The latest opinion polls mapped by Flavible.com have these results:
The ComRes poll, which shows the two leading parties equal (which may, of course, be as much of an outlier as the Opinium one giving the Tories a 15% lead) would result in this electoral map:
My instinct says that is plausible.
What then?
What of the LibDems in this scenario? No one could rule without them. What would they do?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
What would the Lib Dems do ?
Who can tell ? Join a coalition as junior partner Clegg-style and claim to be a moderating influence. ? We’ve seen how well that works. 🙁
Since the Tories will promise everything they want, with no intention of delivering it and given Lib Dems are closer to the Tories than Labour And Jo Swinson seems to hate Jeremy Corbyn I know where I’d place my bet.
Having declared their intention to revoke Article 50, I’m not sure how they will accommodate that complete contradiction by joining the Tories in coalition, but I reckon they’ll manage it. They have form after all.
Revoking Article 50 will go the same way as ‘no tuition fees’!
The LibDems are Tory lites and will end up where they were before, in a couple of ministerial cars.
If Johnson resigns post election and someone else from the Tories takes over, claiming to be more ‘moderate’, then I could see the Lib Dems potentially getting in bed with them.
However, in the event of a hung Parliament, I have no reason to believe Johnson would resign.
Could the Lib Dems get involved with a Johnson/ERG tory administration? I know they have form for promising one thing and then doing the exact opposite, but even this seems like too big a jump to me.
If an election happens pre-BREXIT then some accommodation between Labour and the Lib Dems is still more likely than any deal between Lib Dems and Conservatives (given that they are polar opposites on Brexit). Any deal might be restricted to only dealing with Brexit.
I would say that there is a strong possibility of a Tory win, maybe not a majority, but a win fought in the style of the Trump campaign.
The Lib Dems, SNP, Greens, Plaid Cymru and , I hope, Labour could agree on:
1)a referendum of some sort. I feel it is the only way we could get to a place where most of both sides could accept a result.
2)To end austerity and rebuild public services
3) to work towards constitutional reform which would include some sort of PR (STV for me)
4)Not to engage in more Middle East wars
5)to work towards curbing tax havens and similar reforms
and on this basis not oppose each other in a number of marginals
Is it too much to hope for?
Probably, yes it is too much to hope for
Which is a shame
I think in this specificscenario:
No way LibDems join Tories to deliver brexit. That would risk the death of the party.
I think it depends upon the make up of the new intake of Labour MPs. If they’re sufficiently remain leaning then LibDems will form a temporary coalition with Labour to cancel brexit or at least carry out a second referendum with no-deal off the table.
If the new Labour MPs are more brexity then probably just another hung parliament.
However, I think it’s far more likely Labour are going to get utterly obliterated at the next GE. I reckon it’ll be like the reverse of 2017 – Tories polling even or a little ahead right up to election day and then win a significant majority.
The polls will be way off because pollsters have adjusted their methods to cope with the disaster they suffered in 2017 but an entirely new thing will happen at the next GE: much higher than normal working class turn out than normal and most of them voting Tory.
I don’t believe the Lib Dems have said that Corbyn is not fit to be PM (stand to be corrected), I think they have said that in the current Parliament he could not command a majority. To be fair to them I think they are correct – some Tory rebels weighing ‘no deal’ vs ‘JC4PM’ will come down on the former.
The Lib Dem promise to Revoke A50 is incumbent on them having a majority in the HoC. We have to assume that will not happen and therefore their pre-election stance is merely an electoral tactic.
Once a general election has taken place, I am fairly certain if the make up is as above, the Lib Dems would fall in behind Labour in a confidence and supply agreement provided a second referendum is promised. It is actually the SNP that may cause a problem – they will insist on a second Indy Ref. You might say fair enough, but lose those Scottish seats and the Tories will be close to a majority in their own right, or will be by the time the next election comes after Scottish secession.
Look at the map
Only the LDs lose from losing Scotland now
Yes, but the overall number of seats is reduced. Appreciate that a GE post Scottish secession will be 5-8 years away, but assuming the number of constituencies stays the same minus Scotland’s 59 then the results for the remaining 591 constituencies read:
Con 255
Lab 233
Lib Dem 77
PC 4, G 1, Ind 1 and N.Ire 18
I would assume Lib Dem fall away even more than just their five Scottish constituencies, and I would argue that two thirds or more would turn blue and that leaves Con close to a majority, especially with help from N.Ire. Unionists. My point was losing Scotland from the Union puts Tories in a strong position.
Maybe
History says not, but history says little now
stemfr says:
” My point was losing Scotland from the Union puts Tories in a strong position.”
Probably the only reason a Tory PM will consider a second Indy ref. and get party backing. 🙂 Because it will cost;
financially and in loss of international status.
What isn’t discussed enough is how incredibly volatile this map is due to FPTP. A couple of percentage points change makes the difference between a Tory majority and and a hopelessly hung parliament with no chance for a right-wing coalition. The supreme court defeat is not yet reflected in the polls, as the first ones that were taken after that are only coming through now.
With about 40% of the vote in Scotland, the SNP has that country on lockdown, little will change that. But the strength of the LibDems and Brexit party make the outcome in England a complete crapshoot.
But to illustrate how bizarre this all is, let’s look at the number of seats each party gets for each percent of the vote:
Con: 9.44
Lab: 8.67
LD: 4.1
BRX: 0.12
SNP: ~15 (the website doesn’t record the vote percentage for the SNP, so this is my estimate given the sums of the other recorded parties. Even if nobody voted for any other party not mentioned here, the SNP would be around 10)
GRE: 0.25
How ridiculous is that? The advent of the Brexit party upsets everything – without enough history to decide which seats are winnable and need to be focused on, that huge chunk of the electorate (17%!) is spread out across the country, gaining plurality almost nowhere, but making lots of seats marginal between the other parties. Just wait to see the outcry there will be among the millions who vote for them only to see no representation to result from that.
One of the strangest consequences of FPTP is that both the Greens and Brexit (and UKIP before them) get almost wiped off the map, while the LibDems suffer, but the SNP get massively over-represented.
The consequence is that if any two major parties by vote share in England (CON, LAB, BRX, LD) manage to get a working electoral pact (shared platform, non-compete, or mass vote swapping), they win in a landslide. Even a Green/Labour voting alliance would have a huge impact: Set up a shared platform that includes the Lewis/Lucas GND bill, run as an alliance and allocate a few newly marginal seats to the local Green candidates. Both parties would end up with way more seats in parliament than if running alone, possibly enough to get to a majority with SNP support.
Peter,
Yeah, FPTP is beyond a joke at this point.
Also, what if Johnson is lying or changes his mind about an electoral pact with the Brexit party?
Absolutely, that cuts both ways. Official (or back room) pacts aside, I don’t expect the eventual election outcomes to look anything like these polls, as many voters will decide to vote tactically no matter what the party leaderships agree. If Brexit-aligned voters largely end up voting Tory, they will end up with a big majority, all other things being equal. That’s the way the polls have been sliding for the last few weeks, though the un-proroguing may change that.
If either Labour or Tories were able to reproduce their 2017 result without winning over a single voter, they would win in a landslide.
Peter Emmrich says:
” but the SNP get massively over-represented.”
Not really. The current 13 Tory seats in Westminster are coalition seats. The result of unofficial electoral pact arrangements, and tactical voting. Rather more seats than the DUP interestingly …. and free. No bung required.
No wonder English Tories like Ruth Davidson. On trick pony Ruth. No surrender. No second referendum. I can’t quite see why she and Boris don’t get on. (?)
And the PR system we have for Holyrood gives the SNP under-representation. (Which is why there is discussion of creating a second pro-Indy party which might offset some of the electoral losses which are a gift to the minority unionist parties as list seats.)
Not that Scottish voters get much say in Westminster processes at any time.
In the last Holyrood election, the SNP won 48.8% of seats on 46.5% of constituency and 41.7% of regional additional member votes. In what sense are they underrepresented?
The 13 Scottish Tory seats in Westminster are an over-representation as well, you are right, but in a fairer system they would not go to the SNP.
I am very glad for the SNP’s voice in Westminster politics, as exemplified in their challenge to prorogation (and I don’t think their practical influence there is outsized). But my point is that the benefits and disadvantages of FPTP slice across the political landscape in a really strange way, with Brexit, Greens and LD as losers, but SNP and DUP as winners.
In the past, the Tories have tended to benefit from the system far more than Labour, but if the Brexit party really ends up taking out something like 15% of the vote (and 20% to the LD, though those are a bit more geographically defined, so they will at least be winning seats), all bets are off and far more seats are suddenly competitive. There is still so much movement in the polls at a time when the election hasn’t even been called yet, that I really don’t think there is much we can predict.
Peter Emmrich says:
“In the last Holyrood election, the SNP won 48.8% of seats on 46.5% of constituency and 41.7% of regional additional member votes. In what sense are they underrepresented?”
Damn your eyes, Sir! You’ve exposed my totalitarian underbelly. 🙂
I would say all bets are still fairly wild speculation. Johnson is trying hard to capture the Brexit party vote but there is still a lot to play for on how that splits out.
LibDems. Would they dare go with the Tories again? Maybe confidence and supply with a Johnson replacement. Dangerous though.
I am not convinced East Dunbartonshire is a given for them though. If she keeps attacking Corbyn maybe Labour will stand aside for the SNP.
Paul,
Given Labour’s detestation of everything to do with the SNP (it was the SNP who “stole” the votes of the Labour faithful which Scottish Labour had taken for granted for decades), I can’t see them standing aside to give SNP a clear run in any Scottish seat.
I’m not a member of any political party, so I’m looking at this from a non-partisan viewpoint, but, I can see Lib-Dems losing some votes to the Tories (in spite of the latter’s chaotic UK government). I’m far from convinced by Jo Swinson’s over-inflated rhetoric, particularly when applied to the very different political arena in Scotland, and suspect that, if Swinson does retain E Dunbartonshire, it will be on a reduced majority. If Labour does stand (as I expect them to do), I think it likely that they’ll come in 4th or 5th with a risk of losing their deposit.
So, on balance, I see a close-run thing between Lib Dem and SNP. Lib-Dems have home advantage with the sitting MP, but the direction of travel in Scotland towards Independence is picking up pace, particularly as a result of Brexit, the Supreme Court decision and the chaos of UK government. The Greens may take votes from all parties over the climate issues, but I suspect it could hurt SNP more than the other parties.
Paul O’Sullivan says:
” East Dunbartonshire …[..] maybe Labour will stand aside for the SNP.”
What are you smoking? Where I can I get some. 🙂
This is a re-send of a mail I sent at 4:40pm but seems to have floated off into cyberspace and is possibly being hailed a literary masterpiece by the Vogons:
Paul,
Given Labour’s detestation of everything to do with the SNP (it was the SNP who “stole” the votes of the Labour faithful which Scottish Labour had taken for granted for decades), I can’t see them standing aside to give SNP a clear run in any Scottish seat.
I’m not a member of any political party, so I’m looking at this from a non-partisan viewpoint, but, I can see Lib-Dems losing some votes to the Tories (in spite of the latter’s chaotic UK government). I’m far from convinced by Jo Swinson’s over-inflated rhetoric, particularly when applied to the very different political arena in Scotland, and suspect that, if Swinson does retain E Dunbartonshire, it will be on a reduced majority. If Labour does stand (as I expect them to do), I think it likely that they’ll come in 4th or 5th with a risk of losing their deposit.
So, on balance, I see a close-run thing between Lib Dem and SNP. Lib-Dems have home advantage with the sitting MP, but the direction of travel in Scotland towards Independence is picking up pace, particularly as a result of Brexit, the Supreme Court decision and the chaos of UK government. The Greens may take votes from all parties over the climate issues, but I suspect it could hurt SNP more than the other parties.
Sorry Ken – not sure what happened
On that result, Lab-LD together would not have a working majority, and I struggle to imagine any kind of stable three-way Lab-LD-SNP government. But perhaps a minority Labour government could cobble together confidence-and-supply from the other two, and a workable Brexit policy.
Con-LD could work on the numbers, but I doubt the Lib Dems would want to risk getting burned in the next election like they did in 2015. They would want a better coalition agreement (e.g. agreement for the government to introduce and support proportional representation, and a second Brexit referendum), or perhaps confidence and supply rather than formal coalition, again in return for a second referendum.
I agree, we need a general election, but it may well leave things largely unchanged, with the Tory party holding the most seats but no overall majority. Then what?
I’d like to see your question put to Chukka and Luciana – bless them.
The ugly campaign is intended to enable the invocation of emergency powers. Remember this is the man who actually bought water cannon. It’s time think outside the normal framework.
I tend to agree with you
Tristram hicks says:
” Remember this is the man who actually bought water cannon.”
….which had to be scrapped because for some reason they were damn-all use….
They were sold at below their purchase price…..
And not used because their use requires specific statutory authorisation by the government. That authorisation was refused by a certain T May, home secretary..
While their use is common abroad in some places, they also cause injuries. Some quite major….including blinding people, head injuries, spinal injuries and general trauma….
JohnM says:
“They [water cannon] were sold at below their purchase price…..” etc
I stand corrected.
T May got something right then.
I can see Jo Swindon agreeing to a Labour/Lib Dem coalition on the condition that Corbyn goes bye bye within 6 months of forming a government. They’ll ask for an extension and a public vote.
It’s astonishing to me that anyone would willingly vote Conservative who isn’t already well insulated from the economic consequences of a hard exit Brexit, so what explains the great swathes of working people who are going to now give the Tories their allegiance? What do they think they’ll be getting in return? And why don’t they see that the rum condition they find themselves in now is down, not to Europe or Labour or climate change or some other leftist/centralist/liberalist/zionist plot, but to the Tory-imposed austerity which has stripped away public services and would, with a hard Brexit, strip away employment rights and usher in an era of Singapore-style mass inequality?
But what frustrates me the most is that, in all the blogs and posts I read, I don’t see a coherent response to it or anyone really saying how to combat Mr Cummings and his ilk. And that’s why he’s likely to succeed – because although we can recognise the threat, we seem powerless to counter it. We don’t have access to the main stream media, we can’t bring balance to the narrative, and people’s views are so entrenched and so reinforced by the very blinkered feeds they get from the internet and social media, that no rational argument can sway them from their views.
More than anything though, I wish that those opposed to a hard exit Brexit (including Remainers) would stop arguing and disagreeing amongst themselves and show a united front. Not just at party level but also here, in these forums and blogs. Yes, I know that Labour and the others are far from perfect but they’re all we’ve got to counter this existential threat that’s bearing down upon us. So I’m going to keep any criticisms of them that I might have to myself. I may not have any influence over what they do or don’t decide to do, but I know that in the end, my support will matter. It will matter from all of you – and in this we must not be divided.
This is a serious question – how would you challenge Cummings?
I think this is an important issue to discuss
The challenging of Cummings is a salient point.
If HM Opposition parties got together and gave the Select Committee some teeth and somehow got him to attend that would be start.
If this did not happen, then I’m sure we’d find out who was protecting him. You have to try first – make the others play their hand and then watch and take note and then rethink again. Cause and effect.
But it is the same old inconsistent bullshit that we see time and time again. Crispin Odey backs Boris yet he is betting against our nation’s business people and their jobs; Cummings is also working with Boris and had a pivotal role in the negative and illegal campaigning on behalf of Leave for which he does not wish to account for. It’s all wrong – it’s all people cocking a snoop at democracy in some way and doing well out of it. Frankly, it’s criminal.
Miss N says:
“It’s astonishing to me that anyone would willingly vote Conservative who isn’t already well insulated from the economic consequences of a hard exit Brexit, so what explains the great swathes of working people who are going to now give the Tories their allegiance? ”
The downtrodden like heroes. Football teams, Boxers, film stars etc…. it’s an opportunity to enjoy, vicariously, the trappings of wealth, power and success. I think it’s that simple.
I think ‘simple’ is probably the word that best sums it up. It’s a more down to earth version of ‘my God is bigger than your God’.
Taking down somebody like Mr Cummings who has a simple agenda which contains an aspirational message is very difficult. Margaret Thatcher was very adept at making people believe she was talking to them, personally, when she promised great forthcoming benefits. It’s what successful leaders do, for good or ill.
There is an irony in that attacking a particular viewpoint can perversely give it added impact. See what Boris did with his ‘surrender’ meme. It became the centre-piece of his performance. 🙁 It is a feature that comes with controlling the language of the ‘conversation’.
Johnson’s taunt to the opposition benches that they have nothing better to offer has some validity. It isn’t the opposition’s role to make government policy, but none the less there is no cogent vision for a ‘Soft Brexit’. If it isn’t in the shop window, or on the shelf, nobody will buy it.
If you are not familiar with the art of ‘Re-framing’ you might be interested in this (and other talks ) from George Lakoff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvidS2vo9Bs&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR14HG21ivHgX6lWzff3-U4bJCNVd8yfZK0amk0xeLHushNDtpL9IHHQnTk
If there is a coalition government formed with Labour as the larger party and the LibDems as the second largest party it would be wise for the LibDems to make it a condition of their support for such a coalition government that Labour agree to a Second Referendum (People’s Vote) within a set period of time and the voting choice being limited to any negotiated Brexit agreement Labour manage to achieve with the EU and revocation of Article 50. Should the Labour Party fail to secure an agreement within the set period it must agree to revoke Article 50. Clearly the LibDems may well need the support of other coalition party partners to make such a conditional offer.
Looking at Swinson’s voting record, her subsequent dissembling about her record in government and the attacks on Labour (with personal ones against Corbyn, I seem to recall?), I can’t see the LibDems entering a left-leaning coalition whether just with Labour or Lab/SNP.
The orange-bookers seem much more at home with the blue side of the divide, though I’m not certain that many of their voters actually feel quite the same!
I think another Tory/LibDem coalition should certainly be enough to absolutely finish off the LibDems this time around but I suppose you might hope that we are left with a proper electoral system in the aftermath. I say aftermath, but it might actually be smoking ruins if the Tories do somehow find themselves back in government.
Mariner says:
“The orange-bookers seem much more at home with the blue side of the divide, though I’m not certain that many of their voters actually feel quite the same!”
If that’s correct, it means we now have three parties in England which are not really able to represent all their supporters. They are all split, internally. Up to a point it has always been the case that no political party would entirely match its voters aspirations, but the disconnect now seems to worse than it was in the past. (?)
I wonder if this is just about Brexit or whether Brexit merely exposes what was already a deeply embedded problem of ‘broad church’ parties.
I think, based on discussion, that the Orange Bookers are less prominent than they were, but I may just not know the Orange Bookers
What most voters fail to observe is that underlying Brexit is a failure to understand the importance of democracy and how it needs to work. Direct voting on the many issues determining the well-being of the country is clearly not workable which is why the country has a system of Parliamentary Representative Democracy.
So far so good, but if such a system is going to be effective at achieving the well-being of the country there has to also be the Rule of Law. Many voters simply don’t understand what this is and why it’s necessary. Put simply the Rule of Law means that Parliament always has to be sovereign in determining the laws the country operates under.
Translated into action this means MP’s must always have the power to form a majority to ensure no legislation is passed that is detrimental to the well-being of the nation. Having this power involves ancillary powers. Chief among these is the ability to sit at times it alone chooses in order to monitor the activities of the current government in power. It also means that MP’s cannot be bound by referendums even though any particular Parliament may foolishly legislate that a referendum will be binding because MP’s don’t understand the Rule of Law which allows them to make paramount avoiding any legislation that will be detrimental to the nation’s well-being.
What most voters also fail to understand is that democracy is being undermined in the UK (and the EU for that matter) by many of the political parties themselves which engage in what can only be called “Trojan Horse Autocracy.” So for example, we’ve seen the Conservative Party’s failed attempt to shut down Parliament. We had the LibDem’s break their manifesto promises in a coalition government with the Conservative Party. Now at the recent Labour Party Conference it’s become clear the party operates as a party within a party with its Clause V rule which allows the NEC alone to determine what’s in the party manifesto and a “Trojan Horse” entryist clique can disregard what the party members want.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/23/labour-elite-wins-a-battle-but-it-might-have-just-lost-the-war
https://labourlist.org/2019/09/labour-remains-committed-to-work-visa-system-not-free-movement/
See section on Immigration on current Labour Party policy:-
https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/negotiating-brexit/
Brexit Leavers call for “taking back control” would appear to ring hollow when they fail to recognise the lack of real democracy taking place in many of their country’s own political parties because of “Trojan Horse Autocracy” tactics. Clearly this has to change before any Leaver can talk with a straight face about “taking back control!”
Any speculation on post election arrangements is absolutely wrong and should be discouraged.
Any such talk will be instantly used as a weapon in the election.
I see that Spitting Image is being resurrected – it did for Kinnock; it did for Steele. It kept the Tory Government and it’s figureheads in situ – it will be propaganda dressed as satire, just as the R4 ‘comedy’ shows have been.
The only issue holding up the election is the plainly illegal refusal of the current government to obey the law to discount a Hard Brexit – straight onto WTO rules – as was the ONLY plan of the Brexit organisers.
1. Obey the Law – Stop no deal.
2. Have General Election.
3. Then see who is left standing and if a coalition or arrangement is needed.
4. Polls are balls – Turnout is the key.
5. There will be no reconciliation until the truth of the last 40 years is acknowledged publicly and justice is delivered on the many fronts that have been abused by the neolib conmen and women.
Well, that’s a new perspective on those comedy shows for me
To respond to Miss N as to what a coherent response would look like the obvious answer is
“as Brexit is the will of the people Cummings et al have nothing to fear from a second referendum since if as they claim the outcome has the overwhelming support of the country a second referendum will deliver a stinging rejection of the political elite and confirm the original result by a huge majority”
Opposition MP’s should hammer this single point in Parliament and any supporters in the press, of which there are few (herein lies the true elite and conspirators), should do likewise. No one attempts to rest the ‘will of the people’ nonsense from the mainstream and show it for what it is. It is the will of a small group of public school boy elite utilising the fears of a largely older and poorer electorate.
The Brexit team rely on simple messages endlessly repeated. Those who oppose should do the same.
Your message seems straight forward enough much simpler than “taking back control for what?” putting your faith in UK political parties that are far from democratic! (Prorogation of Parliament, the Libdems abandoning manifesto commitments when in government with the Tories, Clause V in the Labour Party which allows a “stacked NEC” to decide what’s in the party’s manifesto.)
So what would you do?
Regrettably I can’t see much option than the use of simplistic messages such as Leavers have nothing to fear in a Second Referendum if their arguments are so great for leaving. Brexit has clearly revealed the large number of voters who don’t appear to understand how the country’s Representative Democracy system works in association with the Rule of Law nor do I think they understand how covertly undemocratic most of the UK’s political parties are in determining what policies are implemented. The United States is much criticised for the way democracy is bought but usefully at a local community level there is a system of recall for politicians who act autocratically and ignore manifestos. Such a mechanism would be useful here for politicians like Nick Clegg. The written constitution of the United States is also helpful in that it clearly states no politician is above the law including the president.
Helen Schofield says:
“Regrettably I can’t see much option than the use of simplistic messages such as Leavers have nothing to fear in a Second Referendum if their arguments are so great for leaving.”
I’m inclined to disagree, Helen.
It was the cynical and badly regulated mechanism of referendum that got us into this mess in the first place. At least in part because it was about cementing (or plastering over) rifts in the Tory party not principally about the EU at all.
Geoffrey Cox complained in his sophistry-filled rant the other day in the House, that parliament is dead.
I think his argument was ‘clever’ (in rhetorical terms) but diametrically wrong. It is not parliament that is dead it is the government that is dead and Parliament (which is sovereign) that has asserted its sovereign authority in holding the government to account.
We probably need to concentrate on that message, because it was one of the foundation principles that Brexit was built on: Brexit was to claw back control and sovereignty which allegedly had been ‘given away to Brussels’.
Since we clearly have not lost the sovereignty of Parliament the Brexit case which was always weak to non-existent is exposed as a complete fraud.
That’s without even considering fairy tales on red buses and highly suspect electioneering practices. Are we to have a second referendum on those sort of non-existent ground rules? What for ? We don’t need it. Parliament is sovereign not ‘the people’.
If we actually want to have a system where we respect ‘the will of the people’ as sovereign we need to start from scratch with an entirely new constitution. Starting with dissolution of the monarchy I suggest. That won’t go down well with the Tory faithful; but it would be a logical fundamental step to be taken.
Well Andy I understand what you’re arguing but I’m arguing that a viewpoint like yours is too”educated.” I see Brexit as like a Russian doll situation or peeling an onion. I’m not in the first place convinced that a lot of Leavers understand that they live in a country ruled by a Representative Parliamentary Democracy political system. I’m convinced of this by reading far too many frustrated Leavers’ comments that don’t seem to recognise that whether the UK leaves the EU was always going to be decided by MP’s in Parliament binding referendum or no binding referendum, or no referendum at all! Secondly, there doesn’t seem to be much recognition that many of the political parties in this country don’t operate on the same Rule of Law or democratic basis as Parliament. There are all kinds of undemocratic manouevres by politicians within the parties to implement their ideas or a sect’s ideas within the party. This, of course, is true of many of the political parties in the EU not just the UK.
For these two reasons Brexit is therefore an “emoting fest” not a “reasoning fest” and it’s really going to be simple emotion tugging counter-arguments that are going to stop Brexit happening. That doesn’t mean they should be lies or “fake news” because part of the counter-arguments will be calling out these. The LibDems should be making it clear that if Labour are the majority party after a general election and not their party they’re not scared of entering into a coalition government with Labour on an agreement Labour adhere to a set time limit to negotiate a Brexit deal with the EU which is then put to the people on the proviso Revoke Article 50 is the alternative choice. They can make clear they are confident Labour will be unable to negotiate a deal which is as good as the country currently has.