Brexit

First topic message reminder :

Duty281 wrote:So a good day for the Prime Minister, at last. Motion carried and some pesky amendments defeated.

Yes folks a good day for the PM is telling the Country over 50 times in the Commons the UK is leaving on the 29th March and then winning an extension..

What a low bar..

lostinwales wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/18/nigel-farage-has-near-total-control-of-brexit-party-constitution-suggests

The party’s registered office is a serviced office in Victoria Street, Westminster, but it is known to have built up a war chest of cash through small donations of less than £500 on PayPal, which do not have to be declared

Also, seems Farage isn't a big believer in democracy. Who knew?

Re: all the small donations.  Breaking Bad and a particular method for money laundering comes to mind.

You'll notice that Duty has conveniently ignored this, too.

Pr4wn wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/18/nigel-farage-has-near-total-control-of-brexit-party-constitution-suggests

The party’s registered office is a serviced office in Victoria Street, Westminster, but it is known to have built up a war chest of cash through small donations of less than £500 on PayPal, which do not have to be declared

Also, seems Farage isn't a big believer in democracy. Who knew?

Re: all the small donations.  Breaking Bad and a particular method for money laundering comes to mind.

You'll notice that Duty has conveniently ignored this, too.

Duty ignoring a troubling accusation or line of questioning? Never heard of such a thing.

I haven't ignored it in the slightest. Samo used the exact same Breaking Bad reference which I already responded to, and Prawn's Guardian link adds nothing that hasn't already been said.

I've reiterated it again and again, but if you'd like it repeated, here it is once more:

The Brexit Party receive £25 donations from anyone who signs up as a 'registered supporter' - there are at least 50,000 such supporters. Also, anyone applying to be an MEP candidate paid £100 to the Brexit Party for the privilege - there were around 1,300 such applications. I don't see what is so difficult to believe that around 50,000-85,000 registered supporters have signed up to the Brexit Party, all of whom have paid £25 for the privilege (perhaps more). There's also the 1,300 applications to be an MEP candidate for said party, all of whom paid £100 for such luxury. That's around 1.3 million pounds, right there, before you delve into the other folk who have merely hit the 'donate' button on the website.

I'll also add, that all of these aforementioned donations from 'registered supporters' go through PayPal. Still no actual evidence of wrongdoing which is, y'know, important.

What about the £750k donations they had received before the official party launch, all in small sums of less than £500?

It was possible to sign-up as a 'registered supporter' weeks before the official launch.

Thats good eh? Still pretty phenomenal that they got more money in 10 days than Labour powerhouse Momentum got during the 2015 GE campaign. Its also interesting to me that their website server is in the US. US to US paypal transactions (which hide the indentity of the donor) would be very difficult for UK police to try and investigate. I wonder if Farage has any mates in the US who would he interested in funding his party?

Samo wrote:Still pretty phenomenal that they got more money in 10 days than Labour powerhouse Momentum got during the 2015 GE campaign.

Not really - the Brexit Party has more 'registered supporters' than Momentum has 'members' and, as reiterated again and again against your evidence-free assertions, the 'registered supporters' of the Brexit Party had to stump up a minimum of £25, whereas Momentum 'members' only pay a minimum of £3.

Further to this, the Brexit Party is a much wider church, while the Momentum organisation is a group within a group.

I should think that Corbyn’s great work supporting an anti-semitic book will do some more damage to Labour.

You can keep repeating the ‘registered supporters’ line all you want, theres as much evidence of them being real people as there is it being a cover, because they’ve taken carefully measured steps to ensure that.

I dont know about you, but to me if it walks, swims and quacks like a duck chances are its a duck.

What about the large donor who conveniently doesn't need to be revealed until a week after the elections, when that spunktrumpet Farage can release it on a good day for bad news?

https://www.indy100.com/article/nigel-farage-brexit-party-donation-funding-bannon-banks-8891131

Samo wrote:You can keep repeating the ‘registered supporters’ line all you want, theres as much evidence of them being real people as there is it being a cover, because they’ve taken carefully measured steps to ensure that.

I dont know about you, but to me if it walks, swims and quacks like a duck chances are its a duck.

As you wish, I prefer to wait for actual evidence before tarring and feathering people.

BamBam wrote:What about the large donor who conveniently doesn't need to be revealed until a week after the elections, when that spunktrumpet Farage can release it on a good day for bad news?

https://www.indy100.com/article/nigel-farage-brexit-party-donation-funding-bannon-banks-8891131

Mentioned earlier in the thread.

Samo wrote:You can keep repeating the ‘registered supporters’ line all you want, theres as much evidence of them being real people as there is it being a cover, because they’ve taken carefully measured steps to ensure that.

I dont know about you, but to me if it walks, swims and quacks like a duck chances are its a duck.

However, that's not evidence.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:You can keep repeating the ‘registered supporters’ line all you want, theres as much evidence of them being real people as there is it being a cover, because they’ve taken carefully measured steps to ensure that.

I dont know about you, but to me if it walks, swims and quacks like a duck chances are its a duck.

However, that's not evidence.

Correct, and if it all comes out that everything is above board I’ll happily hold my hands up and admit I was wrong. However given the parties involved I’ll stick to thinking its a duck for now.

It's quite conceivable that thousands of ordinary people have become paid-up supporters of the Brexit Party.

Watch these people, who slate the EU for being undemocratic, take part in European Parliament elections, *again*, with the irony quite lost on them.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It's quite conceivable that thousands of ordinary people have become paid-up supporters of the Brexit Party.

Watch these people, who slate the EU for being undemocratic, take part in European Parliament elections, *again*, with the irony quite lost on them.

This isn't the reason why the EU is considered to be undemocratic by some, it's because the executive power is held by the unelected European Commission.

The commission isn't directly elected, but it's appointed by directly-elected people.

Ask the Brexit-voting man on the street why he thinks the EU is undemocratic, and I doubt he'd be able to tell you. It's just something he's been told and has been happy to believe.

Criticism of the Commission always tries to paint it as if the commissioners are somehow self-appointed bureaucrats without the member nations or the European Parliament having any involvement or oversight in their appointment.

Also, given the UK's record of electing a useless waste of space and drain on public funds like Farage to the European Parliament, I don't think directly elected UK Commissioners would necessarily represent our best interests.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The commission isn't directly elected, but it's appointed by directly-elected people.

Ask the Brexit-voting man on the street why he thinks the EU is undemocratic, and I doubt he'd be able to tell you. It's just something he's been told and has been happy to believe.

That's just your own prejudice shining through, but you are correct to highlight the commission isn't directly elected, hence people's concern.

If the directly-elected Parliament were the executive body, with the actual power to propose laws, there would be far less of a concern in this regard.

There's widespread ignorance of the EU in this country, and it's been exploited very successfully. I do doubt most of those who are quick to say that the EU is undemocratic wouldn't be able to explain how.

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The commission isn't directly elected, but it's appointed by directly-elected people.

Ask the Brexit-voting man on the street why he thinks the EU is undemocratic, and I doubt he'd be able to tell you. It's just something he's been told and has been happy to believe.

That's just your own prejudice shining through, but you are correct to highlight the commission isn't directly elected, hence people's concern.

If the directly-elected Parliament were the executive body, with the actual power to propose laws, there would be far less of a concern in this regard.

So why doesn't Farage practice what he preaches then and make his party democratic?

Duty281 wrote:

BamBam wrote:What about the large donor who conveniently doesn't need to be revealed until a week after the elections, when that spunktrumpet Farage can release it on a good day for bad news?

https://www.indy100.com/article/nigel-farage-brexit-party-donation-funding-bannon-banks-8891131

Mentioned earlier in the thread.

Was it? The only mention I can see is this

Duty281 wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I think Change UK are nearly as likely to be lying about donations too. Farage himself has said they had one big donation to begin with and won't reveal who.

But it will be revealed in time.

It being revealed in time (after the election) really isn't good enough. Farage knows exactly how to maximise the benefit of this idiotic rule, and will bury it on a bad news day. Surely the Electoral Commission should have learned their lesson after the referendum, or is that too much to ask?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It's quite conceivable that thousands of ordinary people have become paid-up supporters of the Brexit Party.

Watch these people, who slate the EU for being undemocratic, take part in European Parliament elections, *again*, with the irony quite lost on them.

Unfortunately many Turkeys do vote for Christmas....

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The commission isn't directly elected, but it's appointed by directly-elected people.

Ask the Brexit-voting man on the street why he thinks the EU is undemocratic, and I doubt he'd be able to tell you. It's just something he's been told and has been happy to believe.

That's just your own prejudice shining through, but you are correct to highlight the commission isn't directly elected, hence people's concern.

If the directly-elected Parliament were the executive body, with the actual power to propose laws, there would be far less of a concern in this regard.

So why doesn't Farage practice what he preaches then and make his party democratic?

As is my understanding from reading the initial constitution of the Brexit Party, the party leader of the Brexit Party (presently Farage) will be subject to a leadership election by party members once the constitution of the Brexit Party is passed by its membership (I believe this passing will be shortly after the European Elections, if the Brexit Party still exists at that time). After that potential election, whoever is leader of the party serves a four-year term, before being subject to election again.

Before the four-year term is up, said leader can be removed by an EGM, a vote of no confidence, his/her resignation etc. I don't think there's anything unusual or undemocratic about this. Party membership will be open, I believe, some time this summer if the Brexit Party intends to stick around.

BamBam wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

BamBam wrote:What about the large donor who conveniently doesn't need to be revealed until a week after the elections, when that spunktrumpet Farage can release it on a good day for bad news?

https://www.indy100.com/article/nigel-farage-brexit-party-donation-funding-bannon-banks-8891131

Mentioned earlier in the thread.

Was it? The only mention I can see is this

Duty281 wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I think Change UK are nearly as likely to be lying about donations too. Farage himself has said they had one big donation to begin with and won't reveal who.

But it will be revealed in time.

It being revealed in time (after the election) really isn't good enough. Farage knows exactly how to maximise the benefit of this idiotic rule, and will bury it on a bad news day. Surely the Electoral Commission should have learned their lesson after the referendum, or is that too much to ask?

This is common practice for all political parties in this country. I think I'd agree that I'd like to see greater transparency about party funding (all of them), but this is too much to hope for while the incompetent Electoral Commission regulates things.

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The commission isn't directly elected, but it's appointed by directly-elected people.

Ask the Brexit-voting man on the street why he thinks the EU is undemocratic, and I doubt he'd be able to tell you. It's just something he's been told and has been happy to believe.

That's just your own prejudice shining through, but you are correct to highlight the commission isn't directly elected, hence people's concern.

If the directly-elected Parliament were the executive body, with the actual power to propose laws, there would be far less of a concern in this regard.

So why doesn't Farage practice what he preaches then and make his party democratic?

As is my understanding from reading the initial constitution of the Brexit Party, the party leader of the Brexit Party (presently Farage) will be subject to a leadership election by party members once the constitution of the Brexit Party is passed by its membership (I believe this passing will be shortly after the European Elections, if the Brexit Party still exists at that time). After that potential election, whoever is leader of the party serves a four-year term, before being subject to election again.

Before the four-year term is up, said leader can be removed by an EGM, a vote of no confidence, his/her resignation etc. I don't think there's anything unusual or undemocratic about this. Party membership will be open, I believe, some time this summer if the Brexit Party intends to stick around.

Try actually reading the article I posted above. Should give you a better understanding of how it actually works.

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The commission isn't directly elected, but it's appointed by directly-elected people.

Ask the Brexit-voting man on the street why he thinks the EU is undemocratic, and I doubt he'd be able to tell you. It's just something he's been told and has been happy to believe.

That's just your own prejudice shining through, but you are correct to highlight the commission isn't directly elected, hence people's concern.

If the directly-elected Parliament were the executive body, with the actual power to propose laws, there would be far less of a concern in this regard.

So why doesn't Farage practice what he preaches then and make his party democratic?

As is my understanding from reading the initial constitution of the Brexit Party, the party leader of the Brexit Party (presently Farage) will be subject to a leadership election by party members once the constitution of the Brexit Party is passed by its membership (I believe this passing will be shortly after the European Elections, if the Brexit Party still exists at that time). After that potential election, whoever is leader of the party serves a four-year term, before being subject to election again.

Before the four-year term is up, said leader can be removed by an EGM, a vote of no confidence, his/her resignation etc. I don't think there's anything unusual or undemocratic about this. Party membership will be open, I believe, some time this summer if the Brexit Party intends to stick around.

Try actually reading the article I posted above. Should give you a better understanding of how it actually works.

I don't need to read the article from a politically-biased publication to gain best understanding, I read the actual source from which the article is quoting (the constitution of the Brexit Party), which is a better way of doing things. What I've posted is how the party leadership works and how Farage is accountable to his party, which seems pretty fair and democratic.

See George Galloway now wants to stand for The right wing Brexit Party..

Goes further and further down in one's estimation..

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The commission isn't directly elected, but it's appointed by directly-elected people.

Ask the Brexit-voting man on the street why he thinks the EU is undemocratic, and I doubt he'd be able to tell you. It's just something he's been told and has been happy to believe.

That's just your own prejudice shining through, but you are correct to highlight the commission isn't directly elected, hence people's concern.

If the directly-elected Parliament were the executive body, with the actual power to propose laws, there would be far less of a concern in this regard.

So why doesn't Farage practice what he preaches then and make his party democratic?

As is my understanding from reading the initial constitution of the Brexit Party, the party leader of the Brexit Party (presently Farage) will be subject to a leadership election by party members once the constitution of the Brexit Party is passed by its membership (I believe this passing will be shortly after the European Elections, if the Brexit Party still exists at that time). After that potential election, whoever is leader of the party serves a four-year term, before being subject to election again.

Before the four-year term is up, said leader can be removed by an EGM, a vote of no confidence, his/her resignation etc. I don't think there's anything unusual or undemocratic about this. Party membership will be open, I believe, some time this summer if the Brexit Party intends to stick around.

Try actually reading the article I posted above. Should give you a better understanding of how it actually works.

I don't need to read the article from a politically-biased publication to gain best understanding, I read the actual source from which the article is quoting (the constitution of the Brexit Party), which is a better way of doing things. What I've posted is how the party leadership works and how Farage is accountable to his party, which seems pretty fair and democratic.

From your summary, Duty, Farage won't be accountable to his party until after the elections the party was created to contest.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if they do well in these elections. They won't make any more inroads domestically than Ukip have. Ukip have a small presence in the Welsh Senedd (thanks to proportional representation), and all they do there is fight amongst themselves and piss about.

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The commission isn't directly elected, but it's appointed by directly-elected people.

Ask the Brexit-voting man on the street why he thinks the EU is undemocratic, and I doubt he'd be able to tell you. It's just something he's been told and has been happy to believe.

That's just your own prejudice shining through, but you are correct to highlight the commission isn't directly elected, hence people's concern.

If the directly-elected Parliament were the executive body, with the actual power to propose laws, there would be far less of a concern in this regard.

So why doesn't Farage practice what he preaches then and make his party democratic?

As is my understanding from reading the initial constitution of the Brexit Party, the party leader of the Brexit Party (presently Farage) will be subject to a leadership election by party members once the constitution of the Brexit Party is passed by its membership (I believe this passing will be shortly after the European Elections, if the Brexit Party still exists at that time). After that potential election, whoever is leader of the party serves a four-year term, before being subject to election again.

Before the four-year term is up, said leader can be removed by an EGM, a vote of no confidence, his/her resignation etc. I don't think there's anything unusual or undemocratic about this. Party membership will be open, I believe, some time this summer if the Brexit Party intends to stick around.

Try actually reading the article I posted above. Should give you a better understanding of how it actually works.

I don't need to read the article from a politically-biased publication to gain best understanding, I read the actual source from which the article is quoting (the constitution of the Brexit Party), which is a better way of doing things. What I've posted is how the party leadership works and how Farage is accountable to his party, which seems pretty fair and democratic.

What you posted is the usual, very selective summary which is missing key information. Members are chosen by Farage. Supporters are not members. Farage appoints the entire board and the Chairman.

It's set up like that so that sheep like you can parrot about how democratic it is, while missing out these bits of crucial information.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The commission isn't directly elected, but it's appointed by directly-elected people.

Ask the Brexit-voting man on the street why he thinks the EU is undemocratic, and I doubt he'd be able to tell you. It's just something he's been told and has been happy to believe.

That's just your own prejudice shining through, but you are correct to highlight the commission isn't directly elected, hence people's concern.

If the directly-elected Parliament were the executive body, with the actual power to propose laws, there would be far less of a concern in this regard.

So why doesn't Farage practice what he preaches then and make his party democratic?

As is my understanding from reading the initial constitution of the Brexit Party, the party leader of the Brexit Party (presently Farage) will be subject to a leadership election by party members once the constitution of the Brexit Party is passed by its membership (I believe this passing will be shortly after the European Elections, if the Brexit Party still exists at that time). After that potential election, whoever is leader of the party serves a four-year term, before being subject to election again.

Before the four-year term is up, said leader can be removed by an EGM, a vote of no confidence, his/her resignation etc. I don't think there's anything unusual or undemocratic about this. Party membership will be open, I believe, some time this summer if the Brexit Party intends to stick around.

Try actually reading the article I posted above. Should give you a better understanding of how it actually works.

I don't need to read the article from a politically-biased publication to gain best understanding, I read the actual source from which the article is quoting (the constitution of the Brexit Party), which is a better way of doing things. What I've posted is how the party leadership works and how Farage is accountable to his party, which seems pretty fair and democratic.

From your summary, Duty, Farage won't be accountable to his party until after the elections the party was created to contest.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if they do well in these elections. They won't make any more inroads domestically than Ukip have. Ukip have a small presence in the Welsh Senedd (thanks to proportional representation), and all they do there is fight amongst themselves and piss about.

UKIP never had Farage as Leader when the two main leaders and Parties polled so poorly..

So there is a chance The Brexit Party can smash the wall domestically..

Hope they don't..

I still don't see it. Ukip did really well at the last European elections and they hardly stormed Westminster on the back of it.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I still don't see it. Ukip did really well at the last European elections and they hardly stormed Westminster on the back of it.

As my post states the Tories and labour are in a different position now..They were posting in the mid 30s then..

But who knows it is all speculation...I imagine the next GE will be in 2022 with different main leaders.

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The commission isn't directly elected, but it's appointed by directly-elected people.

Ask the Brexit-voting man on the street why he thinks the EU is undemocratic, and I doubt he'd be able to tell you. It's just something he's been told and has been happy to believe.

That's just your own prejudice shining through, but you are correct to highlight the commission isn't directly elected, hence people's concern.

If the directly-elected Parliament were the executive body, with the actual power to propose laws, there would be far less of a concern in this regard.

So why doesn't Farage practice what he preaches then and make his party democratic?

As is my understanding from reading the initial constitution of the Brexit Party, the party leader of the Brexit Party (presently Farage) will be subject to a leadership election by party members once the constitution of the Brexit Party is passed by its membership (I believe this passing will be shortly after the European Elections, if the Brexit Party still exists at that time). After that potential election, whoever is leader of the party serves a four-year term, before being subject to election again.

Before the four-year term is up, said leader can be removed by an EGM, a vote of no confidence, his/her resignation etc. I don't think there's anything unusual or undemocratic about this. Party membership will be open, I believe, some time this summer if the Brexit Party intends to stick around.

Try actually reading the article I posted above. Should give you a better understanding of how it actually works.

I don't need to read the article from a politically-biased publication to gain best understanding, I read the actual source from which the article is quoting (the constitution of the Brexit Party), which is a better way of doing things. What I've posted is how the party leadership works and how Farage is accountable to his party, which seems pretty fair and democratic.

What you posted is the usual, very selective summary which is missing key information. Members are chosen by Farage. Supporters are not members. Farage appoints the entire board and the Chairman.

It's set up like that so that sheep like you can parrot about how democratic it is, while missing out these bits of crucial information.

Ah, the usual insults have returned, a shame.

And incorrect, members are not/will not be chosen by Farage. Yes, the board and chairman is appointed by the party leader, but the board is predominantly an administrative function. This is not 'key information', unless you're concerned unduly about who keeps the mailing lists, makes the tea and organises internal meetings!

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The commission isn't directly elected, but it's appointed by directly-elected people.

Ask the Brexit-voting man on the street why he thinks the EU is undemocratic, and I doubt he'd be able to tell you. It's just something he's been told and has been happy to believe.

That's just your own prejudice shining through, but you are correct to highlight the commission isn't directly elected, hence people's concern.

If the directly-elected Parliament were the executive body, with the actual power to propose laws, there would be far less of a concern in this regard.

So why doesn't Farage practice what he preaches then and make his party democratic?

As is my understanding from reading the initial constitution of the Brexit Party, the party leader of the Brexit Party (presently Farage) will be subject to a leadership election by party members once the constitution of the Brexit Party is passed by its membership (I believe this passing will be shortly after the European Elections, if the Brexit Party still exists at that time). After that potential election, whoever is leader of the party serves a four-year term, before being subject to election again.

Before the four-year term is up, said leader can be removed by an EGM, a vote of no confidence, his/her resignation etc. I don't think there's anything unusual or undemocratic about this. Party membership will be open, I believe, some time this summer if the Brexit Party intends to stick around.

Try actually reading the article I posted above. Should give you a better understanding of how it actually works.

I don't need to read the article from a politically-biased publication to gain best understanding, I read the actual source from which the article is quoting (the constitution of the Brexit Party), which is a better way of doing things. What I've posted is how the party leadership works and how Farage is accountable to his party, which seems pretty fair and democratic.

From your summary, Duty, Farage won't be accountable to his party until after the elections the party was created to contest.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if they do well in these elections. They won't make any more inroads domestically than Ukip have. Ukip have a small presence in the Welsh Senedd (thanks to proportional representation), and all they do there is fight amongst themselves and piss about.

The first sentence is correct, yes.

If the Brexit Party win the elections, it'll be the third national election in a row to signify clear support for leaving the EU (following the 2016 referendum, and the 2017 GE). UKIP made several inroads domestically, including control of several councils, and briefly became the third largest party in terms of support in the UK. This is quite staggering in of itself given how woefully UKIP was run internally.

As I've said before, I don't see the Brexit Party sticking around for much longer after the European Elections, unless Brexit is cancelled or severely watered down. I see it as purely a protest vote. If they do stay in the picture, I think they have far greater potential to make more of an impact than UKIP ever did, though FPTP will of course hinder them. There is still no genuine third party in British politics, and the two main parties have never been less popular.

Have you got a source for the claim that they 'briefly became the third largest party in terms of support in the UK'?

The SNP may not field candidates in rUK, but they have 35 MPs. There's your third party.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I still don't see it. Ukip did really well at the last European elections and they hardly stormed Westminster on the back of it.

UKIP also did well by getting organised for elections that a lot of people could not be arsed to vote in. Brexit may do well because they have supporters and both main parties are doing very badly, but I'd hope that a lot more people will be voting this time around.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Have you got a source for the claim that they 'briefly became the third largest party in terms of support in the UK'?

The SNP may not field candidates in rUK, but they have 35 MPs. There's your third party.

Yes, the 3.8 million votes they got at the 2015 General Election, which meant they were the third largest party in terms of support at said GE.

The SNP are a tiny regional party. They don't have the potential to win 25% of the national vote, as the SDP/Liberal alliance once did, or the 23% that the Liberal Democrats once gained.

Strange to describe a party with 35 MPs and with more members than the Conservative party as 'tiny'. Clearly the SNP have a ceiling that 'British' parties don't, but they're the third party in Westminster. They'll have more influence there than Ukip or the Brexit party ever will.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Strange to describe a party with 35 MPs and with more members than the Conservative party as 'tiny'. Clearly the SNP have a ceiling that 'British' parties don't, but they're the third party in Westminster. They'll have more influence there than Ukip or the Brexit party ever will.

They may do, they may not. Who knows? UKIP have won a UK-wide election in this country, the Brexit Party may do as well, this is something the SNP can never accomplish.

The SNP can only ever put up 59 candidates - that's their limit. Nationwide parties like the Lib Dems, Green, UKIP and, potentially, the Brexit Party and Change can put up 650. Those nationwide parties are competing for over 30 million votes, the SNP only 3 million.

And that's the reason why, when people talk about a genuine third party to threaten the Lab/Con cartel, it can never be a small regional party like the SNP or Plaid Cymru or the DUP or the Yorkshire Party.

Don't be childish, Duty. The SNP are in a different league to Plaid and the DUP (and the Yorkshire Party) and you know it.

I've already acknowledged the 'ceiling' they have, but in any case, it's not the number of seats you can contest, it's the number of seats you take.

They might be in a different league, though the DUP are currently in a more powerful position, but the point is that those are all regional parties and, no matter how well those regional parties do, they can never be the third party threat to the Lab/Con duo that the Lib Dems/UKIP/Brexit Party/Green/Change all have the potential to be.

Brexit Party's biggest achievement will be the way it moves the Tory Party to the right and even more anti-europe..

The Tories can't win a GE with a decent Brexit Party turnout..

The Brexit Party will give us PM Johnson..

I think you've got a blind spot here, Duty. It doesn't matter that the SNP are 'regional' if they win significantly more seats than all these other parties that field candidates across the UK. An MP is an MP.

They don't need to be your traditional third party. By parliamentary numbers, they already are the third party.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Brexit Party's biggest achievement will be the way it moves the Tory Party to the right and even more anti-europe..

The Tories can't win a GE with a decent Brexit Party turnout..

The Brexit Party will give us PM Johnson..

Gawd, we're back to this again are we? The incorrect 'Vote UKIP, get Miliband' mantra from 2013. If it lasts, the Brexit Party will threaten more Labour constituencies than Tory ones.

Polls are showing 3/4 of the Brexit Party vote is coming from the Tories...

With Change..Lib Dem and the Greens clogging the Centre..

Where are the Tories going to get their share back ???

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I think you've got a blind spot here, Duty. It doesn't matter that the SNP are 'regional' if they win significantly more seats than all these other parties that field candidates across the UK. An MP is an MP.

They don't need to be your traditional third party. By parliamentary numbers, they already are the third party.

Yes, the SNP are the third party (by MPs, not by popular vote) in the UK, but I'm talking about a third party that can threaten to supplant one or both of the tired Lab/Tory duo, like the SDP in 1983, or Lib Dems in the first decade of this century, or UKIP between 2013-2015. Currently, there is no such party that threatens this duopoly. The SNP can not fulfil this role because they are a limited regional party.

Only a GB-wide or UK-wide party can threaten the duopoly - maybe it will be the Brexit Party, who knows? They're currently on course to become only the fourth party in the last 100-odd years to win the popular vote at a national election. Maybe I'm wrong and they'll sort things out over the summer, become a permanent fixture and sit at 15-20% in the Westminster polls.

SNP can win a max of 59 seats. No where near enough to be a truly viable third party - not nationally anyway - but 59 seats can hold a lot of sway and can easily be the difference between a vote passing and not. It is also worth remembering they only have this pleasure because of how FPTP works. If Westminster adopted PR then the SNP would have a fraction of the say they do now.

The only way the SNP will hold any power in Westminster is if they form a coalition, which neither Labour or the Tories will do without atleast another party involved because a great deal of the English population wouldnt want the idea being controlled by us 'sweaty jocks'.

I'd be happy with proportional representation at Westminster.

Problem with PR is that radical policy gets taken off the agenda..

Think with all the Poverty both here and in the US much better distribution of wealth is required..

The 'ChangeUK' Party have basically ruled out anymore Corporation Tax raids...When half this new Centrist Party are Tories it shows the Centre has moved right.

When in work Poverty is at record levels it isn't good enough.

I don't quite see how PR taken radical policy off the agenda.