Ukip Analysis

[mikey4444]

This makes interesting reading. It was written before the last two by-elections, which were defections from the Tories, but it shows just how hard it is going to be for a minor party like UKIP to win seats at Westminster. It does say, however, than if we had some kind of PR for Westminster voting, UKIP could already 20 seats. Unfortunately the BNP might have got 12 as well. What a good job we all declined PR when it was offered to us in 2010 ! :::

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/Analysis_UKIP.html

[Gromit]

We were not offered PR in the referendum.

[mushroom25]

I thought you said you were flouncing?

it was written last June. whilst some of it may still have a ring of truth, a year is an awfully long time in politics.

[mikey4444]

Gromit...I thought we were, in 2011 ? ( apologies for earlier typo )


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011

[ichkeria]

I detest UKIP and the BNP, but I am uncomfortable with the idea that we should effectively manipulate our voting system to deprive them of a larger voice in Parliament. That sounds a bit Eastern European to me.
I deeply regret that we voted against AV, as I think it would have been a very good compromise.
I wonder how many did vote against are now UKIPP fans :-

[Gromit]

That is pretty flawed analysis. It assumes that UKIP takes votes equally from the Conservatives and Labour, and we know that isn't the case.

[vetuste_ennemi]

"Unfortunately the BNP might have got 12 as well. What a good job we all declined PR when it was offered to us in 2010".
Are you saying that having 12 BNP MPs in parliament would be a bad thing, Mikey? If so, please explain why.

[mikey4444]

Mush...I never flounce...I am always make myself clear and I did earlier. Its my choice whether to continually make the same point or not, and on the issue of UKIP and its targeting Labour seats, rather than Tory seats, I am quite clearly correct. To repeat...the Tory hierarchy agree that its a problem for them much more than Labour.

[Gromit]

Mikey,
Without wishing to be pedantic, AV and PR are very different voting systems, with different outcomes.

[mikey4444]

I feel the same way ichkeria, but would you be happy with 12 BNP MP's ?

[Gromit]

12 out of 650 would not give them any form of power. Unfortunately, there are people with those views who are disenfranchised under first past the post.

[anotheoldgit]

mikey showing his concerns regarding UKIP once again.

They must really keep you awake at night/

Why worry, you have said over and over again that Labour have nothing to be scared at over UKIP, and that it is only the Tories that should worry.

So get a god night sleep mikey and let all those evil Tories do your worrying for you.

[mushroom25]

//would you be happy with 12 BNP MP's ? //

I doubt many would - but how would the major parties react if it happened? would they still just dismiss the electorate as "stupid"? or might they actually up their game to do something about it?

[VHG]

Suppose the similar "tactics" were used (by the parties in power) when the Labour party was first formed to stop them getting seats?

Would you have been happy then?

Or are you only happy when it is parties you don't like who would be getting seats?

[mikey4444]

vetuste_ennemi...not sure where to start ! In fact, I don't think I will bother...the facts speak for themselves.

Just in case they don't ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party

[ichkeria]

"I feel the same way ichkeria, but would you be happy with 12 BNP MP's ? "

I wouldn't, and I am not saying I support out-and-out PR, but when people (and I am not picking on you) say that PR leads to more seats for minority parties then I think that maybe that is not the best way to be looking at it.

Anyway, I doubt very much the BNP would have got 12 seats in any Parliamentary election. They managed one or two in the Euro elections once, and of course they have been known to have one or two councillors, all of whom lost their seats pretty damn quick soon after when people saw how useless they were.
And don't forget Griffin was given the "oxygen of publicity" of an appearance on Question Time once and it poisoned him :-) Sometimes being thrust into the mainstream is the best thing than can happen to these people

[jim360]

PR shouldn't be dismissed as a system on the grounds that it allows extremist parties to have some influence. After all, this is only true if people vote for them. Democracy ought to be about ensuring that the people get as close to what they vote for as possible, and this may well include allowing some extremist parties into power. The question then should be why these parties have the support they do. Thankfully the BNP is already on the decline, but their rise is part of a pattern lately of the main parties losing trust and votes. At some point, as the votes become scattered over more and more parties, the FPTP system just becomes broken and undemocratic. Lately we're getting governments that are capable of running the country for years with barely a third of the electorate having supported them; that's likely to remain the best-case scenario for some time yet. Indeed, the vagaries of FPTP could mean that UKIP grabs, say, 20% of the vote share, gets very few MPs (which in itself is a pretty awful result in FPTP), but drives down the threshold of victory to perhaps even less than 30%. How can that be right?

[vetuste_ennemi]

irrelevant link.
I did not ask: Do you like the BNP? Nor did I ask: Are the BNP a nasty lot? I asked why it would be bad for people who DO support the BNP to be denied represention in parliament. If you don't understand the question then you don't seem to have grasped the concept of democracy. Thank God Jim does.

[scooping]

Funny how the Left pretend to like democracy but don't like people voting for candidates they disapprove of. The usual double standards.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Why would it be a GOOD thing... I meant to say (Isn't not just you who's slowing down, Mikey!).

[ichkeria]

Jim's right: I was watching a recording of the BBC coverage of the 1964 General Election, in which over 90% of the electorate voted Tory or Labour (I think Ulster Unionist votes were counted as Tory in those days FWIW).
It seems like another age. The system was ideal for that voting profile, hardly for today's
As for UKIP in parliament, two scenarios are possible: having MPs might expose them for the frauds they are, or turn them into a "proper" political party, which of course would destroy their appeal as the "anti-politics" brigade