Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

UKIP and Nigel Farage


  • Please log in to reply
219 replies to this topic

#101 Grollo

Grollo
  • Banned
  • 310 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 09:07 PM

I live in a nice small northern seaside village but we have had a massive influx of immigrants who all look like Stepford Wive's clone's and Chris Martin lookalike's.

Have you been there long? ;)


What you are aware of you are in control of; what you are not aware of is in control of you.

#102 808tone

808tone
  • Coach
  • 746 posts

Posted 01 January 2014 - 12:59 AM

Have you been there long? ;)

Yes and it should be called New Brighton.



#103 Grollo

Grollo
  • Banned
  • 310 posts

Posted 01 January 2014 - 01:05 AM

Yes and it should be called New Brighton.

Just say that one mo time.


What you are aware of you are in control of; what you are not aware of is in control of you.

#104 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,404 posts

Posted 01 January 2014 - 02:12 AM

Brittney's still got it.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#105 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,688 posts

Posted 03 January 2014 - 05:48 PM

The reason it endures John is because the electorate didn't want to change it when asked in a referendum.

Moreover, the political parties that want PR are those who stand to gain most.

 

The electorate have never been offered a referendum on a proportional electoral system. AV is not a proportional system, that's why many supporters of PR voted 'no' in that referendum and the main reason the Conservative Party agreed to the referendum in the first place. Why the Lib Dems agreed to it is the greater mystery, as they don't support AV either.

 

Of course many parties who support PR will gain representation from it, but that doesn't make them wrong to support an electoral system that more accurately reflects the way in which people vote. It is surely more questionable to support an electoral system that delivers one party more representation than another, even if they win the same % of the vote, simply because those votes were cast in different areas of the country, as FPTP does.

 

Eventually, reform will happen, it has to; I think it is inevitable because the current system will become unsustainable the more the party system fragments and the fewer and fewer votes the 'big two' manage to attract between them at General Elections. Add to that the continuing increase in people who simply don't bother voting anymore and the ultimate outcome is that our elected Parliament will have no legitimacy left unless it changes to become more reflective of the way people vote and encourages greater numbers to take part in the democratic process.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#106 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,271 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 12:10 AM

The electorate have never been offered a referendum on a proportional electoral system. AV is not a proportional system, that's why many supporters of PR voted 'no' in that referendum and the main reason the Conservative Party agreed to the referendum in the first place. Why the Lib Dems agreed to it is the greater mystery, as they don't support AV either.

 

The SNP don't support Scotland having an autonomous parliament that is still within the UK but they are / were smart enough to have worked out that "Independence or nothing" is a pretty poor strategy. The autonomous parliament gave them the opportunity to push their agenda and show that they could govern responsibly. They even got a referendum on independence as a fairly direct consequence.

 

Is it surprising that a party that believes in PR would see AV as a step in the right direction?


  • ckn likes this

#107 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,271 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 12:13 AM

FPTP was invented before the universal franchise, which surely renders it even more of an anachronism? It is long overdue being consigned to the dustbin of history. The only reason it endures is because those with the power to change it are exactly the same people who benefit most from it, ie, the existing political establishment whose own electoral support base is tumbling ever downward.

I agree with the rest of your paragraph but the date of something's invention doesn't determine whether something is an anachronism or not. However old FPTP is, the murder law is even older. Is it an anachronism?



#108 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,922 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 12:33 AM

The SNP don't support Scotland having an autonomous parliament that is still within the UK but they are / were smart enough to have worked out that "Independence or nothing" is a pretty poor strategy. The autonomous parliament gave them the opportunity to push their agenda and show that they could govern responsibly. They even got a referendum on independence as a fairly direct consequence.

 

Is it surprising that a party that believes in PR would see AV as a step in the right direction?

That's how I saw it, it was abysmally presented and supported by the Lib Dems who had a hissy fit about not getting everything their own way.  If they got AV in and made it all nice and not-scary for the electorate then they could move to a better system in a decade or so.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#109 Shadow

Shadow
  • Coach
  • 8,069 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 10:19 AM

That's how I saw it, it was abysmally presented and supported by the Lib Dems who had a hissy fit about not getting everything their own way.  If they got AV in and made it all nice and not-scary for the electorate then they could move to a better system in a decade or so.

Politicians hampered by short term views and petty self interest?

I refuse to believe such things could happen.


God Rides a Harley but the Devil rides a Ducati!

#110 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,688 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 12:05 PM

I agree with the rest of your paragraph but the date of something's invention doesn't determine whether something is an anachronism or not. However old FPTP is, the murder law is even older. Is it an anachronism?

 

I'm not suggesting the date of its invention alone determines how anachronistic FPTP is now. Its relevance to the subject under discussion is key. The fact that it was adopted as our electoral system before universal suffrage, and before the multi-party system we have now, yet itself has never been changed in any way to accomodate either of these new realities is what renders it utterly anachronistic now.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#111 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,688 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 12:14 PM

The SNP don't support Scotland having an autonomous parliament that is still within the UK but they are / were smart enough to have worked out that "Independence or nothing" is a pretty poor strategy. The autonomous parliament gave them the opportunity to push their agenda and show that they could govern responsibly. They even got a referendum on independence as a fairly direct consequence.

 

Is it surprising that a party that believes in PR would see AV as a step in the right direction?

 

What's surprising is that the UK as a whole clings to an outdated electoral system for Westminster that Westminster itself did not think fit for purpose when setting up new democratically elected parliaments/assemblies/mayoralties in Scotland, Wales and London. If new fangled electoral systems are good enough for the Scots, the Welsh and Londoners, why not the rest of us?


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#112 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,922 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 12:18 PM

I'm not suggesting the date of its invention alone determines how anachronistic FPTP is now. Its relevance to the subject under discussion is key. The fact that it was adopted as our electoral system before universal suffrage, and before the multi-party system we have now, yet itself has never been changed in any way to accomodate either of these new realities is what renders it utterly anachronistic now.

But for rarities, it provides majority government.  In the mind of many, that's better than the perpetual systems we see in other countries where fairly marginal parties hold larger parties to ransom in order to maintain a government.  The Scottish Parliament was set up specifically to avoid majority government and, while under first Labour then SNP minority governments, it actually worked quite well with mature co-operation between the four major parties in order to maintain a cohesive government.  If you look at other countries with some sort of PR system, you'll see that the larger minority parties cannot see beyond their petty bickering to grasp that if they support each other in no-confidence votes then the trivial parties' ransom demands can be ignored and they can get a more stable government.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#113 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,688 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 12:46 PM

But for rarities, it provides majority government.  In the mind of many, that's better than the perpetual systems we see in other countries where fairly marginal parties hold larger parties to ransom in order to maintain a government.  The Scottish Parliament was set up specifically to avoid majority government and, while under first Labour then SNP minority governments, it actually worked quite well with mature co-operation between the four major parties in order to maintain a cohesive government.  If you look at other countries with some sort of PR system, you'll see that the larger minority parties cannot see beyond their petty bickering to grasp that if they support each other in no-confidence votes then the trivial parties' ransom demands can be ignored and they can get a more stable government.

 

That parties may find it difficult to co-operate in a future proportionally elected Parliament is no argument in favour of retaining FPTP. As you point out, within our own United Kingdom, the parties managed to make it work very effectively indeed in Scotland, and they manage all over the country at local level, so why the fear that the same parties would find it impossible to do the same in Westminster in future? Just as there maybe examples of democratic chaos in other countries, there are also as many examples of stability. Our parties have already proved that they can form a stable coalition at Westminster, despite telling us it would be virtually impossible before the eventuality was forced upon them, so that argument is, IMO, dead in the water now.

 

The genuine weakness of the current coalition is derived from the fact that, compared to votes received, and entirely due to FPTP, the Tories are heavily over-represented within it, and the Lib Dems hugely under-represented.

 

With the number of people voting for the two 'old' parties continuing to fall, I doubt even FPTP will manage to deliver an outright win for either of them again in future. What it is likely to do is result in further unbalanced coalitions, whereby the two old parties receive vastly inflated numbers of MPs though not enough to put them over the 'winning post'.

 

At least under a PR system, the number of MPs in Parliament would better reflect the way in which people actually voted, and the parties relative strengths in any coalition would be based on that, rather than the electoral distortion we have now.

 

And in any case, with the state our country is in, surely it is fair to ask if this is the outcome of 'strong' one party governments (regardless of which party) over the preceding hundreds of years, isn't it time we changed to something a bit more effective? A more representative Parliament would be immeasurably stronger and enjoy far greater legitimacy and public support than the one we have now, IMO.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com


#114 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,404 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 01:05 PM

I think we will have a coalition next time.

This is not because we want one, but because too many people (like me) don't think the Labour administration is fit to govern.

 

There would be no need for a coalition if Labour was a credible opposition. A lot of the working class are hoping that UKIP can do Labour's job by making the Tories consider the workers' interests.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#115 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,922 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 01:17 PM

I think we will have a coalition next time.

This is not because we want one, but because too many people (like me) don't think the Labour administration is fit to govern.

 

There would be no need for a coalition if Labour was a credible opposition. A lot of the working class are hoping that UKIP can do Labour's job by making the Tories consider the workers' interests.

I'm lost... when have UKIP ever come across as anything but the scary fringe of the Tory party?  I really don't see them ever having any credible centrist or working class mandate.  I may be wrong though so if you have evidence to the contrary then I'd be interested to see it.

 

Labour may be as appealing as a 3 week dead cat in a small room but they're the least repulsive of the major parties, I'm planning to vote for them simply to try to help stop another Tory or Tory/Lib Dem (or even Tory/UKIP) government.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#116 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,404 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 03:05 PM

I'm lost... when have UKIP ever come across as anything but the scary fringe of the Tory party?  I really don't see them ever having any credible centrist or working class mandate.  I may be wrong though so if you have evidence to the contrary then I'd be interested to see it.

 

 

 

The majority of the  working class

 - are opposed to further immigration leading to fewer opportunities for indigenous jobseekers. Labour positively encouraged immigration under the last administration and lied through its teeth by saying it wasn't doing.

 - consider Cameron to be way too soft on Europe, whilst Labour and the LibDems bend over to take it up the harris from Brussells.

 - don't see much evidence of working class experience in the Labour administration ... how many of the shadow cabinet didn't go to Oxbridge or have worked in industry?

 - see those Labour spokespeople being utterly unconvincing when being interviewed on Tv. They religiously toe the part line and give the answer that they've been told to give ... irrespective of whether it is for the question that is being asked! I bet even members of the Soviet Politburo could be more convincing.

 - think Miliband is a chinless smarmy lightweight ... Peter Mandelson with a veneer of social conscience.

 

 

In addition, many working people, like me, consider the UK environmental taxes and policies to be a self-imposed useless  proposition that just penalises this country for no financial or logical reason so long as China, India and the USA proposes to ignore their potential worldwide effect.


Edited by Wolford6, 05 January 2014 - 03:11 PM.

Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#117 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,244 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 03:09 PM

I'm lost... when have UKIP ever come across as anything but the scary fringe of the Tory party?  I really don't see them ever having any credible centrist or working class mandate.  I may be wrong though so if you have evidence to the contrary then I'd be interested to see it.

 

Labour may be as appealing as a 3 week dead cat in a small room but they're the least repulsive of the major parties, I'm planning to vote for them simply to try to help stop another Tory or Tory/Lib Dem (or even Tory/UKIP) government.

 

There have always been working class Tories though.  People forget that.

 

It doesn't matter though.  Ukip could get as high as 25-30% of the vote and still struggle to return a single MP.  Brilliant system.

 

And, that system, combined with the general contempt the political class of which Ukip are a part, is the reason why more than even that 25-30% won't even vote at all.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#118 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,271 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 04:00 PM

I'm not suggesting the date of its invention alone determines how anachronistic FPTP is now. Its relevance to the subject under discussion is key. The fact that it was adopted as our electoral system before universal suffrage, and before the multi-party system we have now, yet itself has never been changed in any way to accomodate either of these new realities is what renders it utterly anachronistic now.

I'm not sure that universal suffrage necessitates any alteration of the electoral system though I agree with you about the rise of party politics.



#119 808tone

808tone
  • Coach
  • 746 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 06:44 PM

I'm lost... when have UKIP ever come across as anything but the scary fringe of the Tory party?  I really don't see them ever having any credible centrist or working class mandate.  I may be wrong though so if you have evidence to the contrary then I'd be interested to see it.

 

Labour may be as appealing as a 3 week dead cat in a small room but they're the least repulsive of the major parties, I'm planning to vote for them simply to try to help stop another Tory or Tory/Lib Dem (or even Tory/UKIP) government.

i hate the Tory's but if you think Labour is better then them well you nut's.



#120 Methven Hornet

Methven Hornet
  • Coach
  • 9,496 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 09:29 PM

What's surprising is that the UK as a whole clings to an outdated electoral system for Westminster that Westminster itself did not think fit for purpose when setting up new democratically elected parliaments/assemblies/mayoralties in Scotland, Wales and London. If new fangled electoral systems are good enough for the Scots, the Welsh and Londoners, why not the rest of us?

 

To be accurate, the electoral system used for Scotland's parliament was designed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention (as were most aspects of Holyrood's operation). The feeling was that Westmister wasn't institutionally capable of creating either a suitable parliament or an electoral system relevant to Scotland's needs - see its efforts to bring democracy to the House of Lords, or make even the most basic improvements to the electoral system for the Commons.


"There are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs."