1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Why Do People Hate Nigel Farage?

Discussion in 'Personal' started by Vladimir, Feb 14, 2016.

  1. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    True.
    Yes. A former Tory MP who had built up a good relationship with his constituents before he defected to UKIP. It's been a different story for UKIP candidates who attempted to get elected without being able to draw on the support of people they haven't previously represented.
    In the sense that the vast majority of votes gave us a government and an opposition, the majority of votes cast were effective.

    It wasn't just UKIP who lost out. The Monster Raving Loony Party didn't get any MPs, the Green Party had a higher share of the votes than previously, yet remained with the one MP and there will have been votes cast for lots of independent candidates and minor parties who didn't get elected.

    This isn't true. The voting system is conducted fairly and honestly, however it doesn't mean it will bring a representative cross section of where the votes were cast into power. We were given the opportunity to change the system in 2011 and the vast majority of voters (68%) decided it didn't want the system to change. That may be tough on UKIP and the other minor parties, but it's what the nation democratically chose.

    Any political party will do what it can to serve its own interests, but ultimately it's the public who decides who governs us. I would have preferred the system to change, but the majority of people didn't want it to, so I and everyone else have to accept that. If there was anything like the amount of discontent you suggest there is, the public would have voted for change.
     
  2. delnon

    delnon Lead commenter

    There is always a lot of moaning: but at least a government which has over 50% of the votes behind it has the legitimacy which a typical UK government does not.
     
  3. delnon

    delnon Lead commenter

    And even more nonsense is being posted against them. So I suppose they are not insignifcant, then?
     
  4. FritzGrade

    FritzGrade Senior commenter

    Would you advocate mandatory coalitions? I don't think that's the right way to go. Maybe i wouldn't mind multi round elections as in the French presidential. No guarantee of 50% though. And it would wipe out the small parties.
     
  5. delnon

    delnon Lead commenter

    Duke of York: "We were given the opportunity to change the system in 2011 and the vast majority of voters (68%) decided it didn't want the system to change."

    The Tweedle-Diddle party would only agree to propose a reformed system which in practice would have made very little difference to our present unrepresentative, undemocratic voting system. The fact that 68% of the voters rejected it does not mean that we did not want the system to change; it can also mean that we rejected such a feeble sop to democracy.

    And wasn't it funny to see the Right Honourable David Blunkett as the Daily Mail's page 3 girl pleading with voters not to change our system "which has served us so well". Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Diddle collaborating to preserve their vested interest, what a surprise.
     
    Geoff Thomas likes this.
  6. delnon

    delnon Lead commenter

    I wouldn't advocate mandatory coalitions; that is not for me to say, it is for the voters to say. You and I can think what we like, but in a real democracy it's the voters as a whole who decide the outcome of an election. At every postwar British General Election the voters have said they do not want single party rule; and every time but one, that is what has been foisted upon us.
     
    Geoff Thomas likes this.
  7. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    I prefer a coalition to a tory majority. The lesser of two evils.
     
    delnon and Geoff Thomas like this.
  8. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    An interesting twist DofY;)
    You must accept :rolleyes: that 37% of voters getting 55% of seats and 100% of the decision making power, is not a democratic measure?
     
    delnon likes this.
  9. Geoff Thomas

    Geoff Thomas Star commenter

    Germany?
     
  10. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    The way in which that vote was carried out was rigged in favour of the status quo, and PR was not offered anyway.
     
    delnon and Geoff Thomas like this.
  11. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Spot on.
     
  12. Geoff Thomas

    Geoff Thomas Star commenter

    I dislike UKIP. But UKIP are entitled to a large number of seats in parliament.

    No doubt, with a PR system, they would have done even better.
     
  13. FritzGrade

    FritzGrade Senior commenter

    No they have the the equivalent of multiple constituencies. Israel has the whole country as 1 constituency. It's the ultimate PR.
     
  14. Geoff Thomas

    Geoff Thomas Star commenter

    Yes - Israel has no threshold and therefore a highly unstable parliament.

    Germany's Bundestag membership is absolutely proportional to votes cast nationally, with the exclusion of parties which do not obtain as few as 1 vote in 20.

    Very stable.

    And with constituencies, too.
     
    delnon likes this.
  15. FritzGrade

    FritzGrade Senior commenter

    Far from exactly.
     
  16. delnon

    delnon Lead commenter

    Duke of York. "The voting system is conducted fairly and honestly, however it doesn't mean it will bring a representative cross section of where the votes were cast into power."

    The conduct of the voting system may be fair and honest: the voting system itself is corrupt and fraudulent. Just one example will suffice: Aberavon, alphabetically the first constituency, is a "safe seat" - one of a great many rotten boroughs where you could pin the rosette on a chimp and have it sent to gibber and gesticulate at the PMQ tea party. In 2015 the winner polled 15,416 votes against the runner-up's 4,971 votes. A clear win for democracy, yes?

    Er, no. There were 9 candidates, and a total of 16,107 votes were cast against the winner: All of these votes elected nobody. Furthermore, once the winner had 4,972 votes, he or she was in. The remaining 10,444 votes cast for the winner also elected nobody. In other words, 26,000+ voters might have well have stayed at home and fed the goldfish.

    To be generous, one could argue that the runner-up's votes did count in that they pushed the winner to score that number plus one. Being generous, then, 9.943 out of 31,523 votes did actually count.

    This is why I call the system corrupt and fraudulent. It steals our votes (corruption) and pretends to be democratic (fraud).
     
  17. Didactylos4

    Didactylos4 Star commenter

    No they aren't
    They failed to use the system to their advantage
    As have many other parties in the past
     
  18. Didactylos4

    Didactylos4 Star commenter

    Error
    No votes were cast against the winner
     
  19. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    I don't like the system any more than you do, but there's other things about the way our supposed democracy works that I dislike even more.

    I dislike the fact that there is precious little difference between the main parties and hasn't been for a long time. I dislike the fact that the media plays a large part in which party gets elected and I dislike the fact that they all rely on donations from wealthy individuals to fund them, leaving them open to being disproportionately influenced by a small number of people in their policy decisions.

    There's a lot in politics that's unfair and needs changing, not just the FPTP system.
     
    delnon and Geoff Thomas like this.
  20. delnon

    delnon Lead commenter

    Those who vote for other candidates are voting against the winner. Those who do not vote at all may be voting with their feet. Question: does voting in a UK General Election lend a spurious veneer of legitimacy to a corrupt and fraudulent system?
    Laying my axe to the right tree.
     

Share This Page