@david-herdson But it seems they will not be allowed into the debates, which might suit their anti-establishment narrative best of all. I think there is a balance between undermining the credibility of Cameron's central referendum post re-negotiation policy and gaining national vote share. The euros were about the latter, the GE might be about the former. But hell, its late and who would not rather speculate on the sort of prayers a virus might say?
That small number of us not in a political party don't want your list of has beens foisted on us. If for example I wanted to vote conservative but I want one of the mp's on the list but not the other to get in what the hell do I do?
If I vote conservative I run the risk of electing a tory version of lembit Opik if I don't vote tory I am not getting my vote counted (*I used tory in this example but it could of been any of the parties)
Answer nothing I can do.
Before you suggest it ...NO the answer is not join a political party the majority of us prefer to float around thank you very much.
The other problem with all PR systems is they promote coalitions. This allows the politicians to have fun horse trading their manifesto promises away post election and I basically have no idea what I am voting for.
This happens anyway. You're local MP doesn't agree with the party on all things, the party is doing internal horse trading on what policies it will follow, both before and after the election.
If you say you're just voting for a party than how much does having an individual FPTP MP make a difference.
If I support a party because of policy A,B, and C but don't like policy D and E but am prepared to hold my nose to get (a hope of) A,B, and C implemented then when the coalition comes in and I find the party has decided to drop A,B,and C to go into a coalition but they have been promised that they can implement D and E not only has my vote been wasted but it has been suborned into a vote for things I did not want.
I am sure some Lib dems might agree on that one. In short I want nothing to do with anything that makes a coalition more likely and if I had my way we would run the damn election again until we got a majority government
You mean you want a party with 35% of the vote to get all the power, and consider that more representative than parties having power based on how many people vote for them and having to come together to reflect there levels of partial support.
It also should be remembered in 2010, Nigel Farage finished third in a two horse race, and he thought a good thing to do on vote day, was to go out in a plane, rather than time on the ground.
@DavidL Parliamentary executives are 70% self-whipping in any extent. Anyone hoping to penetrate the front benches isn't going to be inclined to rebel even if the thumbscrewer in chief is abolished.
Should you be using the words self whipping and penetrate in such close proximity given what we know of previous Tory proclivities?
The parties and whips could hardly be more powerful than they are with the current system. They would be significantly less powerful than at present with a list system where the lists were chosen by open primary.
What is your real reason for supporting FPTP over open lists?
My "real" reason, as you put it, is exactly what I said it is.
I believe in the constituency link, but think that the power of the whips/parties militates against that.
Personally I'd like to see the executive removed from the legislature - I think this is far more important to fix.
Excellent article by Mike, which starkly lays out the problem: to win a seat at the GE - when everyone expects them to be squeezed because of the fact that a GE is a serious choice of government - they need to do quite a bit better than they have ever done in a by-election. By-elections are the best possible environment for a protest-driven party.
Possible? Yes, sure, especially with a high-profile candidate like Farage in the right seat. But no-one should kid themselves that it's easy.
There hasnt been a by election at a seat that even resembles fertile ground for UKIP, and until they dont live up to expectations in one of those, Mikes thread leader is completely meaningless
Its like Leicester losing their first three games of next season by a goal to nil, away to Man City, Chelsea, and Liverpool and people saying "ooh theyre not all that away from home are they?"
The parties and whips could hardly be more powerful than they are with the current system. They would be significantly less powerful than at present with a list system where the lists were chosen by open primary.
What is your real reason for supporting FPTP over open lists?
My "real" reason, as you put it, is exactly what I said it is.
I believe in the constituency link, but think that the power of the whips/parties militates against that.
Personally I'd like to see the executive removed from the legislature - I think this is far more important to fix.
In short, Charles believes that the primary sacred principle of democracy is not on how many people vote for a party, but what those people's postcodes are.
The parties and whips could hardly be more powerful than they are with the current system. They would be significantly less powerful than at present with a list system where the lists were chosen by open primary.
What is your real reason for supporting FPTP over open lists?
My "real" reason, as you put it, is exactly what I said it is.
I believe in the constituency link, but think that the power of the whips/parties militates against that.
Personally I'd like to see the executive removed from the legislature - I think this is far more important to fix.
Totally agree on removing the executive from the legislature, I would be inclined to support voting system change if that were the case.
I think today is a good day to share my favourite PJ O'Rourke quote: giving money and power to the government, is like giving whisky and car keys to teenagers.
It also should be remembered in 2010, Nigel Farage finished third in a two horse race, and he thought a good thing to do on vote day, was to go out in a plane, rather than time on the ground.
Quite, the plane stunt was just bonkers.
And his prediction last week that the Tories would win by 2-3k, whilst at the count, tells me the UKIP ground game and intelligence isn't the best in the world.
And don't even get me started on Diane James' predictive abilities.
You were talking about rationality. Is starting from a null hypothesis not the most rational approach?
Atheism expounds the theory that existence was an accident. I'm not sure that is a null hypothesis is it? I'm not sure it's any more supportable than believing it was on purpose.
Not true. Atheism in its broad sense is a rejection of the idea that there are gods (or in its broadest sense, that there is insufficient reason to believe that there are gods).
It is a rejection of a theory (and the placing of the burden of proof on the asserter) rather than a theory in itself (obviously there are many subsets within atheism who would agree, but not all).
Or still broader surely, that there may be gods, or God, but atheists haven't encountered them/him yet. Which essentially means an atheist is more or less a bolshy agnostic.
@david-herdson But it seems they will not be allowed into the debates, which might suit their anti-establishment narrative best of all. I think there is a balance between undermining the credibility of Cameron's central referendum post re-negotiation policy and gaining national vote share. The euros were about the latter, the GE might be about the former. But hell, its late and who would not rather speculate on the sort of prayers a virus might say?
Excellent article by Mike, which starkly lays out the problem: to win a seat at the GE - when everyone expects them to be squeezed because of the fact that a GE is a serious choice of government - they need to do quite a bit better than they have ever done in a by-election. By-elections are the best possible environment for a protest-driven party.
Possible? Yes, sure, especially with a high-profile candidate like Farage in the right seat. But no-one should kid themselves that it's easy.
There hasnt been a by election at a seat that even resembles fertile ground for UKIP, and until they dont live up to expectations in one of those, Mikes thread leader is completely meaningless
Its like Leicester losing their first three games of next season by a goal to nil, away to Man City, Chelsea, and Liverpool and people saying "ooh theyre not all that away from home are they?"
Utterly ridiculous desperate clinging to hope
Except we've seen other emerging parties win seats in non-fertile ground.
Except UKIP fail their own expectations bar, even the prediction Farage made on the night was missed by thousands of votes.
It also should be remembered in 2010, Nigel Farage finished third in a two horse race, and he thought a good thing to do on vote day, was to go out in a plane, rather than time on the ground.
Quite, the plane stunt was just bonkers.
And his prediction last week that the Tories would win by 2-3k, whilst at the count, tells me the UKIP ground game and intelligence isn't the best in the world.
And don't even get me started on Diane James' predictive abilities.
Well we didn't need his performance at the count to know that.
Yes Diane James is a bit like Mystic Meg without the theatrics or the low grade appeal
That small number of us not in a political party don't want your list of has beens foisted on us. If for example I wanted to vote conservative but I want one of the mp's on the list but not the other to get in what the hell do I do?
You're talking about closed lists. If it's an open list, you can vote for any one of the candidates on it and those of that party elected will be chosen according to who gets most votes among them (or you can vote for the party without specifying a candidate).
If I vote conservative I run the risk of electing a tory version of lembit Opik if I don't vote tory I am not getting my vote counted (*I used tory in this example but it could of been any of the parties)
Answer nothing I can do.
Again, depends on whether the list's open or closed. Of course, there's always the risk you'd get a Lembit anyway if enough people voted for him/her but then you could be stuck with one under a single-member constituency too. Then what do you do? At least under PR, there's a chance that for the larger parties at least, you'd have another MP of their colour representing you.
The other problem with all PR systems is they promote coalitions. This allows the politicians to have fun horse trading their manifesto promises away post election and I basically have no idea what I am voting for.
If I support a party because of policy A,B, and C but don't like policy D and E but am prepared to hold my nose to get (a hope of) A,B, and C implemented then when the coalition comes in and I find the party has decided to drop A,B,and C to go into a coalition but they have been promised that they can implement D and E not only has my vote been wasted but it has been suborned into a vote for things I did not want.
Large parties under FPTP are themselves coalitions, the only difference being that they're formed before the elections. Again, with open lists or STV, you can choose between candidates of the same party, not all of whom will necessarily favour every policy (indeed, if the party has any sense, they'll ensure they do put up a range, to maximise their appeal).
PR isn't perfect and the coalition-forming aspect of it is the worst but the defects in a good system of it are probably less bad than any other, given the four or more parties we now have.
"Vote for me, I am compliant lobby fodder" may not garner quite the support you imagine.
Don't agree. If I vote for Cameron or Miliband or even Clegg I have some idea of what sort of government am going to get. If I vote for some independent minded back bencher I have no idea whatsoever.
I know exactly which tory mp I am voting for now, if I regard that tory mp as not worth voting for I either vote for someone else or spoil my ballot.
Under a list system I may want to vote the top of the list in but not the second. I no longer have a clear idea who my vote is helping. If it is going to elect the second one I would rather throw it away.
This happens anyway. You're local MP doesn't agree with the party on all things, the party is doing internal horse trading on what policies it will follow, both before and after the election.
If you say you're just voting for a party than how much does having an individual FPTP MP make a difference.? .
I vote for the party on policy issues and my local MP on the basis of who they are. I will not vote for an MP I find repulsive regardless of their party policies.
You mean you want a party with 35% of the vote to get all the power, and consider that more representative than parties having power based on how many people vote for them and having to come together to reflect there levels of partial support. .
Where have I ever bleated or whined about representative. I really don't care about representation I care about having a strong government that someone elected because they felt that party stood for something worthwhile even if it is a thing I disagree with. What I don't want is a coalition where no one feels they voted for this manifesto because it is a mish mash of several different wants. I do not believe if the coalition had stood as one party on the manifesto it implemented that they would have been elected. Your "representative" government basically like all compromises please no one
There hasnt been a by election at a seat that even resembles fertile ground for UKIP, and until they dont live up to expectations in one of those, Mikes thread leader is completely meaningless
Well, there hasn't been a by-election in one of the very strongest areas, true. That was why I referred to 'the right seat'. But you've failed to take account of the other side of the point: by-elections are where minor parties can do disproportionately well (as in the famous Liberal or LibDem triumphs over the years); in GEs, they fall back substantially.
The parties and whips could hardly be more powerful than they are with the current system. They would be significantly less powerful than at present with a list system where the lists were chosen by open primary.
What is your real reason for supporting FPTP over open lists?
My "real" reason, as you put it, is exactly what I said it is.
I believe in the constituency link, but think that the power of the whips/parties militates against that.
Personally I'd like to see the executive removed from the legislature - I think this is far more important to fix.
In short, Charles believes that the primary sacred principle of democracy is not on how many people vote for a party, but what those people's postcodes are.
No, I believe that voters in geographical area should be allowed to select the individual that they want to represent them in Parliament. I'm relatively unfussed about the precise size of these areas, but they should have a commonality about them so that people living within any part of the area have similar concerns (even if they may disagree about the answers). Their representative then owes it to them to consider their best interests and use his judgement to vote on their behalf on any legislation that comes before the House.
(Of all the changed electoral systems, I'd probably view multi-member systems as the next best. Multi-member FPTP though, perhaps. Tried to persuade Marcus Fox many years ago that it was a good idea as dual-member constituencies would probably end up with each major party running a male/female tag-team. He was very grumpy about the idea!)
The parties and whips could hardly be more powerful than they are with the current system. They would be significantly less powerful than at present with a list system where the lists were chosen by open primary.
What is your real reason for supporting FPTP over open lists?
My "real" reason, as you put it, is exactly what I said it is.
I believe in the constituency link, but think that the power of the whips/parties militates against that.
Personally I'd like to see the executive removed from the legislature - I think this is far more important to fix.
I'm with Charles on this. Any system that awards seats to parties rather than to individual constituency representatives is by its very nature, going to give more power to the parties. And that is something that should be opposed under any circumstances.
You were talking about rationality. Is starting from a null hypothesis not the most rational approach?
Atheism expounds the theory that existence was an accident. I'm not sure that is a null hypothesis is it? I'm not sure it's any more supportable than believing it was on purpose.
Not true. Atheism in its broad sense is a rejection of the idea that there are gods (or in its broadest sense, that there is insufficient reason to believe that there are gods).
It is a rejection of a theory (and the placing of the burden of proof on the asserter) rather than a theory in itself (obviously there are many subsets within atheism who would agree, but not all).
Or still broader surely, that there may be gods, or God, but atheists haven't encountered them/him yet. Which essentially means an atheist is more or less a bolshy agnostic.
Well yes. Atheism (imho) is any lack of belief in deities (complicated term that that is), although there are many more certain subsets. And a fine rational reason is occam's razor or related null hypothesis etc. Namely that there's no good rational reason to believe in something unless the asserter provides sufficient evidence.
Excellent article by Mike, which starkly lays out the problem: to win a seat at the GE - when everyone expects them to be squeezed because of the fact that a GE is a serious choice of government - they need to do quite a bit better than they have ever done in a by-election. By-elections are the best possible environment for a protest-driven party.
Possible? Yes, sure, especially with a high-profile candidate like Farage in the right seat. But no-one should kid themselves that it's easy.
There hasnt been a by election at a seat that even resembles fertile ground for UKIP, and until they dont live up to expectations in one of those, Mikes thread leader is completely meaningless
Its like Leicester losing their first three games of next season by a goal to nil, away to Man City, Chelsea, and Liverpool and people saying "ooh theyre not all that away from home are they?"
Utterly ridiculous desperate clinging to hope
Except we've seen other emerging parties win seats in non-fertile ground.
Except UKIP fail their own expectations bar, even the prediction Farage made on the night was missed by thousands of votes.
Listen you seem a nice guy but you are completely wrong here.
Mikes thread is basically an overanalysis of a sub sample. There have only been five by elections since UKIP started doing ok, none f them in favourable seats, and they ve come second in them all and won the Euros.
Since this time last year I have backed UKIP to do well with people on here and at the bookies and every single price has moved 5-10% or more in my favour. Why is that if UKIP arent going in the right direction?
The parties and whips could hardly be more powerful than they are with the current system. They would be significantly less powerful than at present with a list system where the lists were chosen by open primary.
What is your real reason for supporting FPTP over open lists?
My "real" reason, as you put it, is exactly what I said it is.
I believe in the constituency link, but think that the power of the whips/parties militates against that.
Personally I'd like to see the executive removed from the legislature - I think this is far more important to fix.
In short, Charles believes that the primary sacred principle of democracy is not on how many people vote for a party, but what those people's postcodes are.
No, he believes (as far as I can see) that people should vote for individual representatives and not for parties. That is the legal and constitutional position now and what we should be doing is trying to make it the practical position as well by reducing the ability of parties to force MPs to follow a particular party line.
"Vote for me, I am compliant lobby fodder" may not garner quite the support you imagine.
Don't agree. If I vote for Cameron or Miliband or even Clegg I have some idea of what sort of government am going to get. If I vote for some independent minded back bencher I have no idea whatsoever.
You could try reading their manifesto and personal statements?
A challenge indeed. Newark has shown that in any seat where ukip might win voters will vote for the party best able to keep them out. This is because UKIP are extremists. UKIP are not a broad based party and never will be... if it tries to become one then it leaves current kippers behind - much to their disgust and they will leave feeling betrayed. If it does become one then it will just be an alternate Tory party (of the hang em flog em variety) which would split the vote on the right and let in labour.
I've hypothesised about this before, but would be interested in hearing views.
Suppose the vote shares at the GE are something like this (quite plausible):
Cons 37 Lab 31 UKIP 13 Libs 12
And the seat distribution something like this (again, quite plausible):
Cons ~300 Lab ~285 Libs ~35 UKIP ~0
Surely this would re-open the debate on the voting system. I voted to remain with FPTP because the alternative was AV. I would also vote to stay with FPTP if the alternative was STV, but any list based system would get my vote at present. FPTP is the best system about - if you have a 2 party system. It is decidedly dubious when there are 3 major parties, but can still just about work. With 4 parties, it becomes entirely ludicrous.
I wouldn't be altogether against AMS, the system used for the Scottish parliament, being used for Westminster, but my preference would be a regional list system with constituencies electing approximately 8-12 members each. This would be simple to create, just join together 8-12 existing constituencies and use the d'Hondt system.
List systems are profoundly undemocratic. They only conceivably work with open primaries and the ability to change the order in the list if you want
List systems can be both open and closed.
But they're not profoundly undemocratic.
Open lists and primaries counteract some of the worst aspects of lists.
But a system like the Euro elections is not democratic. It's an oligarchy with a fig leaf of a popular vote. For instance, had Helmer won and stepped down as MEP he would gave been automatically replaced by UKIPs first reserve. That's just wrong.
Why is that wrong, the people voted for UKIP, not Helmer.
Then the MP/MEP represents his party, not his constituency.
Anything that increases the power of the parties and the whips is a bad thing IMO.
I think parties and whips get a bad press. Open Primaries in the US lead to candidates and representatives with minimal party loyalty and a practically ungovernable congress. I think that there is a lot to be said for a party where the representatives are more beholden to the centre and there is a degree of control and stability. If you don't like the views of the leaders or the centre don't vote for them.
That is true, and one reason why congress overall is held in low esteem, but local congressmen have high incumbency rates. You can over-localise the system, otherwise you just encourage pork-barrelling.
1) Given that this is a going to be another very tight general election, any seat lost by either of Labour or Tories is effectively half a seat towards the majority of the other. The idea that they will implore their voters to vote tactically against UKIP rather than stop their main opponents is implausible if not incredible. For both Labour and the Tories winning will be all that matters and if that is achieved by seeing UKIP win its first seats against their opponents I suspect that will be a sacrifice both parties will be willing to suffer for victory. As it is I suspect most of the time it will be UKIP telling Labour and Libdem voters that only UKIP can stop the Tories in a good number of seats and I suspect if we are to see tactical voters it will be blue collar Labour voters voting for UKIP.
2) The idea that any of the establishment parties will change the voting system knowing there was a possibility that UKIP could pick up many tens of seats (at their cost) is a nonstarter. All the reasons and therefore drivers that once applied to the Libdems support of PR now apply to UKIP.
3) As to Andy JS's list earlier on I would add any Kent coastal seat missed by Andy from Dartford, through Gravesham. Medway (3 seats), Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Thanet (2 seats), Dover and Folkestone. In all the covering council areas in the Euros, UKIP scored at least a 15 point win over the Tories with Labour nowhere and as such UKIP have progressed considerably further there than they have in places like Newark. Furthermore, aside Folkestone & North Thanet, all the Kent coastal seats were in Labour hands prior to the 2005 general election and of those all bar one of the Medway seats were in Labour hands prior to the 2010 general election. These would seem to fulfil the UKIP criteria perfectly and surely will be targets. However given the size of the Tory majorities in 2010 it is doubtful that any would have made Miliband's target list and therefore likely would not appear on the Tory's primary list of marginals to defend. Given such circumstances, Its little wonder that Farage has been so definite that he will be fighting in Kent when he has so many potential seats to choose from.
No, he believes (as far as I can see) that people should vote for individual representatives and not for parties. That is the legal and constitutional position now and what we should be doing is trying to make it the practical position as well by reducing the ability of parties to force MPs to follow a particular party line.
That's an argument in favour of narrow localist pork-barrelling and NIMBYism. There's a place for that, sure - but someone has to take a decision on the whole picture. Fracking, or no fracking? Airport, or no airport? HS2, or no HS2?
The idea that there is an intelligent force behind the universe is no less supported by reason than the idea that there isn't. It supplies an answer to what science has yet to (and to all intents and purposes will never) explain -why are we here? So there were four gasses before the big bang -who put them there? Who flicked the switch between existence and non-existence?
The most irrational idea of all is that God doesn't exist because it's not possible to prove or measure his existence -what luddite nonsense is this? We used to believe that the earth was flat, and that illnesses were caused by the four humours. Then we discovered the world of cells and microbes, then atoms etc. The idea that the creator of heaven and earth can't be there because our current scientific tools cannot detect him is totally anti-scientific -in fact it's blind faith.
And their might be a teapot in orbit (or since this is the internet, a flying spaghetti monster).
Straw Man Alert. Indeed there might be, but nobody cares whether there is or not, and it makes no difference to anyone.
Why do you care whether there is a god or not?
Imagine a scientist growing a virus in a test tube. He has the power of life and death, food or bleach. He has created the virus's world, nurtured it and can destroy it at a whim. Should the virus worship him?
Whether god exists or not the evidence that he cares at all about us is non existent and the evidence of indifference at best is overwhelming. Why would we worship such a being even if it did exist?
Intellectual curiousity based upon the obvious absurdity of our existence and the clear impossibility of the world's existence as being mere chance, an appreciation of the wonder and majesty around us, thousands of years of intellectual and philosophical development and, of course, a concern for our own and other's everlasting souls.
Why is it that you are so concerned that other people care, you seem to so deeply concern yourself with others beliefs, perhaps a reflection of your own insecurity?
Afraid your poor arguments have left me unconverted.
@david-herdson But it seems they will not be allowed into the debates, which might suit their anti-establishment narrative best of all. I think there is a balance between undermining the credibility of Cameron's central referendum post re-negotiation policy and gaining national vote share. The euros were about the latter, the GE might be about the former. But hell, its late and who would not rather speculate on the sort of prayers a virus might say?
Has it occurred to you that UKIP might *be* a genuinely anti-establishment force? And that this might be a good thing? That the establishment might indeed be genuinely rotten and need an Augean stables style clean out? I have had, and will no doubt continue to have my doubts -dinners with Murdoch etc., but when I saw Nigel make his 'Big Banks, Big Government, Big Business' speech', I was blown away. What I saw there was someone who just gets it. He went for Goldman Sachs -you don't publicly slate Goldman Sachs if all you're interested in is a 'narrative' -if it's a dog whistle its to about 0.5% of the population.
There hasnt been a by election at a seat that even resembles fertile ground for UKIP, and until they dont live up to expectations in one of those, Mikes thread leader is completely meaningless
Well, there hasn't been a by-election in one of the very strongest areas, true. That was why I referred to 'the right seat'. But you've failed to take account of the other side of the point: by-elections are where minor parties do disproportionately well (as in the famous Liberal or LibDem triumphs over the years); in GEs, they fall back substantially.
This time it may be different. But I doubt it.
Not one of the very strongest????!!
I went through every constituency a year ago and made three lists of places where UKIP stood a chance, based on UKIP+BNP vote in 2010, the margin of victory between the first two. These being the recipe for possible UKIP success (Big KIP+BNP & small margin between 1st and 2nd)
There were 78 seats in total, only 20 were realistic winning chances
Any thing else=No chance, and Newark, South Shields, Wythenshawe are all examples of that.
It also should be remembered in 2010, Nigel Farage finished third in a two horse race, and he thought a good thing to do on vote day, was to go out in a plane, rather than time on the ground.
Particularly worth remembering since the man who beat him is posting on here this evening :-)
"Vote for me, I am compliant lobby fodder" may not garner quite the support you imagine.
Don't agree. If I vote for Cameron or Miliband or even Clegg I have some idea of what sort of government am going to get. If I vote for some independent minded back bencher I have no idea whatsoever.
You could try reading their manifesto and personal statements?
But it doesn't matter what the individual thinks. What matters is what a majority in Parliament thinks. So their personal manifesto is a waste of time. You judge what a majority of that party is going to vote for in Parliament by listening to their leaders and what they are promising.
It's not perfect as Clegg showed all too well but it is the most informed link we have between our votes and the government we actually get. The more individual the candidates the less use our votes actually are.
It also should be remembered in 2010, Nigel Farage finished third in a two horse race, and he thought a good thing to do on vote day, was to go out in a plane, rather than time on the ground.
Particularly worth remembering since the man who beat him is posting on here this evening :-)
There hasnt been a by election at a seat that even resembles fertile ground for UKIP, and until they dont live up to expectations in one of those, Mikes thread leader is completely meaningless
Well, there hasn't been a by-election in one of the very strongest areas, true. That was why I referred to 'the right seat'. But you've failed to take account of the other side of the point: by-elections are where minor parties do disproportionately well (as in the famous Liberal or LibDem triumphs over the years); in GEs, they fall back substantially.
This time it may be different. But I doubt it.
Not one of the very strongest????!!
I went through every constituency a year ago and made three lists of places where UKIP stood a chance, based on UKIP+BNP vote in 2010, the margin of victory between the first two. These being the recipe for possible UKIP success (Big KIP+BNP & small margin between 1st and 2nd)
There were 78 seats in total, only 20 were realistic winning chances
Any thing else=No chance, and Newark, South Shields, Wythenshawe are all examples of that.
Yes, yes, I understand all that.
Now address the other point.
Look, I'm not trying to persuade anyone, I'm trying to assess betting odds. Whatever you or I or anyone here posts is not going to affect the outcome. But in assessing the probabilities, Mike has made a very good point.
Yes Charles, you are right. Farage got his prediction wrong on election night... But where was he the night before? Not even in the country, never mind the constituency, and not even working for the party. Except of course he was partying. He is not serious, not remotely serious. He is a chancer.
No, he believes (as far as I can see) that people should vote for individual representatives and not for parties. That is the legal and constitutional position now and what we should be doing is trying to make it the practical position as well by reducing the ability of parties to force MPs to follow a particular party line.
That's an argument in favour of narrow localist pork-barrelling and NIMBYism. There's a place for that, sure - but someone has to take a decision on the whole picture. Fracking, or no fracking? Airport, or no airport? HS2, or no HS2?
So an MP should support something even if it will be disastrous for their own constituency?
Its a thought I suppose but not sure it would be considered either democratic nor wise.
The parties and whips could hardly be more powerful than they are with the current system. They would be significantly less powerful than at present with a list system where the lists were chosen by open primary.
What is your real reason for supporting FPTP over open lists?
My "real" reason, as you put it, is exactly what I said it is.
I believe in the constituency link, but think that the power of the whips/parties militates against that.
Personally I'd like to see the executive removed from the legislature - I think this is far more important to fix.
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound patronising, hope it didn't come across like that.
That being the case, why are you so ardently against a system which gives whips / parties significantly less power than the one you profess to support?
On separating the executive from the legislature - right there with you.
Under a list system I may want to vote the top of the list in but not the second. I no longer have a clear idea who my vote is helping. If it is going to elect the second one I would rather throw it away.
You seem to think closed lists are the only sort of lists.
This happens anyway. You're local MP doesn't agree with the party on all things, the party is doing internal horse trading on what policies it will follow, both before and after the election.
If you say you're just voting for a party than how much does having an individual FPTP MP make a difference.? .
I vote for the party on policy issues and my local MP on the basis of who they are. I will not vote for an MP I find repulsive regardless of their party policies.
You don't vote for your local MP based on the MPs political beliefs?
You mean you want a party with 35% of the vote to get all the power, and consider that more representative than parties having power based on how many people vote for them and having to come together to reflect there levels of partial support. .
Where have I ever bleated or whined about representative. I really don't care about representation I care about having a strong government that someone elected because they felt that party stood for something worthwhile even if it is a thing I disagree with. What I don't want is a coalition where no one feels they voted for this manifesto because it is a mish mash of several different wants. I do not believe if the coalition had stood as one party on the manifesto it implemented that they would have been elected. Your "representative" government basically like all compromises please no one
It pleases people to the extent their party got power, which is to the extent they were voted for.
Whereas under FPTP you have 35% of people very happy that their party got a majority and power, and 65% wondering why they don't have influence on government.
This is of course not to mention those who get to live in safe seats of parties they don't support and what their votes count for.
A challenge indeed. Newark has shown that in any seat where ukip might win voters will vote for the party best able to keep them out. This is because UKIP are extremists. UKIP are not a broad based party and never will be... if it tries to become one then it leaves current kippers behind - much to their disgust and they will leave feeling betrayed. If it does become one then it will just be an alternate Tory party (of the hang em flog em variety) which would split the vote on the right and let in labour.
Newark showed nothing of the sort. All it showed was that in a very safe Tory seat with a particular demographic that will not be open to the UKIP message (as I predicted before the election started) they are going to find it very difficult to make headway.
Truth be told they did better than I expected there.
Those trying to take some message about the GE from the result are just showing how little they understood the constituency and the by-election.
So an MP should support something even if it will be disastrous for their own constituency?
Its a thought I suppose but not sure it would be considered either democratic nor wise.
So an MP should support something disastrous for the country if it gets them a few more votes locally, and then renege on it once in place, as part of the post-election haggling? Because that is the logical outcome of your extreme, no-common-party-platform position.
Dear Charles and Tory Jim, there is some beguiling thought to removing executive from the legislature. But that is what they have in America. Are they better governed? Maybe there is some mileage in simply appointing some people from outside politics to the administration. But past experience is not good.
The idea that there is an intelligent force behind the universe is no less supported by reason than the idea that there isn't. It supplies an answer to what science has yet to (and to all intents and purposes will never) explain -why are we here? So there were four gasses before the big bang -who put them there? Who flicked the switch between existence and non-existence?
The most irrational idea of all is that God doesn't exist because it's not possible to prove or measure his existence -what luddite nonsense is this? We used to believe that the earth was flat, and that illnesses were caused by the four humours. Then we discovered the world of cells and microbes, then atoms etc. The idea that the creator of heaven and earth can't be there because our current scientific tools cannot detect him is totally anti-scientific -in fact it's blind faith.
All you're advocating for here is a God of the gaps. I don't believe there are another eight planets in our solar system beyond Neptune. I accept the possibility they exist, but until there's evidence for it, I don't. That is the rational view.
@DavidL Parliamentary executives are 70% self-whipping in any extent. Anyone hoping to penetrate the front benches isn't going to be inclined to rebel even if the thumbscrewer in chief is abolished.
That's a lot less true in practice. There are plenty of examples of rebels being made ministers (especially when they have a following in the party), and plenty of other examples of loyalists being left to flounder on the back benches.
Politics is local. In Sevenoaks where I live UKIP managed to get one councillor lasy year. This year it topped the euro poll. Gove has blocked twice a grammar school expansion which has woud up every middle class tory - of which there are one or two. UKIP got over 100 people to a local village meeting near me during the Euro's. There are no votes for LIbs or Labour here, all protesting votes will head to UKIP. Does this mean they will no, of course not it is a very safe Tory seat. But it will be close and with events and fair win a lot closer than many think. A mistake on here I agree with earlier is to forget that Labour in Kent and the South East are like the Tories in Scotland - patchy at best, but broadly irrelevant. The Lib Dems have long campaigned as Labour lite. But UKIP are Tories in disguise - very well placed. I am going to bet on 5 seats plus at the right moment for UKIP. Two or three in Kent and one or two in Essex. Who knows elsewhere.
Whether god exists or not the evidence that he cares at all about us is non existent and the evidence of indifference at best is overwhelming. Why would we worship such a being even if it did exist?
As humans, we are gifted free will. Therefore, short of giving us a wonderful and bounteous planet upon which to thrive and prosper, I'm not sure how else this care should manifest itself.
I actually think the problem we have in this country isn't going to be solved by electoral system changes. The rise of UKIP and to various other extents of "others" in general is symptomatic of a breaking of one of the fundamental linchpins of democracy, acceptance of an outcome you didn't will. I suspect that is what lies behind the Lib Dem predicament, their voters willed plural politics just not with the Tories. Hence their voters are deserting in droves. We see it in the rise of narrowly framed parties and single issue parties, usually having walked away from broader based parties. The relatively recent concept that if I don't get what I want I take my ball away is corrosive to legitimacy and isn't going to be solved by ensuring a system where everybody gets what nobody wants.
We saw this with the huge animus against Blair over decisions he made, not just the war, and I think it's proving dangerous. I never voted for Blair or Brown but they were my PM even so. The trouble is that too many people never get beyond the partisanry, you have to live with being in the minority and I fear too many can't.
I'm not sure I've put this as best I can, but hope it makes some form of sense.
One reason why it would have survived longer is because in the case of the Southern antebellum US, Marx was dead wrong: the economic system was built on top of the political (or, if you prefer, social), one. The South was absolutely wedded to the notion of slavery not simply as an economic model but as a system integral to their identity. Indeed, it's notable that in the 1840s and 1850s, the white leaders moved their arguments from it being a 'necessary evil' - which was becoming undermined following emancipation in the British colonies and elsewhere - and promoting it as a 'positive good' for both black and white alike..
That is an argument FOR the Marxist view. The economic system of slavery came first, and then the political and social ideology later emerged to justify it.
It's probably both. You're right that the economic system came first and then the politics were built on top. However, by the mid-19th century, that should have been ripe for replacement, yet the southern industrialists - who should under Marxist theory have been in the vanguard of a bourgeois revolution - were just as signed up to it as the plantation-owning aristocracy or the poor whites. At that point, the two flipped and it was the economic that became built on the politico-social.
Oh, the other bits of Marxism are wrong. I was just referring to whether economics shaped politics more than vice versa.
The southern industrialists were pro-slavery because they wanted slaves to use in their factories. It was a great source of cheap labour for them.
All you're advocating for here is a God of the gaps. I don't believe there are another eight planets in our solar system beyond Neptune. I accept the possibility they exist, but until there's evidence for it, I don't. That is the rational view.
The meaning of life is a rather large gap, wouldn't you say?
@Corporeal Not going to try and separate this time as its getting late and it tells me the body is 1400 chars to long in any case
The second on the list may well be elected in the safe seat but at least my vote wasn't wasted on him. I know who I am casting a vote for and that gives me the ability to withhold or not dependent on which one is actually standing in my constituency.
My local Mp's political beliefs are frankly irrelevant unless they happen to be a front bencher. They are merely there to cast a vote the way the whips tell them. Therefore voting on them for other than their political beliefs such as "Will they willingly sell out their constituents for a sniff of more power" is the only rational way to look at it. Once I have established which of the local PPC's is most likely to at least occasionally put their constituents first in the division then I have the luxury of choosing the party with the least odious manifesto (No easy task as most range from the irrational to the down right insane in my opinion)
As to it pleases those who's party got power. Tell that to all those happy lib dem voters, or tell that to people like me who voted conservative and instead got lumbered with this coalition , a vote stolen from me as I would have never voted for this shower of idiots.
As to living in a safe seat....safe seats have generally been safe seats for years....don't like being in on then move somewhere else or don't move into it in the first place. Flippant answer but a grain of truth. PR would not get rid of safe seats you would just instead have regions with a safe number of tory seats and a safe number of labour seats etc.
So an MP should support something even if it will be disastrous for their own constituency?
Its a thought I suppose but not sure it would be considered either democratic nor wise.
So an MP should support something disastrous for the country if it gets them a few more votes locally, and then renege on it once in place, as part of the post-election haggling? Because that is the logical outcome of your extreme, no-common-party-platform position.
That's the whole point. They should not renege. An MP should be elected to represent the best interests of their own constituents. They cannot do that properly if they are being whipped to represent the best interests of their party.
A government should win votes in Parliament through having the best argument, not through threats and bribes as it does at the moment.
A robust system of recall would help to keep MPs on the straight and narrow as far as constituents were concerned. I wonder why the Coalition decided to drop this idea even though it was in their agreement? /
Whether god exists or not the evidence that he cares at all about us is non existent and the evidence of indifference at best is overwhelming. Why would we worship such a being even if it did exist?
As humans, we are gifted free will. Therefore, short of giving us a wonderful and bounteous planet upon which to thrive and prosper, I'm not sure how else this care should manifest itself.
Perhaps by not making this wonderful and bounteous planet a cess pit of disease and infection to carry off so many millions of innocent, poor and helpless children in pain and misery? It would be a start.
Again, if it is so uninvolved why worship it or waste time praying to it? What is the upside of this belief system?
There hasnt been a by election at a seat that even resembles fertile ground for UKIP, and until they dont live up to expectations in one of those, Mikes thread leader is completely meaningless
Well, there hasn't been a by-election in one of the very strongest areas, true. That was why I referred to 'the right seat'. But you've failed to take account of the other side of the point: by-elections are where minor parties do disproportionately well (as in the famous Liberal or LibDem triumphs over the years); in GEs, they fall back substantially.
This time it may be different. But I doubt it.
Not one of the very strongest????!!
I went through every constituency a year ago and made three lists of places where UKIP stood a chance, based on UKIP+BNP vote in 2010, the margin of victory between the first two. These being the recipe for possible UKIP success (Big KIP+BNP & small margin between 1st and 2nd)
There were 78 seats in total, only 20 were realistic winning chances
Any thing else=No chance, and Newark, South Shields, Wythenshawe are all examples of that.
Yes, yes, I understand all that.
Now address the other point.
Look, I'm not trying to persuade anyone, I'm trying to assess betting odds. Whatever you or I or anyone here posts is not going to affect the outcome. But in assessing the probabilities, Mike has made a very good point.
I am trying to do the same, assess betting odds. Thats why I think it is completely futile to judge UKIP by how they get on in places that they have no chance of winning
Whatt we are seein here is equivalent to a horse that needs fast ground over a mile, being race on soft ground over a mile and a half, coming second, and people crowing about how the horse is no good.
Pleny of people end up going skint laying the horse when it gets its conditions. Judges throw form on unsuitable ground/trip out of the window
All you're advocating for here is a God of the gaps. I don't believe there are another eight planets in our solar system beyond Neptune. I accept the possibility they exist, but until there's evidence for it, I don't. That is the rational view.
The meaning of life is a rather large gap, wouldn't you say?
If by 'meaning of life' you mean 'a purpose to the universe set out at the beginning', then there's no reason to believe there's a gap at all. A universe doesn't need a purpose, and there's no evidence for one existing. The vast, vast majority of the universe is empty space, occasionally punctuated by the odd rock, nuclear explosion or ultramassive singularity.
Dear Charles and Tory Jim, there is some beguiling thought to removing executive from the legislature. But that is what they have in America. Are they better governed? Maybe there is some mileage in simply appointing some people from outside politics to the administration. But past experience is not good.
It is interesting to ask whether better governed, certainly differently governed. The trouble in our system is that because we have a Parliamentary executive the only way to be accountable to Parliament is to sit in it. So when governments appoint from outside politics they automatically become legislators and politicians as well as administrators. I think the US situation where the executive is accountable but separate from the legislature has greater merit. Of course no system is perfect and doubtless there are downsides but I just think that a Parliamentary executive restricts the talent pool for government and can result in under scrutinised legislation.
Lucky guy Yes, of course they are anti-establishment. Their real rise started with the expenses scandal, which is one reason I ran against NF in 2010.
No it didn't UKIP polled 150,000 fewer votes in 2009 than it did in 2004 and that vote delivered just one seat more. Their vote then disappeared in 2010. What led to UKIP's rise is the Coalition and the relative failure of all three establishment party leaders to gain the trust of a large swathe of the electorate. If there was a watershed moment then it was probably the disastrous 2012 budget. It was only after that that people really started to take notice of the UKIP poll fiigures.
Put it this way, the SDP/Liberal alliance came from third and 25,000 votes behind to win the Crosby by-election and 40% behind the Tories.
Why couldn't UKIP who finished 25,000 votes plus behind the Tories in Newark in 2010, do the same in Newark?
Why is the people's army not as popular as David Owen's mob?
Shirley Williams, much better known than Helmer. Militant Labour,Thatcher, Inner city riots.Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel, and Bill Boaks
Whether god exists or not the evidence that he cares at all about us is non existent and the evidence of indifference at best is overwhelming. Why would we worship such a being even if it did exist?
As humans, we are gifted free will. Therefore, short of giving us a wonderful and bounteous planet upon which to thrive and prosper, I'm not sure how else this care should manifest itself.
The vast majority of human beings throughout the vast majority of history have led short brutish lives due to factors entirely beyond their control. There has clearly been a lot more room for active caring from an omnipotent deity.
There hasnt been a by election at a seat that even resembles fertile ground for UKIP, and until they dont live up to expectations in one of those, Mikes thread leader is completely meaningless
Well, there hasn't been a by-election in one of the very strongest areas, true. That was why I referred to 'the right seat'. But you've failed to take account of the other side of the point: by-elections are where minor parties do disproportionately well (as in the famous Liberal or LibDem triumphs over the years); in GEs, they fall back substantially.
This time it may be different. But I doubt it.
Not one of the very strongest????!!
I went through every constituency a year ago and made three lists of places where UKIP stood a chance, based on UKIP+BNP vote in 2010, the margin of victory between the first two. These being the recipe for possible UKIP success (Big KIP+BNP & small margin between 1st and 2nd)
There were 78 seats in total, only 20 were realistic winning chances
Any thing else=No chance, and Newark, South Shields, Wythenshawe are all examples of that.
Yes, yes, I understand all that.
Now address the other point.
Look, I'm not trying to persuade anyone, I'm trying to assess betting odds. Whatever you or I or anyone here posts is not going to affect the outcome. But in assessing the probabilities, Mike has made a very good point.
I am trying to do the same, assess betting odds. Thats why I think it is completely futile to judge UKIP by how they get on in places that they have no chance of winning
Whatt we are seein here is equivalent to a horse that needs fast ground over a mile, being race on soft ground over a mile and a half, coming second, and people crowing about how the horse is no good.
Pleny of people end up going skint laying the horse when it gets its conditions. Judges throw form on unsuitable ground/trip out of the window
You're missing out that UKIP's more motivated supporters means that low turnout elections (like by-elections, or the Euros) are their preferred ground. (Or perhaps for your analogy, their ideal distance).
We're now projecting for a higher turnout general election.
@david-herdson But it seems they will not be allowed into the debates, which might suit their anti-establishment narrative best of all. I think there is a balance between undermining the credibility of Cameron's central referendum post re-negotiation policy and gaining national vote share. The euros were about the latter, the GE might be about the former. But hell, its late and who would not rather speculate on the sort of prayers a virus might say?
Previous advice suggests that's the view Ofcom takes but that doesn't mean UKIP has to compliantly accept it. They should go back to Ofcom in the first instance and if they don't get any joy there, go for a judicial review. Unless you give huge weight to what happened in 2010 over 2013-4, there's really no good argument for the Lib Dems to be in and UKIP out.
Dear Charles and Tory Jim, there is some beguiling thought to removing executive from the legislature. But that is what they have in America. Are they better governed? Maybe there is some mileage in simply appointing some people from outside politics to the administration. But past experience is not good.
You are judging an individual component of two very different systems by the overall output of all of it. There are certainly big issues with governance in the US, but the driving reasons behind that are the lack of campaign finance regulation and a toxic political environment in the south after the legacy of Jim Crow.
There hasnt been a by election at a seat that even resembles fertile ground for UKIP, and until they dont live up to expectations in one of those, Mikes thread leader is completely meaningless
Well, there hasn't been a by-election in one of the very strongest areas, true. That was why I referred to 'the right seat'. But you've failed to take account of the other side of the point: by-elections are where minor parties do disproportionately well (as in the famous Liberal or LibDem triumphs over the years); in GEs, they fall back substantially.
This time it may be different. But I doubt it.
Not one of the very strongest????!!
I went through every constituency a year ago and made three lists of places where UKIP stood a chance, based on UKIP+BNP vote in 2010, the margin of victory between the first two. These being the recipe for possible UKIP success (Big KIP+BNP & small margin between 1st and 2nd)
There were 78 seats in total, only 20 were realistic winning chances
Any thing else=No chance, and Newark, South Shields, Wythenshawe are all examples of that.
Yes, yes, I understand all that.
Now address the other point.
Look, I'm not trying to persuade anyone, I'm trying to assess betting odds. Whatever you or I or anyone here posts is not going to affect the outcome. But in assessing the probabilities, Mike has made a very good point.
I am trying to do the same, assess betting odds. Thats why I think it is completely futile to judge UKIP by how they get on in places that they have no chance of winning
Whatt we are seein here is equivalent to a horse that needs fast ground over a mile, being race on soft ground over a mile and a half, coming second, and people crowing about how the horse is no good.
Pleny of people end up going skint laying the horse when it gets its conditions. Judges throw form on unsuitable ground/trip out of the window
You're missing out that UKIP's more motivated supporters means that low turnout elections (like by-elections, or the Euros) are their preferred ground. (Or perhaps for your analogy, their ideal distance).
We're now projecting for a higher turnout general election.
Yes , and in the right seats they got 45%+
I have just offered a bet that would require UKIP to beat their best ever percentage ina seat at least once, possibly twice. If you are confident you are right, lets do some business
Put it this way, the SDP/Liberal alliance came from third and 25,000 votes behind to win the Crosby by-election and 40% behind the Tories.
Why couldn't UKIP who finished 25,000 votes plus behind the Tories in Newark in 2010, do the same in Newark?
Why is the people's army not as popular as David Owen's mob?
Shirley Williams, much better known than Helmer. Militant Labour,Thatcher, Inner city riots.Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel, and Bill Boaks
There hasnt been a by election at a seat that even resembles fertile ground for UKIP, and until they dont live up to expectations in one of those, Mikes thread leader is completely meaningless
Well, there hasn't been a by-election in one of the very strongest areas, true. That was why I referred to 'the right seat'. But you've failed to take account of the other side of the point: by-elections are where minor parties do disproportionately well (as in the famous Liberal or LibDem triumphs over the years); in GEs, they fall back substantially.
This time it may be different. But I doubt it.
Not one of the very strongest????!!
I went through every constituency a year ago and made three lists of places where UKIP stood a chance, based on UKIP+BNP vote in 2010, the margin of victory between the first two. These being the recipe for possible UKIP success (Big KIP+BNP & small margin between 1st and 2nd)
There were 78 seats in total, only 20 were realistic winning chances
Any thing else=No chance, and Newark, South Shields, Wythenshawe are all examples of that.
Yes, yes, I understand all that.
Now address the other point.
Look, I'm not trying to persuade anyone, I'm trying to assess betting odds. Whatever you or I or anyone here posts is not going to affect the outcome. But in assessing the probabilities, Mike has made a very good point.
I am trying to do the same, assess betting odds. Thats why I think it is completely futile to judge UKIP by how they get on in places that they have no chance of winning
Whatt we are seein here is equivalent to a horse that needs fast ground over a mile, being race on soft ground over a mile and a half, coming second, and people crowing about how the horse is no good.
Pleny of people end up going skint laying the horse when it gets its conditions. Judges throw form on unsuitable ground/trip out of the window
You're missing out that UKIP's more motivated supporters means that low turnout elections (like by-elections, or the Euros) are their preferred ground. (Or perhaps for your analogy, their ideal distance).
We're now projecting for a higher turnout general election.
Is this where these mystically talked about Ed Miliband supporters will show up ?
@Corporeal Not going to try and separate this time as its getting late and it tells me the body is 1400 chars to long in any case
The second on the list may well be elected in the safe seat but at least my vote wasn't wasted on him. I know who I am casting a vote for and that gives me the ability to withhold or not dependent on which one is actually standing in my constituency.
My local Mp's political beliefs are frankly irrelevant unless they happen to be a front bencher. They are merely there to cast a vote the way the whips tell them. Therefore voting on them for other than their political beliefs such as "Will they willingly sell out their constituents for a sniff of more power" is the only rational way to look at it. Once I have established which of the local PPC's is most likely to at least occasionally put their constituents first in the division then I have the luxury of choosing the party with the least odious manifesto (No easy task as most range from the irrational to the down right insane in my opinion)
As to it pleases those who's party got power. Tell that to all those happy lib dem voters, or tell that to people like me who voted conservative and instead got lumbered with this coalition , a vote stolen from me as I would have never voted for this shower of idiots.
As to living in a safe seat....safe seats have generally been safe seats for years....don't like being in on then move somewhere else or don't move into it in the first place. Flippant answer but a grain of truth. PR would not get rid of safe seats you would just instead have regions with a safe number of tory seats and a safe number of labour seats etc.
Essentially what we have is a nation voting and some people getting into parliament. Whether under FPTP or PR there's any number of Tories who'll get into parliament you won't like.
You can't argue that they're so powerless their political views are irrelevant then place importance on will the put their constituency first or not. That's utterly contradictory.
Again, go look at what Open lists mean, or STV means. Your points all seem based on closed lists.
All you're advocating for here is a God of the gaps. I don't believe there are another eight planets in our solar system beyond Neptune. I accept the possibility they exist, but until there's evidence for it, I don't. That is the rational view.
The meaning of life is a rather large gap, wouldn't you say?
If by 'meaning of life' you mean 'a purpose to the universe set out at the beginning', then there's no reason to believe there's a gap at all. A universe doesn't need a purpose, and there's no evidence for one existing. The vast, vast majority of the universe is empty space, occasionally punctuated by the odd rock, nuclear explosion or ultramassive singularity.
Not a purpose, a beginning. It's irrelevant how empty the universe is -it exists. You can't explain that, or even come close.
This is intriguing, I'm not sure how much credence to give such a study but it would certainly not be unreasonable to believe that scarcity would lead to us ring fencing our "tribe" in a sense. It would also fit with the idea of protectionism rising between nations, that some measure of almost tribal protectionism would rise. But whether you can scientifically account for it I'm dubious.
Put it this way, the SDP/Liberal alliance came from third and 25,000 votes behind to win the Crosby by-election and 40% behind the Tories.
Why couldn't UKIP who finished 25,000 votes plus behind the Tories in Newark in 2010, do the same in Newark?
Why is the people's army not as popular as David Owen's mob?
Because at that point both Thatcher's Tories and Foot's Labour were in the doldrums.
The poll figures for the 26th October 1981, 1 month before the Crosby bye election were Con29.5 Lab 28 Lib/ SDP Alliance 40%
From wiki
The Crosby by-election took place against an almost unprecedented backdrop of division and disunity within both the Conservative and Labour parties, combined with social unrest and economic recession in the United Kingdom as a whole.
The opposition Labour Party was riven by factionalism and divided over entryism - in particular, that of the Militant tendency. It expounded left-wing policies, with perceived weak leadership provided by Michael Foot, who was routinely ridiculed by the national press.
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had recently sacked or neutralised the remaining allies of Edward Heath, the previous more moderate Conservative leader, and the country was being subjected to the full rigours of monetarism, her economic policy. Inflation was near 20%, with unemployment climbing towards three million, a figure not seen since the 1930s.
In July 1981 the most intense and prolonged instance of public unrest in the United Kingdom in the late twentieth century had occurred in the Toxteth area of Liverpool, following on the heels of similar riots in the St Pauls area of Bristol, Handsworth and Brixton.
Oh and interests rates were around 15%.....
Much as people are disillusioned with establishment parties today, the circumstances back in 1981 were much tougher and would have encouraged far more of a protest........
For me, it's driving a German car, wearing an Italian suit and shoes, going out to a bar, dancing to 80s music, on the way back home, stopping of at takeway to eat a kebab, and go home and play on a Japanese computer game system, and watch it all on a Korean TV.
Put it this way, the SDP/Liberal alliance came from third and 25,000 votes behind to win the Crosby by-election and 40% behind the Tories.
Why couldn't UKIP who finished 25,000 votes plus behind the Tories in Newark in 2010, do the same in Newark?
Why is the people's army not as popular as David Owen's mob?
Shirley Williams, much better known than Helmer. Militant Labour,Thatcher, Inner city riots.Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel, and Bill Boaks
How about Croydon in 1981?
I'm going by history, I was like 2 in 1981
A two way marginal where the winner trebled their vote?
If one of them came along Id expect UKIP to come very close, but nothing even aproaching that has
That's the whole point. They should not renege. An MP should be elected to represent the best interests of their own constituents. They cannot do that properly if they are being whipped to represent the best interests of their party.
A government should win votes in Parliament through having the best argument, not through threats and bribes as it does at the moment.
You are delightfully naive. Suppose your honest MP campaigned on two big issues, which she strongly believes in. For example, 'We Want an Airport!' and Higher welfare payments . One group of other MPs campaigned on 'We Want That Airport' and Lower Taxes, another group on 'No Airport' and Higher Taxes to Redistribute Wealth.
Someone has to decide, and put forward a budget, which includes, or does not include, a budget for getting that airport built, and increases, or lowers, taxes, and increases, or reduces, welfare payments. Crucially, the decisions are not independent - far from it. If we lower taxes, we might not have the budget for the airport. Or the airport will bring growth and investment which mean the tax take increases, allowing more wealth distribution.
Parliament, and certainly not your honest MP, can't decide these things as a list of completely unrelated decisions. They are all trade-offs, and - this is the bit you deliberately ignore - they interact.
So when the Chancellor sidles up to her and says: I need your support to get this budget through so we can increase welfare payments, but I won't be able to get it past your colleagues if we include the airport in our plans, what does she do? She reneges on one or the other. There is no alternative but to renege.
At least with the current system, there is a manifesto agreed BEFORE the election. So voters know the whole package they are voting for. The haggling still takes place, but in advance, and voters know what the trade-offs are. That's a more honest system than haggling in smoke-free rooms after the election.
I dont think UKIP particularly need a 3 or 4 way marginal to win a seat. I think they could win a straight 2-horse-race in a number of seats that are more suited to them than Eastleigh or Newark were.
Ok . Where for example?
Their best prospects have been posted many times before. They include (but are not limited to) the seats they "won" at last year's locals. Let Farage pick their top target and work it hard (though I've been saying they should have done that for years now) and it would be foolish to rule them out of contention in it.
There hasnt been a by election at a seat that even resembles fertile ground for UKIP, and until they dont live up to expectations in one of those, Mikes thread leader is completely meaningless
Well, there hasn't been a by-election in one of the very strongest areas, true. That was why I referred to 'the right seat'. But you've failed to take account of the other side of the point: by-elections are where minor parties do disproportionately well (as in the famous Liberal or LibDem triumphs over the years); in GEs, they fall back substantially.
This time it may be different. But I doubt it.
I am trying to do the same, assess betting odds. Thats why I think it is completely futile to judge UKIP by how they get on in places that they have no chance of winning
Whatt we are seein here is equivalent to a horse that needs fast ground over a mile, being race on soft ground over a mile and a half, coming second, and people crowing about how the horse is no good.
Pleny of people end up going skint laying the horse when it gets its conditions. Judges throw form on unsuitable ground/trip out of the window
You're missing out that UKIP's more motivated supporters means that low turnout elections (like by-elections, or the Euros) are their preferred ground. (Or perhaps for your analogy, their ideal distance).
We're now projecting for a higher turnout general election.
Yes , and in the right seats they got 45%+
I have just offered a bet that would require UKIP to beat their best ever percentage ina seat at least once, possibly twice. If you are confident you are right, lets do some business
Of the people who voted.
And framed it such a way that you could win your bet with UKIP making respectable second places, when what people are suggesting here is UKIP could rack up plenty of respectable vote scores without winning seats.
Put it this way, the SDP/Liberal alliance came from third and 25,000 votes behind to win the Crosby by-election and 40% behind the Tories.
Why couldn't UKIP who finished 25,000 votes plus behind the Tories in Newark in 2010, do the same in Newark?
Why is the people's army not as popular as David Owen's mob?
Shirley Williams, much better known than Helmer. Militant Labour,Thatcher, Inner city riots.Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel, and Bill Boaks
How about Croydon in 1981?
I'm going by history, I was like 2 in 1981
I'm sad/cool enough to be able to rattle off several such by-elections.
Put it this way, the SDP/Liberal alliance came from third and 25,000 votes behind to win the Crosby by-election and 40% behind the Tories.
Why couldn't UKIP who finished 25,000 votes plus behind the Tories in Newark in 2010, do the same in Newark?
Why is the people's army not as popular as David Owen's mob?
Shirley Williams, much better known than Helmer. Militant Labour,Thatcher, Inner city riots.Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel, and Bill Boaks
How about Croydon in 1981?
I'm going by history, I was like 2 in 1981
I'm sad/cool enough to be able to rattle off several such by-elections.
How about why the Libs/SDP won Glasgow Hillhead and Bermondsey?
Ok, maybe not Bermondsey, perhaps we shouldn't open that can of hornets.
Essentially what we have is a nation voting and some people getting into parliament. Whether under FPTP or PR there's any number of Tories who'll get into parliament you won't like.
You can't argue that they're so powerless their political views are irrelevant then place importance on will the put their constituency first or not. That's utterly contradictory.
Again, go look at what Open lists mean, or STV means. Your points all seem based on closed lists.
I can't do anything about constituencies other than mine nor do I wish to. I only care about my vote in my constituency and it being used to further causes I support. Lists whether open or closed do not do that. The will to put their constituents first again applies to MY constituency. If voters in other constituencies or other voters in my constituency don't use the same criteria then there is nothing I can do about it and lists and pr won't help that either.
List politicians = party hacks whether closed or open lists are chosen on a regional level it doesnt make sense to have a list for a single constituency or as someone noted it is a list of 1. That means those choosing the list are doing so for a huge area.
My main objection to PR though remains the horse trading one in which you do not know what manifesto you are voting for because you won't find out that until the voting is over and grubby deals are done.
Nothing you have said has countered this last point. This coalition has frankly put a nail in the coffin for any form of PR in the future in my view as I cannot see the british public ever endorsing a change which means more coalitions
All you're advocating for here is a God of the gaps. I don't believe there are another eight planets in our solar system beyond Neptune. I accept the possibility they exist, but until there's evidence for it, I don't. That is the rational view.
The meaning of life is a rather large gap, wouldn't you say?
If by 'meaning of life' you mean 'a purpose to the universe set out at the beginning', then there's no reason to believe there's a gap at all. A universe doesn't need a purpose, and there's no evidence for one existing. The vast, vast majority of the universe is empty space, occasionally punctuated by the odd rock, nuclear explosion or ultramassive singularity.
Not a purpose, a beginning. It's irrelevant how empty the universe is -it exists. You can't explain that, or even come close.
I think you need to be more precise with your usage of words. Existence and purpose are different things.
No, I agree that there is no explanation for the beginning of the universe. But the existence of a creator adds nothing to explain this problem. It simply moves the conundrum up a level.
@david-herdson But it seems they will not be allowed into the debates, which might suit their anti-establishment narrative best of all. I think there is a balance between undermining the credibility of Cameron's central referendum post re-negotiation policy and gaining national vote share. The euros were about the latter, the GE might be about the former. But hell, its late and who would not rather speculate on the sort of prayers a virus might say?
Previous advice suggests that's the view Ofcom takes but that doesn't mean UKIP has to compliantly accept it. They should go back to Ofcom in the first instance and if they don't get any joy there, go for a judicial review. Unless you give huge weight to what happened in 2010 over 2013-4, there's really no good argument for the Lib Dems to be in and UKIP out.
Thank you David. You have demonstrated why you're one of the best posters on here: always willing to focus on the merits of the argument rather than partisan self-interest.
Mr Nabavi that is why the much derided concept of ideology is so critical as it can give you a steer to how a person approaches issues. Too few politicians talk about their philosophy, too few even think about it. I often disagree with Carswell and Hannan but at least on any issue you can give a decent stab as to their approach and how they'll come down, far too many politicians are a bit too scatter gun.
All you're advocating for here is a God of the gaps. I don't believe there are another eight planets in our solar system beyond Neptune. I accept the possibility they exist, but until there's evidence for it, I don't. That is the rational view.
The meaning of life is a rather large gap, wouldn't you say?
If by 'meaning of life' you mean 'a purpose to the universe set out at the beginning', then there's no reason to believe there's a gap at all. A universe doesn't need a purpose, and there's no evidence for one existing. The vast, vast majority of the universe is empty space, occasionally punctuated by the odd rock, nuclear explosion or ultramassive singularity.
Not a purpose, a beginning. It's irrelevant how empty the universe is -it exists. You can't explain that, or even come close.
What evidence is there that the 'God' you believe in created the Universe?
Mr Nabavi that is why the much derided concept of ideology is so critical as it can give you a steer to how a person approaches issues. Too few politicians talk about their philosophy, too few even think about it. I often disagree with Carswell and Hannan but at least on any issue you can give a decent stab as to their approach and how they'll come down, far too many politicians are a bit too scatter gun.
The most absurd bit about our current system of governance is that hardly any parliamentary candidates spell out their views on any important issue before the election. Go and look at your MP's website and see how many of them list their general views on anything controversial on education, healthcare and defence versus generic platitudes and stuff about pot holes.
There hasnt been a by election at a seat that even resembles fertile ground for UKIP, and until they dont live up to expectations in one of those, Mikes thread leader is completely meaningless
Well, there hasn't been a by-election in one of the very strongest areas, true. That was why I referred to 'the right seat'. But you've failed to take account of the other side of the point: by-elections are where minor parties do disproportionately well (as in the famous Liberal or LibDem triumphs over the years); in GEs, they fall back substantially.
This time it may be different. But I doubt it.
I am trying to do the same, assess betting odds. Thats why I think it is completely futile to judge UKIP by how they get on in places that they have no chance of winning
Whatt we are seein here is equivalent to a horse that needs fast ground over a mile, being race on soft ground over a mile and a half, coming second, and people crowing about how the horse is no good.
Pleny of people end up going skint laying the horse when it gets its conditions. Judges throw form on unsuitable ground/trip out of the window
You're missing out that UKIP's more motivated supporters means that low turnout elections (like by-elections, or the Euros) are their preferred ground. (Or perhaps for your analogy, their ideal distance).
We're now projecting for a higher turnout general election.
Yes , and in the right seats they got 45%+
I have just offered a bet that would require UKIP to beat their best ever percentage ina seat at least once, possibly twice. If you are confident you are right, lets do some business
Of the people who voted.
And framed it such a way that you could win your bet with UKIP making respectable second places, when what people are suggesting here is UKIP could rack up plenty of respectable vote scores without winning seats.
Yes but turnout isnt 100% in GE's either... in Thurrock where UKIP won very easily in the Euros and the locals, the last three General Elections turnout have been 49%, 54% and 59% Yes 100% of people dont vote in General Elections either though.
Put it this way, the SDP/Liberal alliance came from third and 25,000 votes behind to win the Crosby by-election and 40% behind the Tories.
Why couldn't UKIP who finished 25,000 votes plus behind the Tories in Newark in 2010, do the same in Newark?
Why is the people's army not as popular as David Owen's mob?
Shirley Williams, much better known than Helmer. Militant Labour,Thatcher, Inner city riots.Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel, and Bill Boaks
How about Croydon in 1981?
I'm going by history, I was like 2 in 1981
I'm sad/cool enough to be able to rattle off several such by-elections.
How about why the Libs/SDP won Glasgow Hillhead and Bermondsey?
Ok, maybe not Bermondsey, perhaps we shouldn't open that can of hornets.
It was different to the UKIP surge. A centre left alliance with well known and respected politicians. Versus of a right wing party with dodgy characters. Labour run by militants, Thatcher very unpopular, (Falklands to her rescue).
There are very few places you can go where you can have parallel discussions over political philosophy, electoral geography, the fundamental nature of belief systems and the nature of the cosmos. We may rarely get answers to any of them but I'm sure we can all feel enriched by the fact of their discussion.
For me, it's driving a German car, wearing an Italian suit and shoes, going out to a bar, dancing to 80s music, on the way back home, stopping of at takeway to eat a kebab, and go home and play on a Japanese computer game system, and watch it all on a Korean TV.
Oh and too insult the French and Aussies.
That you failed to mention that ultimate sign of British identity, the cup of tea, is unforgivable.
For me, it's driving a German car, wearing an Italian suit and shoes, going out to a bar, dancing to 80s music, on the way back home, stopping of at takeway to eat a kebab, and go home and play on a Japanese computer game system, and watch it all on a Korean TV.
Oh and too insult the French and Aussies.
That you failed to mention that ultimate sign of British identity, the cup of tea, is unforgivable.
I'm not a tea drinker and considering my ancestors come from the Indian Sub-continent...
Essentially what we have is a nation voting and some people getting into parliament. Whether under FPTP or PR there's any number of Tories who'll get into parliament you won't like.
You can't argue that they're so powerless their political views are irrelevant then place importance on will the put their constituency first or not. That's utterly contradictory.
Again, go look at what Open lists mean, or STV means. Your points all seem based on closed lists.
I can't do anything about constituencies other than mine nor do I wish to. I only care about my vote in my constituency and it being used to further causes I support. Lists whether open or closed do not do that. The will to put their constituents first again applies to MY constituency. If voters in other constituencies or other voters in my constituency don't use the same criteria then there is nothing I can do about it and lists and pr won't help that either.
List politicians = party hacks whether closed or open lists are chosen on a regional level it doesnt make sense to have a list for a single constituency or as someone noted it is a list of 1. That means those choosing the list are doing so for a huge area.
My main objection to PR though remains the horse trading one in which you do not know what manifesto you are voting for because you won't find out that until the voting is over and grubby deals are done.
Nothing you have said has countered this last point. This coalition has frankly put a nail in the coffin for any form of PR in the future in my view as I cannot see the british public ever endorsing a change which means more coalitions
I was taking an overall view of an electoral system as a way of electing a government. Does it make a difference if someone you don't like is elected on a list or in a safe seat?
How is someone elected under an open list or STV system more of a party hack than an A-lister parachuted in to a safe seat?
Surprising then that when polled how many of them list some form of coalition as their preferred outcome then.
Comments
But it seems they will not be allowed into the debates, which might suit their anti-establishment narrative best of all. I think there is a balance between undermining the credibility of Cameron's central referendum post re-negotiation policy and gaining national vote share. The euros were about the latter, the GE might be about the former. But hell, its late and who would not rather speculate on the sort of prayers a virus might say?
If you say you're just voting for a party than how much does having an individual FPTP MP make a difference.
You mean you want a party with 35% of the vote to get all the power, and consider that more representative than parties having power based on how many people vote for them and having to come together to reflect there levels of partial support.
I believe in the constituency link, but think that the power of the whips/parties militates against that.
Personally I'd like to see the executive removed from the legislature - I think this is far more important to fix.
Its like Leicester losing their first three games of next season by a goal to nil, away to Man City, Chelsea, and Liverpool and people saying "ooh theyre not all that away from home are they?"
Utterly ridiculous desperate clinging to hope
And don't even get me started on Diane James' predictive abilities.
Except UKIP fail their own expectations bar, even the prediction Farage made on the night was missed by thousands of votes.
Yes Diane James is a bit like Mystic Meg without the theatrics or the low grade appeal
PR isn't perfect and the coalition-forming aspect of it is the worst but the defects in a good system of it are probably less bad than any other, given the four or more parties we now have.
Don't agree. If I vote for Cameron or Miliband or even Clegg I have some idea of what sort of government am going to get. If I vote for some independent minded back bencher I have no idea whatsoever.
Under a list system I may want to vote the top of the list in but not the second. I no longer have a clear idea who my vote is helping. If it is going to elect the second one I would rather throw it away. I vote for the party on policy issues and my local MP on the basis of who they are. I will not vote for an MP I find repulsive regardless of their party policies. Where have I ever bleated or whined about representative. I really don't care about representation I care about having a strong government that someone elected because they felt that party stood for something worthwhile even if it is a thing I disagree with. What I don't want is a coalition where no one feels they voted for this manifesto because it is a mish mash of several different wants. I do not believe if the coalition had stood as one party on the manifesto it implemented that they would have been elected. Your "representative" government basically like all compromises please no one
Only exceeded by DH
This time it may be different. But I doubt it.
(Of all the changed electoral systems, I'd probably view multi-member systems as the next best. Multi-member FPTP though, perhaps. Tried to persuade Marcus Fox many years ago that it was a good idea as dual-member constituencies would probably end up with each major party running a male/female tag-team. He was very grumpy about the idea!)
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
Mikes thread is basically an overanalysis of a sub sample. There have only been five by elections since UKIP started doing ok, none f them in favourable seats, and they ve come second in them all and won the Euros.
Since this time last year I have backed UKIP to do well with people on here and at the bookies and every single price has moved 5-10% or more in my favour. Why is that if UKIP arent going in the right direction?
2) The idea that any of the establishment parties will change the voting system knowing there was a possibility that UKIP could pick up many tens of seats (at their cost) is a nonstarter. All the reasons and therefore drivers that once applied to the Libdems support of PR now apply to UKIP.
3) As to Andy JS's list earlier on I would add any Kent coastal seat missed by Andy from Dartford, through Gravesham. Medway (3 seats), Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Thanet (2 seats), Dover and Folkestone. In all the covering council areas in the Euros, UKIP scored at least a 15 point win over the Tories with Labour nowhere and as such UKIP have progressed considerably further there than they have in places like Newark. Furthermore, aside Folkestone & North Thanet, all the Kent coastal seats were in Labour hands prior to the 2005 general election and of those all bar one of the Medway seats were in Labour hands prior to the 2010 general election. These would seem to fulfil the UKIP criteria perfectly and surely will be targets. However given the size of the Tory majorities in 2010 it is doubtful that any would have made Miliband's target list and therefore likely would not appear on the Tory's primary list of marginals to defend. Given such circumstances, Its little wonder that Farage has been so definite that he will be fighting in Kent when he has so many potential seats to choose from.
Why is it that you are so concerned that other people care, you seem to so deeply concern yourself with others beliefs, perhaps a reflection of your own insecurity?
Afraid your poor arguments have left me unconverted.
I went through every constituency a year ago and made three lists of places where UKIP stood a chance, based on UKIP+BNP vote in 2010, the margin of victory between the first two. These being the recipe for possible UKIP success (Big KIP+BNP & small margin between 1st and 2nd)
There were 78 seats in total, only 20 were realistic winning chances
Any thing else=No chance, and Newark, South Shields, Wythenshawe are all examples of that.
It's not perfect as Clegg showed all too well but it is the most informed link we have between our votes and the government we actually get. The more individual the candidates the less use our votes actually are.
Now address the other point.
Look, I'm not trying to persuade anyone, I'm trying to assess betting odds. Whatever you or I or anyone here posts is not going to affect the outcome. But in assessing the probabilities, Mike has made a very good point.
Its a thought I suppose but not sure it would be considered either democratic nor wise.
That being the case, why are you so ardently against a system which gives whips / parties significantly less power than the one you profess to support?
On separating the executive from the legislature - right there with you.
Whereas under FPTP you have 35% of people very happy that their party got a majority and power, and 65% wondering why they don't have influence on government.
This is of course not to mention those who get to live in safe seats of parties they don't support and what their votes count for.
Why couldn't UKIP who finished 25,000 votes plus behind the Tories in Newark in 2010, do the same in Newark?
Why is the people's army not as popular as David Owen's mob?
Truth be told they did better than I expected there.
Those trying to take some message about the GE from the result are just showing how little they understood the constituency and the by-election.
So that helped them win places like Newark & Sherwood, when the by-election came, and turnout shot up, the Tories won comfortably.
Whilst the two areas are strictly comparable, you can see higher turnout will boost the established parties.
Yes, of course they are anti-establishment. Their real rise started with the expenses scandal, which is one reason I ran against NF in 2010.
Does this mean they will no, of course not it is a very safe Tory seat. But it will be close and with events and fair win a lot closer than many think. A mistake on here I agree with earlier is to forget that Labour in Kent and the South East are like the Tories in Scotland - patchy at best, but broadly irrelevant. The Lib Dems have long campaigned as Labour lite. But UKIP are Tories in disguise - very well placed. I am going to bet on 5 seats plus at the right moment for UKIP. Two or three in Kent and one or two in Essex. Who knows elsewhere.
We saw this with the huge animus against Blair over decisions he made, not just the war, and I think it's proving dangerous. I never voted for Blair or Brown but they were my PM even so. The trouble is that too many people never get beyond the partisanry, you have to live with being in the minority and I fear too many can't.
I'm not sure I've put this as best I can, but hope it makes some form of sense.
The southern industrialists were pro-slavery because they wanted slaves to use in their factories. It was a great source of cheap labour for them.
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/view/10946814?trk=eml-jymbii-organic-job-title&refId=364171c7-4319-4f74-b86c-70696c64a198
Not going to try and separate this time as its getting late and it tells me the body is 1400 chars to long in any case
The second on the list may well be elected in the safe seat but at least my vote wasn't wasted on him. I know who I am casting a vote for and that gives me the ability to withhold or not dependent on which one is actually standing in my constituency.
My local Mp's political beliefs are frankly irrelevant unless they happen to be a front bencher. They are merely there to cast a vote the way the whips tell them. Therefore voting on them for other than their political beliefs such as "Will they willingly sell out their constituents for a sniff of more power" is the only rational way to look at it. Once I have established which of the local PPC's is most likely to at least occasionally put their constituents first in the division then I have the luxury of choosing the party with the least odious manifesto (No easy task as most range from the irrational to the down right insane in my opinion)
As to it pleases those who's party got power. Tell that to all those happy lib dem voters, or tell that to people like me who voted conservative and instead got lumbered with this coalition , a vote stolen from me as I would have never voted for this shower of idiots.
As to living in a safe seat....safe seats have generally been safe seats for years....don't like being in on then move somewhere else or don't move into it in the first place. Flippant answer but a grain of truth. PR would not get rid of safe seats you would just instead have regions with a safe number of tory seats and a safe number of labour seats etc.
A government should win votes in Parliament through having the best argument, not through threats and bribes as it does at the moment.
A robust system of recall would help to keep MPs on the straight and narrow as far as constituents were concerned. I wonder why the Coalition decided to drop this idea even though it was in their agreement? /
Again, if it is so uninvolved why worship it or waste time praying to it? What is the upside of this belief system?
Whatt we are seein here is equivalent to a horse that needs fast ground over a mile, being race on soft ground over a mile and a half, coming second, and people crowing about how the horse is no good.
Pleny of people end up going skint laying the horse when it gets its conditions. Judges throw form on unsuitable ground/trip out of the window
I will back UKIP over 58% combined at EVEN money, any takers?
Militant Labour,Thatcher, Inner city riots.Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel, and Bill Boaks
We're now projecting for a higher turnout general election.
I have just offered a bet that would require UKIP to beat their best ever percentage ina seat at least once, possibly twice. If you are confident you are right, lets do some business
Just checking for clarity ^_~
I'm going by history, I was like 2 in 1981
You can't argue that they're so powerless their political views are irrelevant then place importance on will the put their constituency first or not. That's utterly contradictory.
Again, go look at what Open lists mean, or STV means. Your points all seem based on closed lists.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2653109/Do-people-RACIST-recession.html
The poll figures for the 26th October 1981, 1 month before the Crosby bye election were Con29.5 Lab 28 Lib/ SDP Alliance 40%
From wiki
The Crosby by-election took place against an almost unprecedented backdrop of division and disunity within both the Conservative and Labour parties, combined with social unrest and economic recession in the United Kingdom as a whole.
The opposition Labour Party was riven by factionalism and divided over entryism - in particular, that of the Militant tendency. It expounded left-wing policies, with perceived weak leadership provided by Michael Foot, who was routinely ridiculed by the national press.
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had recently sacked or neutralised the remaining allies of Edward Heath, the previous more moderate Conservative leader, and the country was being subjected to the full rigours of monetarism, her economic policy. Inflation was near 20%, with unemployment climbing towards three million, a figure not seen since the 1930s.
In July 1981 the most intense and prolonged instance of public unrest in the United Kingdom in the late twentieth century had occurred in the Toxteth area of Liverpool, following on the heels of similar riots in the St Pauls area of Bristol, Handsworth and Brixton.
Oh and interests rates were around 15%.....
Much as people are disillusioned with establishment parties today, the circumstances back in 1981 were much tougher and would have encouraged far more of a protest........
For me, it's driving a German car, wearing an Italian suit and shoes, going out to a bar, dancing to 80s music, on the way back home, stopping of at takeway to eat a kebab, and go home and play on a Japanese computer game system, and watch it all on a Korean TV.
Oh and too insult the French and Aussies.
If one of them came along Id expect UKIP to come very close, but nothing even aproaching that has
Someone has to decide, and put forward a budget, which includes, or does not include, a budget for getting that airport built, and increases, or lowers, taxes, and increases, or reduces, welfare payments. Crucially, the decisions are not independent - far from it. If we lower taxes, we might not have the budget for the airport. Or the airport will bring growth and investment which mean the tax take increases, allowing more wealth distribution.
Parliament, and certainly not your honest MP, can't decide these things as a list of completely unrelated decisions. They are all trade-offs, and - this is the bit you deliberately ignore - they interact.
So when the Chancellor sidles up to her and says: I need your support to get this budget through so we can increase welfare payments, but I won't be able to get it past your colleagues if we include the airport in our plans, what does she do? She reneges on one or the other. There is no alternative but to renege.
At least with the current system, there is a manifesto agreed BEFORE the election. So voters know the whole package they are voting for. The haggling still takes place, but in advance, and voters know what the trade-offs are. That's a more honest system than haggling in smoke-free rooms after the election.
And framed it such a way that you could win your bet with UKIP making respectable second places, when what people are suggesting here is UKIP could rack up plenty of respectable vote scores without winning seats.
Ok, maybe not Bermondsey, perhaps we shouldn't open that can of hornets.
I can't do anything about constituencies other than mine nor do I wish to. I only care about my vote in my constituency and it being used to further causes I support. Lists whether open or closed do not do that. The will to put their constituents first again applies to MY constituency. If voters in other constituencies or other voters in my constituency don't use the same criteria then there is nothing I can do about it and lists and pr won't help that either.
List politicians = party hacks whether closed or open lists are chosen on a regional level it doesnt make sense to have a list for a single constituency or as someone noted it is a list of 1. That means those choosing the list are doing so for a huge area.
My main objection to PR though remains the horse trading one in which you do not know what manifesto you are voting for because you won't find out that until the voting is over and grubby deals are done.
Nothing you have said has countered this last point. This coalition has frankly put a nail in the coffin for any form of PR in the future in my view as I cannot see the british public ever endorsing a change which means more coalitions
No, I agree that there is no explanation for the beginning of the universe. But the existence of a creator adds nothing to explain this problem. It simply moves the conundrum up a level.
Yes 100% of people dont vote in General Elections either though.
How about Croydon in 1981?
I'm going by history, I was like 2 in 1981
It was different to the UKIP surge. A centre left alliance with well known and respected politicians. Versus of a right wing party with dodgy characters.
Labour run by militants, Thatcher very unpopular, (Falklands to her rescue).
How is someone elected under an open list or STV system more of a party hack than an A-lister parachuted in to a safe seat?
Surprising then that when polled how many of them list some form of coalition as their preferred outcome then.