London protests (riots)

dejongj said:
@Rich Ellis. I fully understand your point. On the face of it, it doesn't seen right. However those have been the rules for a very long time and only four years ago the electorate had a chance to change it for this election (and subsequent ones) and two thirds of the electorate decided to keep the current system.

The chance was there to change it and it was not taken up. I merely think it is not fruitful to look at the what ifs of such decision, instead each party should focus on fighting for the individual seats.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. It was just the "but the SNP only stood in x number of seats" comments that riled. We have what we have and other systems are fraught with difficulty. Even if we did have another system there'd be those that moaned about that too and wished we had the old fptp system back!

On a serious point however, I am a little worried that the social media trend/attitude of posting a photograph (of a politician) with writing over the top declaring WW3 or some dreadful sound bite 'fact' (that usually is anything but) does influence younger voters and future voters and only serves to further disenfranchise. My other pet hate is a link to some dreadfully researched 'journalism' also presented as 'fact' that is little more than hardcore propaganda that is equally accepted as gospel truth. Maybe t'was ever thus but reasoned debate has all but disappeared into petty name calling and frankly insulting mud slinging that achieves nothing but bad feeling and further entrenched (often incorrect factually) views. Yes yes I know where it starts etc but it seriously is a worrying aspect. And before anyone starts flinging mud at me, it is true of all parties and all political persuasions.

Quick example someone threw at me the other night in the pub - "The gap between rich and poor has frighteningly widened over the past few years". One I've heard often and I'm sure most of us have recently. OK. I didn't and wouldn't argue with someone who was a world expert on this point, however, when I simply asked what the definition was of 'poor' and 'rich' (I genuinely didn't know the details) and over how many years this trend had been growing and was it worse under a Tory gov versus a labour one etc, not one person could even get close to supporting the argument factually. At all. Not even close. I daresay they could (and I've since looked into this and trust me, it isn't easy to find or work out, understand or gain consistent figures on) if only they weren't so happy to trot out someone elses "fact" from Facebook without looking into it themselves.

The other thing that happened during this discussion is one that started to happen here above - the minute I simply questioned such a bold and forthright opinion it made me at best a tory/ukip loving scum, at worst a racist, bigoted, xenophobic, worthless piece of s***! WTF? I asked for clarification of quite a bold statement?! You know, dared to learn the facts about something I didn't understand by asking what I thought were simple basic Q's.

Dale_tem said:
I didn't say you don't agree. I said...

you list all the points of someone who doesn't agree.
Click to expand...

And why would that be confusing? I simply said I understood those people who were a bit miffed? Is that wrong? I don't agree with them but I understand why they might be miffed.
 
Lol welcome to out of focus, the place where everyone is an expert ;)
 
At the risk of being chased by an angry mob, I'm going to stick in my two pennurth;

The real reason why UKIP got so many votes but only one seat is that they were, mostly, a protest vote. People voted UKIP on the implicit understanding that they wouldn't actually win the seat. Farage was briefly ahead in Thanet, but as soon as that poll was published, he lost his support.

Still not with me? Consider this - the easiest seat for a party to win is the one you already hold. Voters don't need to second-guess tactical voting etc - they vote the same as they did before and they get their (wo)man. If the electorate wanted UKIP MPs, then they should have at least kept the 2 that they had going into the election. Yet one lost his seat. It appears people were happy to elect Reckless when there was only a few months of a dead parliament left, but 5 years of him and they baulked.
The only UKIP candidate to win a seat was Carswell, who already had established a reputation as a popular Conservative MP - he won despite being UKIP, not because of it (like the remaining LibDem MPs!).

So, whilst UKIP might complain about the unfairness of it (a topic they were conspicuously silent on prior to polling day), I have a strong suspicion that under a different system they'd have polled fewer votes.
 
Llamaman said:
At the risk of being chased by an angry mob, I'm going to stick in my two pennurth;

The real reason why UKIP got so many votes but only one seat is that they were, mostly, a protest vote. People voted UKIP on the implicit understanding that they wouldn't actually win the seat. Farage was briefly ahead in Thanet, but as soon as that poll was published, he lost his support.

Still not with me? Consider this - the easiest seat for a party to win is the one you already hold. Voters don't need to second-guess tactical voting etc - they vote the same as they did before and they get their (wo)man. If the electorate wanted UKIP MPs, then they should have at least kept the 2 that they had going into the election. Yet one lost his seat. It appears people were happy to elect Reckless when there was only a few months of a dead parliament left, but 5 years of him and they baulked.
The only UKIP candidate to win a seat was Carswell, who already had established a reputation as a popular Conservative MP - he won despite being UKIP, not because of it (like the remaining LibDem MPs!).

So, whilst UKIP might complain about the unfairness of it (a topic they were conspicuously silent on prior to polling day), I have a strong suspicion that under a different system they'd have polled fewer votes.
Click to expand...

Far from chasing you angrily, I actually agree with you. If we did have some sort of PR vote, they probably wouldn't have got the votes they did. However, I suspect there are a large number of people who would continue to support them and to underestimate this could be dangerous (brilliant if you support them) for the other parties. I think parties on both sides now recognise this and are hoping to address it over the coming term. Essentially they remained a 2 issue party and the other main parties spent too long calling them names and laughing at them. In the meantime they (UKIP) carried on gaining votes. They rattled a cage and hopefully the result of that will be more representative politics? Maybe not but I'm an optimist...

mark richards said:
they'r all out to shaft us, so do it matter who gets in?...
Click to expand...

There we have it...quality debate.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
Far from chasing you angrily, I actually agree with you. If we did have some sort of PR vote, they probably wouldn't have got the votes they did. However, I suspect there are a large number of people who would continue to support them and to underestimate this could be dangerous (brilliant if you support them) for the other parties. I think parties on both sides now recognise this and are hoping to address it over the coming term. Essentially they remained a 2 issue party and the other main parties spent too long calling them names and laughing at them. In the meantime they (UKIP) carried on gaining votes. They rattled a cage and hopefully the result of that will be more representative politics? Maybe not but I'm an optimist...
Click to expand...
Yes, I should have made clear I don't think ALL UKIPs votes were protest, and that they still would have won more seats under PR - just nowhere near the levels the election indicates.

Although they didn't continue to gain votes as you say - they polled 27% in the European elections but 'only' 13% in the General election. That's a massive slide, and supports my point that people don't vote UKIP if they think it really matters (I think this attitude does the EU a disservice, but that's how many people feel).


Rich_Ellis said:
There we have it...quality debate.
Click to expand...
It's what we come here for isn't it? Personally, I'm completely reevaluating my life right now. Powerful stuff. Wow.
 
Last edited:
Llamaman said:
Yes, I should have made clear I don't think ALL UKIPs votes were protest, and that they still would have won more seats under PR - just nowhere near the levels the election indicates.

Although they didn't continue to gain votes as you say - they polled 27% in the European elections but 'only' 13% in the General election. That's a massive slide, and supports my point that people don't vote UKIP if they think it really matters (I think this attitude does the EU a disservice, but that's how many people feel).



It's what we come here for isn't it? Personally, I'm completely reevaluating my life right now. Powerful stuff. Wow.
Click to expand...

Or maybe says more about the voting public's attitude generally to the Euro elections. The local elections also often throw up 'interesting' results versus general elections as well although I confess I haven't looked to see how closely they mimicked the general this time around.
 
The point on the SNP only standing in a few seats is a prudent point regardless of the voting system.

If there is a PR system where a percentage of seats is directly proportional to the overall percentage of votes, parties like the DUP, SF, PC, SNP, SDLP, UUP will ALL take their vote nationwide, instead of limiting it to NI, Wales and Scotland. The result of this would be different to the National result we had in this election - SNP would pick up votes in England and NI. DUP would get votes from NI loyalists living in England and Scotland. The Irish (not just NIrish) could push SF votes up, radically. Some political experts reckon that this could've actually hurt UKIP as they'd have lost those who voted for them in protest, not expecting or wanting them to govern.

In a PR system still based on wards or constituencies, we'd see a similar return to what we get in FPTP - some parties, particularly the SNP, would get more seats than their % of national vote seems to suggest they deserve.

That's the crux of the point. The % of votes in Seats contested gives a fair representation of seats deserved, regardless of the % of National vote. You cannot simply take the FPTP result and apply it to PR. PR voting produces radically different results.
 
decigallen said:
The point on the SNP only standing in a few seats is a prudent point regardless of the voting system.

If there is a PR system where a percentage of seats is directly proportional to the overall percentage of votes, parties like the DUP, SF, PC, SNP, SDLP, UUP will ALL take their vote nationwide, instead of limiting it to NI, Wales and Scotland. The result of this would be different to the National result we had in this election - SNP would pick up votes in England and NI. DUP would get votes from NI loyalists living in England and Scotland. The Irish (not just NIrish) could push SF votes up, radically. Some political experts reckon that this could've actually hurt UKIP as they'd have lost those who voted for them in protest, not expecting or wanting them to govern.

In a PR system still based on wards or constituencies, we'd see a similar return to what we get in FPTP - some parties, particularly the SNP, would get more seats than their % of national vote seems to suggest they deserve.

That's the crux of the point. The % of votes in Seats contested gives a fair representation of seats deserved, regardless of the % of National vote. You cannot simply take the FPTP result and apply it to PR. PR voting produces radically different results.
Click to expand...

And at last we are getting near agreement and I think I pretty much said the same thing above in a previous post. However, our only disagreement would be how many votes a nationalist party like the SNP would garner in the rest of the UK. I don't think they would get that many more, you do but we could argue that one till the cows come home. I also said that tactical voting would change and the electorate wouldn't necessarily see the need for it, so are more likely to vote as they believed which would also change things.

Equally, some political experts think that national parties like the Greens and UKIP would get MORE votes under a PR type system because people feel they might get a chance of getting MPs. You pays yer money and takes your choice on 'expert' opinion!
 
Rich_Ellis said:
And at last we are getting near agreement and I think I pretty much said the same thing above in a previous post. However, our only disagreement would be how many votes a nationalist party like the SNP would garner in the rest of the UK. I don't think they would get that many more, you do but we could argue that one till the cows come home. I also said that tactical voting would change and the electorate wouldn't necessarily see the need for it, so are more likely to vote as they believed which would also change things.

Equally, some political experts think that national parties like the Greens and UKIP would get MORE votes under a PR type system because people feel they might get a chance of getting MPs. You pays yer money and takes your choice on 'expert' opinion!
Click to expand...

I certainly think that the minor parties would get significantly more votes under PR, a lot of people tactically vote IMO as a vote for greens, lib dems or plaid is often seen as a 'wasted' vote in the majority of constituencies. I fear labour may well have done worse in the last election as a lot of people may have voted labour simply to get the Conservative party out.
 
Rapscallion said:
I certainly think that the minor parties would get significantly more votes under PR, a lot of people tactically vote IMO as a vote for greens, lib dems or plaid is often seen as a 'wasted' vote in the majority of constituencies. I fear labour may well have done worse in the last election as a lot of people may have voted labour simply to get the Conservative party out.
Click to expand...
Yeah it seems logical Phil but I guess we'll never know unless it changes! I guess the counter argument is that the tories may have suffered too as in some constituencies labour had no chance and people voted for LD or UKIP or whoever to try to keep them out as in my area around here. Nobody bothers voting labour as they havent a cat in hells chance of getting in so any non tory vote went LD instead to try to keep them out.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
Yeah it seems logical Phil but I guess we'll never know unless it changes! I guess the counter argument is that the tories may have suffered too as in some constituencies labour had no chance and people voted for LD or UKIP or whoever to try to keep them out as in my area around here. Nobody bothers voting labour as they havent a cat in hells chance of getting in so any non tory vote went LD instead to try to keep them out.
Click to expand...

And despite the current level of debate on the reformation of the electoral system, I don't think there is a cat in hells chance of there ever being a change if it is put to a referendum - the issue is far too complex for the population to get behind a change, single transferrable vote or party list? a hybrid? Biproportional apportionment? Mixed-Member Proportional Voting? If so what type of MMPV - the german system, the 2 vote system? if there is a party list is the list open or closed? if it is an open list what formula to use?keep the current constituency boundaries or create new 'regions'? And will the recommendation ignored as was done with the Jenkins commission

Once the type of system has been decided, you have to then convince the public that it is a good thing. A lot of people now think that change is needed, but following lengthy debate and discussion on the merits and problems of the various types of PR / AV, and a lot of people against PR as it will hurt their party, the public will be so tired and confused they will say sod it.
 
Rapscallion said:
And despite the current level of debate on the reformation of the electoral system, I don't think there is a cat in hells chance of there ever being a change if it is put to a referendum - the issue is far too complex for the population to get behind a change, single transferrable vote or party list? a hybrid? Biproportional apportionment? Mixed-Member Proportional Voting? If so what type of MMPV - the german system, the 2 vote system? if there is a party list is the list open or closed? if it is an open list what formula to use?keep the current constituency boundaries or create new 'regions'? And will the recommendation ignored as was done with the Jenkins commission

Once the type of system has been decided, you have to then convince the public that it is a good thing. A lot of people now think that change is needed, but following lengthy debate and discussion on the merits and problems of the various types of PR / AV, and a lot of people against PR as it will hurt their party, the public will be so tired and confused they will say sod it.
Click to expand...
Having looked into it a few years ago (most of which I've forgotten about now) I know I ended up thinking I was happy with the fptp system!! This despite the fact I used to think it was unfair! Every system has its flaws and whatever one we had some people would be unhappy. You can't please all of the people all of the time and all that...
 
I didn't see anything about the 'riots' on the news at the time, but i did see a post on facebook a couple of days ago that appears to show all wasn't quite as it appeared, or as reported by the Daily Mail!
I cant figure out how to copy and paste the video, but if you search for the group Open Your Eyes on facebook and scroll down to the video titled "How to start a riot...by the Metropolitan Police" you'll see!
 
Oh please......really. A number of the protestors and apologist were interviewed as well. The usual rentamob and apoligist who hadn't got a clue.
 
My understanding of politics is a little limited. But my understanding is that the current system is designed so that by voting for seats for each constituency it means that all areas of the UK are represented in parliament by a particular person that they voted for.

For those saying that isn't fair and that the outcome should be decided on a UK wide percentage how would that work? I assume that we would still keep a system where there are a certain number of seats. Do we just dish out them seats to each party decided by the percentage of votes each party receives?

Who do we give those seats to? As we are not voting by constituency there is no way of ensuring that all areas of the country are represented. A party could give every one of their seats to an Eton educated southerner, similar but much worse than what a lot of people already seem disgruntled by.
 
dejongj said:
Oh please......really. A number of the protestors and apologist were interviewed as well. The usual rentamob and apoligist who hadn't got a clue.
Click to expand...

Oh please, the press scoured the streets for the worst they could find and then interview them for the gullible to believe the crowd were a rentamob. The video shows a very different story, a very peaceful crowd walking past downing street until the police decided to pull one yob out who was appears to be winding them up. The situation descended from there.
 
Ok even if it was the version of the truth, why not just let the police do their job and deal with the single idiot.

Nope us gullibles are let to believe it was all the protestors fault opposed to the police. Naturally it was the police wanting to cause a riot. Naturally it was the police vandalising war memorials, naturally it was the police ...


Hmmm who is gullible again?
 
dejongj said:
Ok even if it was the version of the truth, why not just let the police do their job and deal with the single idiot.

Nope us gullibles are let to believe it was all the protestors fault opposed to the police. Naturally it was the police wanting to cause a riot. Naturally it was the police vandalising war memorials, naturally it was the police ...


Hmmm who is gullible again?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you misunderstood my post, I wasn't saying that the police vandalising the war memorials - where did I say that? Or were you attempting sarcasm! (Touche JP!)

Anyway, my point stands that the message in the media that this protest was by a 'rentamob' was a severely distorted one. As always, certain corners of the media like to dismiss the concerns of the peaceful protestors by associating them with people who were trying to get a rise from the police and succeeding. Far easier to dismiss them that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top