Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ckn

UKIP and Nigel Farage

228 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's surprising is that the UK as a whole clings to an outdated electoral system for Westminster that Westminster itself did not think fit for purpose when setting up new democratically elected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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

An interesting point I wasn't aware of. It makes more sense now why the Scottish Parliament didn't end up being lumbered with FPTP if Westminster had nothing to do with the decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting point I wasn't aware of. It makes more sense now why the Scottish Parliament didn't end up being lumbered with FPTP if Westminster had nothing to do with the decision.

Labour didn't want to be accused of a form of gerrymandery since everybody knew that only Labour could win a majority in Scotland under FPTP. Hence they went for a more proportional system. The SNP would never have got into government under FPTP, they do very well out of "top up" seats that come from what would otherwise be "wasted votes".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting point I wasn't aware of. It makes more sense now why the Scottish Parliament didn't end up being lumbered with FPTP if Westminster had nothing to do with the decision.

 

FPTP was just seen as totally inappropriate for Scotland. The 1992 general election, which led to the setting up of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, resulted in the following distribution of seats:

Labour 49 (68% of seats from 39% of votes)

Conservative 11 (15.3% from 25.6%)

Lib Dems 9 (12.5% from 13.1%)

SNP 3  (4.2% from 22.1%)

 

Clearly this was not a basis for a parliament, but there was a consensus in the SCC that they wanted to retain the member/constituent link. The compromise was to keep the 72 constituencies as FPTP seats, same as Westminster. The remaining 56 seats are grouped into regions, and electors get to vote for their chosen party. The seats are then allocated in a method that reduces the 'unfairness' from the FPTP section. The end result is not totally proportional, but it is seen as fairer.

As it happened, the FPTP section of the vote in 2011 totally turned the tables, with the SNP getting a massive number of seats - 53 - compared to 20 for the opposition. This shows another drawback with FPTP - massive swings in the numbers of seats that bear no relation to voting behaviour.

Anyway, back to UKIP...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rather think he is after less immigration rather than no immigration. His views seem aligned to those of the majority of UK people. How DARE he!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rather think he is after less immigration rather than no immigration. His views seem aligned to those of the majority of UK people. How DARE he!

 

The majority of the UK population only get their information from Blackadder.  I read that on here so it must be true.

 

Also: no people allowed to settle for five years does kind of equal no immigration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of the UK population only get their information from Blackadder.  I read that on here so it must be true.

 

Also: no people allowed to settle for five years does kind of equal no immigration.

 

The majority of the UK population only get their information from Blackadder.

 

That's exactly the problem with democracy. It's far too important to be left to the opinions of the people, especially if they don't share your views.

 

Where does he say no immigrants to settle for 5 years?

 

The BBC say this, so it must also be true:Three quarters of the British public polled in a BBC survey want to see immigration cut and fewer people than ever believe such a cut would be bad for the economy.

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/bbc-poll-reveals-77-want-immigration-cut-101904888.html#qKCTT1i

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of the UK population only get their information from Blackadder.

 

That's exactly the problem with democracy. It's far too important to be left to the opinions of the people, especially if they don't share your views.

 

Where does he say no immigrants to settle for 5 years?

 

The BBC say this, so it must also be true:Three quarters of the British public polled in a BBC survey want to see immigration cut and fewer people than ever believe such a cut would be bad for the economy.

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/bbc-poll-reveals-77-want-immigration-cut-101904888.html#qKCTT1i

 

Indeed.  It's all linked to the BBC programme that's on tonight.  Hence, it's their survey.

 

I don't know if they are also rerunning the surveys that show that people (myself included incidentally) get the numbers of immigrants in this country, and their 'drain' on the economy, spectacularly wrong when asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AM today:

 

UKIP man interviewed  on Radio Leeds. UKIP wants all potential immigrants to have both an available job and a five-year work permit.

 

Subsequent phone-in can't find any non-aligned listener who doesn't want a curb on immigration.

 

PM today:

 

I have just had a brochure put through my door, for Learning Skills UK Ltd of Bradford.

 

One side of the brochure is offering inter alia courses for 'A1, B1, B2 for Spouse / Student / Entrepreneur Visa Test' and Esol Citizenship & Life in the UK Test'.

The other side has a picture of a UK passport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

PM today:

 

I have just had a brochure put through my door, for Learning Skills UK ltd.

 

One side of the brochure is offering inter alia courses for "A1, B1, B2 for Souse / Student / Entrepreneur Visa Test" and "Esol Citizenship & Life in the UK Test"

The other side has a picture of a UK passport.

 

It's brilliant for you.  You can be angry when the himmygrunts come over here and sponge & make no effort to fit in, and you can be angry when they try and work and also fit in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are, as is often the case, ignoring the real point.

 

Non EC-immigrants are supposed to pass the eligibility and British Life test etc before they are allowed in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Non EC-immigrants are supposed to pass the eligibility and British Life test etc before they are allowed in

 

I'm trying to make sense of the UKBA site but it appears that you can get here by hitting the right number of points, and for some people those tests count towards it.  For others they do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of the UK population only get their information from Blackadder.

 

That's exactly the problem with democracy. It's far too important to be left to the opinions of the people, especially if they don't share your views.

 

Where does he say no immigrants to settle for 5 years?

 

The BBC say this, so it must also be true:Three quarters of the British public polled in a BBC survey want to see immigration cut and fewer people than ever believe such a cut would be bad for the economy.

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/bbc-poll-reveals-77-want-immigration-cut-101904888.html#qKCTT1i

 

If the public are misinformed, deliberately or otherwise, then public opinion can be manipulated and become an unreliable barometer of the truth of any situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

indeed.  but they still get the vote.  and are people really that gullible?  No, don't answer that!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the public are misinformed, deliberately or otherwise, then public opinion can be manipulated and become an unreliable barometer of the truth of any situation.

This is very true but it works in both directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

indeed.  but they still get the vote.  and are people really that gullible?  No, don't answer that!!

 

It's not really a question of gullibility but immigration is a hard subject to get clearheaded actual information on - whatever perspective you're coming at it from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

indeed.  but they still get the vote.  and are people really that gullible?  No, don't answer that!!

 

The old saying goes 'you can't fool all the people all the time' which implies you can fool some of the people some of the time, and that's all it takes.

 

It would be nice to think those who lead, or who seek to lead, would deal in facts. Not much sign of that in this particular debate so far. It's no surprise public opinion is where it is, and so we get politicians fuelling public opinion further, then seeking justification in following it. Toxic combination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The old saying goes 'you can't fool all the people all the time' which implies you can fool some of the people some of the time, and that's all it takes.

 

It would be nice to think those who lead, or who seek to lead, would deal in facts. Not much sign of that in this particular debate so far. It's no surprise public opinion is where it is, and so we get politicians fuelling public opinion further, then seeking justification in following it. Toxic combination.

You see if we don't know the facts because they are hidden or just not collated then it is rather hard to "deal in facts". It is, however, a good way of shutting down debate since opposing viewpoints can always be dismissed as "anecdotal".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facts aren't the only reason behind someone forming an opinion. If indeed 77% of the population want fewer migrants into the UK, as claimed by the poll referred to on BBC Breakfast this morning, then facts may or may not have helped form their opinion and even if facts HAD informed their opinion, opinions have a far more complex base than simple facts - and that goes for all opinions by everyone, not just the 77% who apparently want fewer migrants to the UK.  So purporting that facts would somehow change opinion is a bit of a stretch IMO. 

 

I value diversity but I would prefer a monitored, controlled system of immigration along the lines of other non-EU countries.  Immigration over the last decade has taken place at a pace not previously seen in this country since probably the Romans came to town.  What has often happened is that migrants have settled in areas where migrants were already living so instead of a wonderfully diverse country we have areas where, like St Helens (and Wigan and Warrington and Liverpool), there are hardly any ethnic groups other than those whose ancestry extends back a number of generations, and other areas where, like Blackburn (and Bury and Rochdale) the towns have neighbourhoods which are either predominantly one ethnicity or predominantly another.  While in the Lancashire towns I have mentioned such growth has been happening over a few decades, in some areas, where EU migrants have settled since 2004, such growth has occurred very suddenly and has probably left the 'native' population with a sense of being more overwhelmed than anything else and probably has led to a sense that immigration is out of control.  That is all just me theorising but I do think the whole matter of immigration is more complex than simply a mention of facts about whether or not said immigration is good for the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also: no people allowed to settle for five years does kind of equal no immigration.

 

Is that what he said. I thought it was people couldn't claim benefits for 5 yrears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017