From the mainstream parties, I'm pretty sure the anti-EU vote is the Tories. (Of course there's UKIP, but they have no MPs.)
I have a couple of thoughts on UK politics in general. One is I wonder if democracy is being hurt by the long time between elections. In particular I'm thinking in contrast to the US's midterms, which are often seen as the electorate expressing their opinion on the current government. Of course the UK has a fusion of powers, with the executive being drawn from the legislature, so we can't have the same things. I don't know if reducing the UK term limit to something like 2 1/2 years would help. If we move to an elected House of Lords, I'd suggest those elections be held about two years after elections to the Commons.
Also, and this goes beyond the UK - I'm questioning the idea that "strong government" is a good thing. A government with a commanding majority will be able to push through its ideas regardless of stiff opposition, strong public opposition, and even internal rebellion. A weak government has to keep all its members happy, potentially gain support of other parties, and will probably be more responsive to public opinion. I reckon if you ask someone, no matter what their country or political stance, which governments they think have been bad, they'll name strong governments. In my case, I think the Blair Labour government is the worst, though of course I'm young and that's really the only one I've known much about. Ask a lot of people older than myself and they'll say the Thatcher government ruined Britain.
Essentially it boils down to which you think is more damaging to the country - inaction (which would be expected from a weak government, like a minority coalition) or bad action (which can be more readily taken by a strong government).
Note I mean different things by "strong" and "stable". A stable government is one that holds together for a decent length of time. It can still be somewhat weak. Long-lived minority governments with no formal coalition are weak, but stable, by this definition.
I have a couple of thoughts on UK politics in general. One is I wonder if democracy is being hurt by the long time between elections. In particular I'm thinking in contrast to the US's midterms, which are often seen as the electorate expressing their opinion on the current government. Of course the UK has a fusion of powers, with the executive being drawn from the legislature, so we can't have the same things. I don't know if reducing the UK term limit to something like 2 1/2 years would help. If we move to an elected House of Lords, I'd suggest those elections be held about two years after elections to the Commons.
Also, and this goes beyond the UK - I'm questioning the idea that "strong government" is a good thing. A government with a commanding majority will be able to push through its ideas regardless of stiff opposition, strong public opposition, and even internal rebellion. A weak government has to keep all its members happy, potentially gain support of other parties, and will probably be more responsive to public opinion. I reckon if you ask someone, no matter what their country or political stance, which governments they think have been bad, they'll name strong governments. In my case, I think the Blair Labour government is the worst, though of course I'm young and that's really the only one I've known much about. Ask a lot of people older than myself and they'll say the Thatcher government ruined Britain.
Essentially it boils down to which you think is more damaging to the country - inaction (which would be expected from a weak government, like a minority coalition) or bad action (which can be more readily taken by a strong government).
Note I mean different things by "strong" and "stable". A stable government is one that holds together for a decent length of time. It can still be somewhat weak. Long-lived minority governments with no formal coalition are weak, but stable, by this definition.
