the EU/Eurozone, with freedom of movement and work between those with similar levels of taxation and benefits and minimum wage, and until a country comes into line with what should be the goals of the EU it shouldn't automatically have full access to other countries. Levies and quotas and duty can be applied to compensate in situations where Ireland are screwing us out of huge amounts of profit because of their business tax rates, and prevent citizens from poorer countries flooding wealthier countries.

[ADK]

I don't really see "in" as being a left wing view. Or "out" as being a right wing one.

 

Who else is legitimate though? For what's it worth I wouldn't bother even mentioning the ones who didn't go out to vote, if they aren't prepared to vote for anyone I don't think we can use them as evidence that a current government shouldn't be in power, the only other government you could really argue that would be legitimate is a Tory/Labour one or a Tory/UKIP one.

 

As for the EU you can't make a vote based on what government is here, that has and will continue to change over time.

 

I personally think if we don't come out we certainly need some sort of two tier system where the stronger economic nations work together and the smaller ones do the same, maybe even restrict freedom of movement between the two tiers, after all it's doing Poland no good losing all their best people to richer nations, the one size fits all approach certainly isn't working.

 

I'm very worried about this though now, I have fundamental doubts about the legitimacy and fairness of this referendum given it appears the Yes campaign is going to be allowed to spend more than the No campaign and similar to Ireland it appears some of that will be funded by the EU itself, the BBC have a duty to be impartial but receive funding from the same body, the bill being rushed through today doesn't appear to cover these issues.

 

I'm also very concerned about how the establishment will react to a 'Yes' vote, I think they'll see it as a mandate to really plough ahead with their ever closer union and take us to the centre of it. Where do those people vote who want no part of that but desperately want to stay in the free trade agreement?

 

Our politicians don't want to be held accountable by their people and ever closer union into this is the perfect way to solve that problem, less and less tough decision making for them and they collect the same money for doing so.

 

I didn't say it wasn't legitimate. That's a word that gets over used. Something can be legitimate but that doesn't mean it can't be improved. I think a lot of people don't vote because they aren't particularly happy with their natural party or they feel their vote is wasted. I disagree but the logic isn't unreasonable. We must make every vote matter. I have my own ideas for improving our government but this is the EU topic and it's a topic in itself.

 

I don't think you can expect an unbiased in/out when the majority of big business, the EU, the USA (eager to cash in on TTIP) and the bulk of the UK political establishment is supporting "in". The only asset "out" has is Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP, who people might be tempted to vote "out" just to see the back of.

 

It isn't a left/right issue. It would be nice to see some Liberals or Socialists arguing a case for "out" alongside the Libertarians and Conservatives.

[bovril]

I completely understand the argument against free movement of labour but if the Middle East and much of North Africa continue to implode it's not going to be Eastern Europeans people are worried about in five years.

[Strokes]

 

Re: MEP elections, reform is badly needed here, we should be voting for candidates of the EPP/S&P/ECR not for candidates of our national parties, it makes no sense that there are no candidates put up by the EPP, the biggest voting bloc in the EP, in the UK. All it does is encourage entrenched voting and discourage interest in European politics.

I agree with this, if we are to remain in the EU this is the only way forward. It might reduce turnout but unless we can link the electorate with the actual parties, then how the hell can they be accountable?

[Guest MattP]

Here we go, even before the referendum takes place, the Right is readying itself to dispute the legitimacy of any defeat that it may suffer. It's like the English version of the SNP. We really are heading for a US-style Tea Party situation, a country bitterly divided, in permanent conflict and refusing to accept the democratic legitimacy of any defeat.

 

Did you worry about the Tories being allowed to spend more than Labour at the General Election, Matt? I don't recall you worrying about that.... If you're worried about the Yes campaign having more cash, shouldn't you just find a few billionaire hedge fund managers to ensure that you can spend even more? Isn't that how democracy works?

 

As for the "pro-left" BBC.... You do know that Labour formally complained about pro-Tory bias during the election campaign, don't you? They complained that the BBC concentrated too much on the issue of SNP influence over a hypothetical minority Labour government - a campaign theme actively promoted by the Tories - to the exclusion of issues like the NHS and planned Tory spending cuts that were raised by Labour. Accusations of bias can cut both ways.

 

What a bitter, divided, horrible country the UK is set to become (or Rump-UK, if the Scots leave)! 

 

Come on Alf, this is a ridiculous exaggeration and you know it.

 

A free and fair referendum is paramount and if you think people are going to be silenced into a corner while all sorts happens with accusations of being a nasty tea party style you've got another think coming, if organisations like the EU get involved to the extent they did in Ireland then this clearly wouldn't have been a free and fair referendum and people will say so.

 

A lot of things are already making this look like a stich up, from what is coming out of Cameron's mouth already it's hard to think he sees anything other than a 'Yes' vote as acceptable whatever happens in these negotiations, yes he's denied it but we know what he meant and for his MP's to effectively to be told to accept a deal before the terms have even been thrashed out or the changes that they wanted have even been discussed quite frankly stinks, the 28 day purdah has been removed from the referendum bill despite it being promised, a move that has alarmed the electoral commission already according to the Guardian and the Times, effectively allowing public money to be used to sway people into a pro European Union vote.

 

No I didn't complain about the Tories having more to spend during the election, I'm sure you didn't complain when Labour had more to spend either under Blair. The difference of course between this and the GC is that they have deliberately raised the limits here by 40% which will clearly favour the 'Yes' vote given it will attract big business, turning the question around will you see this is totally acceptable if the Tories implement such a rise for 2020?

 

For what's it worth the SNP had a point over their referendum IMHO, devo-max was left off the ballot paper then as soon as that rogue poll that had them at 51% was released all our political parties clubbed together to offer devo max with the 'No' vote, did you think that was fair at the time? I thought it was appalling.

 

As for the BBC and Labour, I can see why they would have found that coverage biased as it was so far from the usual overtly left wing stuff they produce, a 50/50 audience on Question Time with a Labour leader being taken apart is someone totally foreign to them. The same way a lot of Tories find Sky News biased during the electoral campaign when the commission rules are implemented.

 

I don't know how anyone can seriously say the SNP angle was overplayed though, it was proven to the the total truth in the end, Nicola Sturgeon stood in front of millions of people in the leaders debate and told Ed Miliband 'I will make you Prime Minister' to which Ed barely responded too, it then took him despite consistent questioning until days before the election to finally admit there would be no deal with the SNP whatever the outcome, then within an hour of the exit poll being released we had it confirmed he was lying as Yvette Cooper, Ed Balls, Andy Burnham and Liz Kendall all came onto the television to tell us that Ed Miliband would still be in position to form a government even if the Tories won 312 seats

 

I would hope any accusation of bias was very quickly withdrawn after the series of events we watched unfolded.

 

Cameron has to be so careful here, if this referendum isn't viewed as fair and the 'Yes' vote wins, he'll be kissing many of the Tory party 'No' voters good bye in England in exactly the same way Labour lost them in Scotland.

[Alf Bentley]

Come on Alf, this is a ridiculous exaggeration and you know it.

 

A free and fair referendum is paramount and if you think people are going to be silenced into a corner while all sorts happens with accusations of being a nasty tea party style you've got another think coming, if organisations like the EU get involved to the extent they did in Ireland then this clearly wouldn't have been a free and fair referendum and people will say so.

 

A lot of things are already making this look like a stich up, from what is coming out of Cameron's mouth already it's hard to think he sees anything other than a 'Yes' vote as acceptable whatever happens in these negotiations, yes he's denied it but we know what he meant and for his MP's to effectively to be told to accept a deal before the terms have even been thrashed out or the changes that they wanted have even been discussed quite frankly stinks, the 28 day purdah has been removed from the referendum bill despite it being promised, a move that has alarmed the electoral commission already according to the Guardian and the Times, effectively allowing public money to be used to sway people into a pro European Union vote.

 

No I didn't complain about the Tories having more to spend during the election, I'm sure you didn't complain when Labour had more to spend either under Blair. The difference of course between this and the GC is that they have deliberately raised the limits here by 40% which will clearly favour the 'Yes' vote given it will attract big business, turning the question around will you see this is totally acceptable if the Tories implement such a rise for 2020?

 

For what's it worth the SNP had a point over their referendum IMHO, devo-max was left off the ballot paper then as soon as that rogue poll that had them at 51% was released all our political parties clubbed together to offer devo max with the 'No' vote, did you think that was fair at the time? I thought it was appalling.

 

As for the BBC and Labour, I can see why they would have found that coverage biased as it was so far from the usual overtly left wing stuff they produce, a 50/50 audience on Question Time with a Labour leader being taken apart is someone totally foreign to them. The same way a lot of Tories find Sky News biased during the electoral campaign when the commission rules are implemented.

 

I don't know how anyone can seriously say the SNP angle was overplayed though, it was proven to the the total truth in the end, Nicola Sturgeon stood in front of millions of people in the leaders debate and told Ed Miliband 'I will make you Prime Minister' to which Ed barely responded too, it then took him despite consistent questioning until days before the election to finally admit there would be no deal with the SNP whatever the outcome, then within an hour of the exit poll being released we had it confirmed he was lying as Yvette Cooper, Ed Balls, Andy Burnham and Liz Kendall all came onto the television to tell us that Ed Miliband would still be in position to form a government even if the Tories won 312 seats

 

I would hope any accusation of bias was very quickly withdrawn after the series of events we watched unfolded.

 

Cameron has to be so careful here, if this referendum isn't viewed as fair and the 'Yes' vote wins, he'll be kissing many of the Tory party 'No' voters good bye in England in exactly the same way Labour lost them in Scotland.

 

 

Let's be honest. The referendum could be as scrupulously fair as possible, but a load of people on the Europhobe Right will never accept a defeat. They live in some strange, bitter, paranoid world run by a mysterious "liberal elite" and its chief agent, the BBC. I just find it depressing that, instead of arguing the in/out case, some people are already focused on seeing the unknown outcome as an establishment conspiracy against them.

 

Of course the BBC is further left than you'd like. It's further right than I'd like. That's because your views are well to the right of centre and mine are well to the left.

 

During the election, the BBC gave massive coverage to the hypothetical scenario of a Labour/SNP government - one of the main themes of the Tory campaign. Did they give similarly massive coverage to the hypothetical scenario of a Tory government propped up by UKIP or the DUP? No! Yet it was just as likely an outcome. Indeed, it nearly happened - and could yet happen later in the parliament if the Tories lose a few byelections or defectors. Even worse, the massive focus on a hypothetical Labour/SNP stitch-up, fanned by Tories and SNP alike, crowded out coverage of serious issues like the Tory economic record, climate change, Europe and the NHS, none of which were debated adequately.

 

Maybe I should take a leaf from the Europhobe book and agitate for the Tory election win not to recognised as valid? No. Some unfair stuff happened in the election, but that's politics - Labour had adequate opportunities to seize the agenda and make their case, but failed to do so and lost fair and square. Likewise, whatever influence the EU or anyone else exerts (influence that could easily prove counter-productive), the Europhobes will have an adequate opportunity to make their case. If they lose (a big "if"),  they should accept the defeat. It's laughable that, after 25 years agitating for a referendum and before the campaign has even begun, the Europhobes are calling it a fix and getting ready to refuse to accept the popular verdict. Why not concentrate on the issues and promote their case, instead? Alternatively, maybe I should be agitating for Leicester's result at Arsenal next season to be seen, in advance, as a fix?

 

I hope you're right in your last line, and the issue does cause civil war in the Tory party. Bring it on! 1992-97 revisited and the potential of the Tories self-destructing for a generation? I'd love it! 

 

Cameron's electoral honeymoon and party unity certainly hasn't lasted long, has it? One month and they're already at one another's throats! And that's before all the controversy begins over cuts, a fragile economy and Scottish secession. I do agree with you about "Devo Max", though. Cameron was wrong not to allow that as an option for the Scottish referendum - and then to use the defeat of the independence campaign to stir up nationalism in England and Scotland alike. It worked in his favour in the short-term, helping him win the election, but could yet come back to haunt him.

[Guest MattP]

Let's be honest. The referendum could be as scrupulously fair as possible, but a load of people on the Europhobe Right will never accept a defeat. They live in some strange, bitter, paranoid world run by a mysterious "liberal elite" and its chief agent, the BBC. I just find it depressing that, instead of arguing the in/out case, some people are already focused on seeing the unknown outcome as an establishment conspiracy against them.

 

Of course the BBC is further left than you'd like. It's further right than I'd like. That's because your views are well to the right of centre and mine are well to the left.

 

During the election, the BBC gave massive coverage to the hypothetical scenario of a Labour/SNP government - one of the main themes of the Tory campaign. Did they give similarly massive coverage to the hypothetical scenario of a Tory government propped up by UKIP or the DUP? No! Yet it was just as likely an outcome. Indeed, it nearly happened - and could yet happen later in the parliament if the Tories lose a few byelections or defectors. Even worse, the massive focus on a hypothetical Labour/SNP stitch-up, fanned by Tories and SNP alike, crowded out coverage of serious issues like the Tory economic record, climate change, Europe and the NHS, none of which were debated adequately.

 

Maybe I should take a leaf from the Europhobe book and agitate for the Tory election win not to recognised as valid? No. Some unfair stuff happened in the election, but that's politics - Labour had adequate opportunities to seize the agenda and make their case, but failed to do so and lost fair and square. Likewise, whatever influence the EU or anyone else exerts (influence that could easily prove counter-productive), the Europhobes will have an adequate opportunity to make their case. If they lose (a big "if"),  they should accept the defeat. It's laughable that, after 25 years agitating for a referendum and before the campaign has even begun, the Europhobes are calling it a fix and getting ready to refuse to accept the popular verdict. Why not concentrate on the issues and promote their case, instead? Alternatively, maybe I should be agitating for Leicester's result at Arsenal next season to be seen, in advance, as a fix?

 

I hope you're right in your last line, and the issue does cause civil war in the Tory party. Bring it on! 1992-97 revisited and the potential of the Tories self-destructing for a generation? I'd love it! 

 

Cameron's electoral honeymoon and party unity certainly hasn't lasted long, has it? One month and they're already at one another's throats! And that's before all the controversy begins over cuts, a fragile economy and Scottish secession. I do agree with you about "Devo Max", though. Cameron was wrong not to allow that as an option for the Scottish referendum - and then to use the defeat of the independence campaign to stir up nationalism in England and Scotland alike. It worked in his favour in the short-term, helping him win the election, but could yet come back to haunt him.

 

Come on Alf, you are re-writing history here.

 

No poll or seat projection gave any indication that a Conservative/UKIP/DUP coalition could be possible until the exit poll after voting had closed, everyone had the Tory projection at somewhere between 270 and 290 and all had UKIP under 5, that's makes a coalition between all three unfeasable. (Even yourself predicted the Tories and Labour to win the same number of seats)

 

Most polls had the SNP getting 50 seats, most had Labour around 260-280 making a coalition extremely possible between those two, it's totally reasonable an SNP/Labour coalition was talked about far more than a Tory led one without the Liberal Democrats basing on what we knew from the pollsters at the time.

 

No one is already arguing this is a fix, but it's important to make sure it is fair and the fact you agree with me regarding the devo-max I think shows that.

[Rincewind]

What Alf says.

[Carl the Llama]

Not so long ago the political buzzspeech from the right-wingers on here was focused on declaring what bad losers the left were (even if they did make perfectly salient points about the lack of democratic representation afforded by FPTP, the con voters didn't want to hear it because it was all so much hot air from the mouth of losers).  

 

Can you not wait until the vote has actually been lost before you make hypocrites of yourselves?

[Guest MattP]

Not so long ago the political buzzspeech from the right-wingers on here was focused on declaring what bad losers the left were (even if they did make perfectly salient points about the lack of democratic representation afforded by FPTP, the con voters didn't want to hear it because it was all so much hot air from the mouth of losers).  

 

Can you not wait until the vote has actually been lost before you make hypocrites of yourselves?

 

So if people see things being implemented into the referendum that they believe make it an unfair one they should shut up and be quiet about it until it's been lost?

 

Do you not see the flaw in that logic?

[leicsmac]

So if people see things being implemented into the referendum that they believe make it an unfair one they should shut up and be quiet about it until it's been lost?

 

Do you not see the flaw in that logic?

 

Not at all, but surely you see the hypocrisy of one group passing off a possibly unrepresentative voting system purely because it delivered a desirable result and discounting the detractors of it as bad losers, and then a month later getting into a lather about another possibly unrepresentative one because it might not deliver a desirable result for them this time round?

[Guest MattP]

Not at all, but surely you see the hypocrisy of one group passing off a possibly unrepresentative voting system purely because it delivered a desirable result and discounting the detractors of it as bad losers, and then a month later getting into a lather about another possibly unrepresentative one because it might not deliver a desirable result for them this time round?

 

You aren't reading what I'm saying here Mac, I've not argued that the EU referendum would be unrepresentative or anything to do with the system of how we are voting in it, clearly in a YES/NO ballot it will be representative, however I think we have to make sure that referendum is fair and fought fairly without outside interference. A better example to use would be Scotland as a referendum is far different to a General Election given one is multiple choice and the other isn't.

 

I have openly said we need some sort of reform to our system. I'd have been delighted to see the fairer system we all want and the coalition that would follow in the same way you would.

 

Are you seriously comparing the two though? There was a purdah in the election last month, there was no external body funding a television station that wants to influence last month, the electoral commission standards were on finances were implemented last month, how are these comparable to the General Election in any way? I'll give you Alf's (very loose) one connected to party finance which has benefitted the main two parties for years but apart from that I can't see a correlation at all.

[leicsmac]

You aren't reading what I'm saying here Mac, I've not argued that the EU referendum would be unrepresentative or anything to do with the system of how we are voting in it, clearly in a YES/NO ballot it will be representative, however I think we have to make sure that referendum is fair and fought fairly without outside interference. A better example to use would be Scotland as a referendum is far different to a General Election given one is multiple choice and the other isn't.

 

I have openly said we need some sort of reform to our system. I'd have been delighted to see the fairer system we all want and the coalition that would follow in the same way you would.

 

Are you seriously comparing the two though? There was a purdah in the election last month, there was no external body funding a television station that wants to influence last month, the electoral commission standards were on finances were implemented last month, how are these comparable to the General Election in any way? I'll give you Alf's (very loose) one connected to party finance which has benefitted the main two parties for years but apart from that I can't see a correlation at all.

 

Fair points all. I just think that some Tories (not you) are dismissing the referendum as biased out of hand already without any opportunity for recourse simply because it may produce a result they don't like.

 

On another note...what was that I said about the right wing knowing how to put together a united front? If this keeps going on and Cameron fails to get his backbenchers to play ball I might have to take that back. 

[Guest MattP]

Fair points all. I just think that some Tories (not you) are dismissing the referendum as biased out of hand already without any opportunity for recourse simply because it may produce a result they don't like.

 

On another note...what was that I said about the right wing knowing how to put together a united front? If this keeps going on and Cameron fails to get his backbenchers to play ball I might have to take that back. 

 

His mistake this week has to be his last otherwise he risks serious splits. To promise to hold a free and fair referendum and then come out and effectively say "You've got to support the Yes vote or resign" before he has even started those reforms and negotiations he claimed were vastly important was beyond ludicrous.

 

He let the cat out of the bag bigtime, even if he gets little or nothing (which is certain now given he's shown his hand) he was always voting to stay in.

[Strokes]

Fair points all. I just think that some Tories (not you) are dismissing the referendum as biased out of hand already without any opportunity for recourse simply because it may produce a result they don't like.

On another note...what was that I said about the right wing knowing how to put together a united front? If this keeps going on and Cameron fails to get his backbenchers to play ball I might have to take that back.

Its not just Tories that will be on the out campaign you know, nor will it be a left vs right affair.

[Rincewind]

He has said he was misquoted which I suppose he has to say. He may have expected more to be on his side. Bit of a shock to him because they said nothing pre election. One or two are now even raising questions about other policies. But I'll leave it at that.

I'll decide on the EU question nearer the time and after seeing the arguments for both sides.

[Guest MattP]

He has said he was misquoted which I suppose he has to say. He may have expected more to be on his side. Bit of a shock to him because they said nothing pre election. One or two are now even raising questions about other policies. But I'll leave it at that.

I'll decide on the EU question nearer the time and after seeing the arguments for both sides.

 

Which ones?

 

Apart from the EU debate yesterday I think the party looks as united across the benches as it ever has been.

[Alf Bentley]

Come on Alf, you are re-writing history here.

 

No poll or seat projection gave any indication that a Conservative/UKIP/DUP coalition could be possible until the exit poll after voting had closed, everyone had the Tory projection at somewhere between 270 and 290 and all had UKIP under 5, that's makes a coalition between all three unfeasable. (Even yourself predicted the Tories and Labour to win the same number of seats)

 

Most polls had the SNP getting 50 seats, most had Labour around 260-280 making a coalition extremely possible between those two, it's totally reasonable an SNP/Labour coalition was talked about far more than a Tory led one without the Liberal Democrats basing on what we knew from the pollsters at the time.

 

No one is already arguing this is a fix, but it's important to make sure it is fair and the fact you agree with me regarding the devo-max I think shows that.

 

 

A bit of a diversion from the thread topic, but to respond to your post.....

 

- Speculation about the consequences of one possible election outcome, based on polls, shouldn't have been (arguably) the main focus of media election coverage; the political issues should have been;  

- Such speculation should have been a minor issue - and other outcomes were highly possible, even based on the polls. The polls put the Lib Dems on about 25-35 seats, so a Con/LD (or Lab/LD) coalition seemed quite feasible. You dismiss the potential for a Con/DUP/UKIP scenario, but 290+8+5=303...close enough for it to be a serious possibility, as the outcome showed. Based on the exit poll, it looked likely to happen. It might still by 2020. Yet none of these potential outcomes got major media coverage.

 

So, this seems to be how it works.....

1) The Tories use a hypothetical Lab/SNP stitch-up as a central plank of their campaign

2) The BBC make that hypothetical stitch-up a central part of their coverage

3) The Right accuse the BBC of being in the pocket of the "liberal establishment" (whatever that is). You couldn't make it up....

 

What would constitute non-"liberal establishment" coverage by the BBC? 24/7 lectures on the evil of the state, given by a bulldog in a union jack waistcoat and a Maggie Thatcher wig, while "Rule Britannia" plays on loop in the background? 

 

When you consider campaign funding and media coverage over several decades, there has rarely been a level playing-field for Labour or parties other than the Tories. Tough! Until such time as that changes, they have to find other ways of getting their case across so as to win elections. The same applies to the "Out" campaign in the referendum. If the conditions for the referendum are somehow biased against the Europhobes, they have to find other ways of getting their case across. It's not as if they'll lack the funds or people to publicise the case. They'll also probably have much of the print media on their side, not to mention options for campaigning online.

 

It's about time we were all better informed about the pros and cons of the EU (myself included) so I look forward to hearing the arguments. For me, it strikes a really sour note for people who normally have the odds stacked in their favour to be whining that that might not be the case for once - particularly before anyone has much idea how the campaign will go, still less the outcome.

[Guest MattP]

A bit of a diversion from the thread topic, but to respond to your post.....

 

- Speculation about the consequences of one possible election outcome, based on polls, shouldn't have been (arguably) the main focus of media election coverage; the political issues should have been;  

- Such speculation should have been a minor issue - and other outcomes were highly possible, even based on the polls. The polls put the Lib Dems on about 25-35 seats, so a Con/LD (or Lab/LD) coalition seemed quite feasible. You dismiss the potential for a Con/DUP/UKIP scenario, but 290+8+5=303...close enough for it to be a serious possibility, as the outcome showed. Based on the exit poll, it looked likely to happen. It might still by 2020. Yet none of these potential outcomes got major media coverage.

 

So, this seems to be how it works.....

1) The Tories use a hypothetical Lab/SNP stitch-up as a central plank of their campaign

2) The BBC make that hypothetical stitch-up a central part of their coverage

3) The Right accuse the BBC of being in the pocket of the "liberal establishment" (whatever that is). You couldn't make it up....

 

What would constitute non-"liberal establishment" coverage by the BBC? 24/7 lectures on the evil of the state, given by a bulldog in a union jack waistcoat and a Maggie Thatcher wig, while "Rule Britannia" plays on loop in the background? 

 

When you consider campaign funding and media coverage over several decades, there has rarely been a level playing-field for Labour or parties other than the Tories. Tough! Until such time as that changes, they have to find other ways of getting their case across so as to win elections. The same applies to the "Out" campaign in the referendum. If the conditions for the referendum are somehow biased against the Europhobes, they have to find other ways of getting their case across. It's not as if they'll lack the funds or people to publicise the case. They'll also probably have much of the print media on their side, not to mention options for campaigning online.

 

It's about time we were all better informed about the pros and cons of the EU (myself included) so I look forward to hearing the arguments. For me, it strikes a really sour note for people who normally have the odds stacked in their favour to be whining that that might not be the case for once - particularly before anyone has much idea how the campaign will go, still less the outcome.

 

Normally have the odds stacked in our favour? This is serious rose-tinted stuff though I acknowledge you have lived longer than me and the 70's and 80's may have been different. In my lifetime it's absurd to suggest this though.

 

Did you not see the boundary reviews conducted under the Blair government that made it possible for Labour to pick up overall majorities ever by only winning 35% of the vote? All the things you moan that were in the Tories favour were in your favour for fifteen years and no one on the left said anything.

 

If you rreally want to see odds stacked against you, add those boundary reviews, a BBC whose own head said it was too left wing at the time and Rupert Murdoch and Sky backing the Labour party as they did in 1997, 2001 and 2005! - believe me that's  absolutely impossible odds to take on. You had the BBC, Sky and every single other newspaper apart from the Telegraph and the Express firmly behind the Labour party, no problem then though I presume?

 

You've answered you're own question regarding Tory-UKIP-DUP there - even if they all got the highest possible outcomes of any poll they were still over 20 seats short of a majority, so there is no point trumping up that as a huge possibility of a coalition, it would have been laughable to dedicate coverage to that, it was as likely as Labour-UKIP coalition which they also shouldn't have spent time on, the odds for that coalition you mentioned were about 66/1, a Labour/SNP one was as short as 7/4 at one stage before Miliband ruled it out.

 

I've told you before what I see as non "liberal establishment" coverage, simply start evening things out, Question Time for the last ten years has been a panel of 5 and 90% of the time it's three left wingers and two right wingers, start addressing the most basic stuff like that for a start and that's before we get onto the ridiculous audiences, they often can't find a Tory in the home counties and while you ignored these accusations before I simply don't think you can anymore after the election result.

 

I agree on the last point though, I'm looking forward to seeing the real arguments come out, yesterday was a small start to that in the house and I was encouraged by what I heard.

[Alf Bentley]

Normally have the odds stacked in our favour? This is serious rose-tinted stuff though I acknowledge you have lived longer than me and the 70's and 80's may have been different. In my lifetime it's absurd to suggest this though.

 

Did you not see the boundary reviews conducted under the Blair government that made it possible for Labour to pick up overall majorities ever by only winning 35% of the vote? All the things you moan that were in the Tories favour were in your favour for fifteen years and no one on the left said anything.

 

If you rreally want to see odds stacked against you, add those boundary reviews, a BBC whose own head said it was too left wing at the time and Rupert Murdoch and Sky backing the Labour party as they did in 1997, 2001 and 2005! - believe me that's  absolutely impossible odds to take on. You had the BBC, Sky and every single other newspaper apart from the Telegraph and the Express firmly behind the Labour party, no problem then though I presume?

 

You've answered you're own question regarding Tory-UKIP-DUP there - even if they all got the highest possible outcomes of any poll they were still over 20 seats short of a majority, so there is no point trumping up that as a huge possibility of a coalition, it would have been laughable to dedicate coverage to that, it was as likely as Labour-UKIP coalition which they also shouldn't have spent time on, the odds for that coalition you mentioned were about 66/1, a Labour/SNP one was as short as 7/4 at one stage before Miliband ruled it out.

 

I've told you before what I see as non "liberal establishment" coverage, simply start evening things out, Question Time for the last ten years has been a panel of 5 and 90% of the time it's three left wingers and two right wingers, start addressing the most basic stuff like that for a start and that's before we get onto the ridiculous audiences, they often can't find a Tory in the home counties and while you ignored these accusations before I simply don't think you can anymore after the election result.

 

I agree on the last point though, I'm looking forward to seeing the real arguments come out, yesterday was a small start to that in the house and I was encouraged by what I heard.

 

- At the vast majority of elections in my adult lifetime (1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, 2010, 2015), the Tories have had much more money to spend, and they have had the support of the vast majority of the print media; that matters less now, but mattered a great deal in the days before the Internet and expansion of TV etc.

 

- In talking about the stacking of odds, it was money/media that I was referring to - not boundary reviews. It seems that boundaries are now slanted against the Tories....they were widely reckoned to be slanted against Labour back in the 80s. Maybe longstanding governments (Thatcher, Blair) manage to influence the Boundary Commission, though its supposed to be party-neutral. But the main reason for the current anti-Tory bias is reckoned to be demographic change, not foul play by Blair. It is simply that a lot of (disproportionately Tory-voting) people have moved from cities to smaller towns/rural areas, so that there are now more voters per Tory seat than per Labour seat. A boundary review was due to compensate for this demographic shift, but the Tories wouldn't compromise with their Lib Dem coalition partners over Lords reform, so the Lib Dems blocked it in revenge.

 

- Voting % of winning party: Con 1979: 43.9%; Con 1983: 42.4%; Con 1987: 42.2%; Con 1992: 41.9%; Lab 1997: 43.2%; Lab 2001: 40.7%; Lab 2005: 35.2%; Con (coalition) 2010: 36.1%; Con 2015: 36.9%. So, there was only 1 election (2005) when Labour won a majority with 35%-odd (the Tories doing similarly this time). Until 2005, the winning party, Con or Lab, generally got 40%. The change is the decline of the "big 2" and rise of smaller parties, not some conspiracy by the left.

 

- Here's a list of Question Time panelists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Question_Time_episodes. The only way that you could claim that there are normally "3 left-wingers" is if you categorise all Lib Dems and MOR unaligned guests as lefties. I could mirror that and categorise them all as "right-wingers", but that would be utter bollocks - as your claim is. Seriously, have a look at that list, Matt! In general, the mix is 1 left, 1 right & 3 centrist/unaligned; or 2 left, 2 right & 1 centrist/unaligned.

 

- I simply do not accept your suggestion that the BBC is habitually pro-left....are you talking about Nick Robinson / Andrew Neil (known Tories - and very good journalists)? Jeremy Paxman, who proclaimed himself a "one nation Tory"? Yes, I know some others (e.g. Andrew Marr) have leftist sympathies, but then I'm not claiming that the BBC is habitually pro-right. It tries to play it neutral, generally does a pretty good job, but probably slants slightly towards the governing party out of fear of those in power. The only way that the BBC could be seen as left-wing is if you take the Tory Right as the middle-ground, BNP as the right, and everyone from Tory wets to SWP as the left!

 

- You're being pedantic about the potential for a Con/UKIP/DUP coalition. If the polls were suggesting up to 303 seats for those parties, it wouldn't have taken much for it to happen....as proven by the fact that the Tories alone ended up with 332 seats or whatever. Election coverage should be about issues, not polls or bookies (who were quoting long odds on a Tory majority, for that matter)....and particularly not about polls used as a pretext for scare stories by one particular party. God knows what you'd have said if Labour had campaigned on the likelihood of a Tory/UKIP alliance and the BBC had allowed that to dominate its coverage.

 

I'm leaving it there for a few days. I have enough serious shit in my life without getting dragged into pointless, bitter, paranoid discussions like this (my fault, too, I know). I hate the values of bitterness, division, paranoia, scorn and contempt that are starting to dominate a lot of politics in this country - and some of the debate on here. I really wish there was a government that believed in "one nation politics". There's a real spirit of nastiness at large in this country in recent years.....the Tories, still the nasty party!

[Rincewind]

I also thought there was too much emphasis on Labour/SNP relationship.  Partly by TV partly by other media. It was Labour's own fault in a way for not being vocal enough to divert attention away from it. Nearly every debate, every discussion the subject of 'a disaster' if 'those two got together' came up. 

At the end of the day Cameron's speech writers were better and more convincing  to around 30% of the general public than Milliband  and that was enough to enable him to sieze  power for another five years.