UKIP - merged threads

[grrclark]

Labour has been tweaking it for years in their favour.

 

I would halve the number of MPs, A bunch of mostly ex public sector crowd up here have a party called " Yorkshire First" and want and independent assembly for Yorkshire.

 

Their manifesto is so vague as be ambiguous in every way and they still will not say how it will be funded. Probably by us daft taxpayers

I think I am correct in saying that the population of Yorkshire is greater than Scotland, so given that backdrop it is not entirely unreasonable should you be inclined to think that way.

[FalconFN]

and pray tell what that means in % of vote me old nugget.

 

KW

Here you go beautiful:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32624405

Not as black and white, sorry, blue and red as your post suggests. Its no longer a north-south issue but more of an england-scotland one.

[keg]

I am impressed Grr, you are indeed correct but as i don't want the union to split, i certainly don't want Yorkshire to have it's own assembly, it's divisive at best.

[kdubya]

Here you go beautiful:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32624405

Not as black and white, sorry, blue and red as your post suggests. Its no longer a north-south issue but more of a rest of England and-a north east England /Scotland one.

fixed it.

 

KW

[grrclark]

I am impressed Grr, you are indeed correct but as i don't want the union to split, i certainly don't want Yorkshire to have it's own assembly, it's divisive at best.

I don't disagree with that and I think that has been proven manifestly in the last few years.

 

I think it is funny thought that when people rattle on about how this government has no legitimacy in Scotland, where do you draw the line, country, region, city, village, my house, etc.

 

It also makes me laugh when the socialists bang on about social justice and fairness then there is a perfectly fair vote and because they don't agree with the outcome they feel they can riot. Where is the social justice in that?

[keg]

I don't disagree with that and I think that has been proven manifestly in the last few years.

 

I think it is funny thought that when people rattle on about how this government has no legitimacy in Scotland, where do you draw the line, country, region, city, village, my house, etc.

 

It also makes me laugh when the socialists bang on about social justice and fairness then there is a perfectly fair vote and because they don't agree with the outcome they feel they can riot. Where is the social justice in that?

You know what the socialists are like As long as things are going their way. In principal, socialism is great.....in principle.

[kdubya]

You know what the socialists are like As long as things are going their way. In principal, socialism is great.....in principle.

Is it not funny, when a few idiots riot, its ALL socialists yet when we terrorised by those driven via a common faith we say "its only a few" talk about spinning to suit.

 

KW

Edited May 10, 2015 by kdubya

[grrclark]

You know what the socialists are like As long as things are going their way. In principal, socialism is great.....in principle.

I was reading the literature of the socialist party of Great Britain and the ramblings of the World Socialist Party, it is total and utter wash, but they believe in it so fervently.

Is it not funny, when a few idiots riot, its ALL socialists yet when we terrorised by those driven via a common faith we say "its only a few" talk about spinning to suit.

 

KW

Absolutely, just like all Tories are scum, etc.

[keg]

Is it not funny, when a few idiots riot, its ALL socialists yet when we terrorised by those driven via a common faith we say "its only a few" talk about spinning to suit.

 

KW

Serious hea don, i don't disagree but we all do it sometimes.

 

Socialism seems to be marmite though. no middle ground. I just find it ironic that a couple i know, married, 2 kids are both raving socialists but joint income is in excess of £200k can you be a socialist on that sort of income?

 

I don't believe you can.

[kdubya]

Serious hea don, i don't disagree but we all do it sometimes.

 

Socialism seems to be marmite though. no middle ground. I just find it ironic that a couple i know, married, 2 kids are both raving socialists but joint income is in excess of £200k can you be a socialist on that sort of income?

 

I don't believe you can.

tony benn was

 

KW

[grrclark]

tony benn was

 

KW

I don't know that he really was.

 

I understand a lot of the sentiment behind socialism and agree with much of it as it happens, but it has to to be tempered in reality. We are not all equal, no matter how much we wish to pretend otherwise. It doesn't necessarily make anybody 'better' than anybody else at a human level, but people have different levels of drive and are motivated by different things.

 

The is nowhere in the world that is a truly socialist environment because it simply doesn't work if you draw it out to the full extent, it never has ever.

[keg]

Exactly my point, gave up his title but not his money.

 

When you are trying to pull yourself up in life, you just want to get on and not be treated on the same level playing field as everyone else, be rewarded for your industry and hard work.

 

If you don't have to worry where the next mortgage payment is coming from or how you can afford a bigger house for your growing family, it's easy to have a socialist outlook.

[LondonLuke]

Exactly my point, gave up his title but not his money.

 

When you are trying to pull yourself up in life, you just want to get on and not be treated on the same level playing field as everyone else, be rewarded for your industry and hard work.

 

If you don't have to worry where the next mortgage payment is coming from or how you can afford a bigger house for your growing family, it's easy to have a socialist outlook.

Having money's not a big deal, not having it is.

[overandunder2012]

oh yes the number of seats rather than the number of votes, nige got 4 million votes and 1 seat the snp 1.3 million votes and 56 seats, so tell me how is it a level playing field , its skewed to suit the big two, one of who failed disastrously by allowing the cons a landslide with only a % rise of less than 2% yes a 1 odd% increase in the vote so how level? as level as a billiard table on its side.

 

KW

i know it seems unfair but thats how it is

[otherwayup]

The words on, chip shoulder and your spring to mind. Have you seen a political map of Britain recently?

 

Edit: Here's a map if it helps.

 

Regardless of whether you voted for UKIP or not, I feel something is not right

when 12.6% of those who could be bothered to vote get 1 MP and a different 4.7% get 56.

[grrclark]

Our system is based on a vote for an individual MP, not a party. There is certainly an argument for a change, but our system is what it is

[kdubya]

Our system is based on a vote for an individual MP, not a party. There is certainly an argument for a change, but our system is what it is

Never mind after listening to Mr Salmond yesterday, he seems convinced that the system will indeed be yours rather than ours in the not to distant future.

 

 

KW

[grrclark]

Never mind after listening to Mr Salmond yesterday, he seems convinced that the system will indeed be yours rather than ours in the not to distant future.

 

 

KW

He is entitled to his opinion, so far the majority of Scotland do not agree with him thankfully. Salmond is a divisive figure and if he starts to overly promote himself again then there will be a backlash from the not fully committed voters in Scotland.

[Psyxologos]

Serious hea don, i don't disagree but we all do it sometimes.

 

Socialism seems to be marmite though. no middle ground. I just find it ironic that a couple i know, married, 2 kids are both raving socialists but joint income is in excess of £200k can you be a socialist on that sort of income?

 

I don't believe you can.

 

Why not? Does leading a comfortable life mean you cannot support a fair society? I do not think that anyone should give up their ideals because they are comfortable as far as money is concerned. As long as they back their ideals with the way they live then it is fine. You can have plenty of money and spend it in a way that is in accordance to the ideals you preach. Saying you are something and not supporting it with your actions is a problem.

I don't know that he really was.

 

I understand a lot of the sentiment behind socialism and agree with much of it as it happens, but it has to to be tempered in reality. We are not all equal, no matter how much we wish to pretend otherwise. It doesn't necessarily make anybody 'better' than anybody else at a human level, but people have different levels of drive and are motivated by different things.

 

The is nowhere in the world that is a truly socialist environment because it simply doesn't work if you draw it out to the full extent, it never has ever.

 

Exactly my sentiment.

[Psyxologos]

 

Regardless of whether you voted for UKIP or not, I feel something is not right

when 12.6% of those who could be bothered to vote get 1 MP and a different 4.7% get 56.

 

Yes, but this 4.7% is a majority in a country, whereas this 12.6% you refer to is split between four...

[Gordon R]

Yes, but this 4.7% is a majority in a country, whereas this 12.6% you refer to is split between four...

 

That is the reality, but it isn't equitable. 12.6% get little representation, whereas the 4.7% get Wee Jimmy Krankie and crackpot Salmond spouting threatening drivel.

[achosenman]

In some ways that's good IMHO. It makes it easy to neuter them in Westminster with the blessing of the English voter and English MP's.

 

Atb

[Vince Green]

but our election system is based on a vote per electoral ward, although it has been turned into a competition for PM, it isn't what it is about.

 

We really have 650 mini elections.

 

Edit to add: What are the thoughts about the boundary changes and reduction in number of MPs?

 

Essentially the change is to make sure that every electoral ward has approximately the same number of voters. That way it is a fair contest as each MP represents the same number of people.

It couldn't be done now without a huge amount of controversy and people screaming foul. Its already been talked about, especially as Labour blatantly loaded the odds in their favour during the New Labour years.

Scotland would lose 5=7 seats, CAN YOU IMAGINE how that would go down? I would love to see it happen because it is an inequality

[grrclark]

It couldn't be done now without a huge amount of controversy and people screaming foul. Its already been talked about, especially as Labour blatantly loaded the odds in their favour during the New Labour years.

Scotland would lose 5=7 seats, CAN YOU IMAGINE how that would go down? I would love to see it happen because it is an inequality

That is going to happen Vince, it is already on the statute books to happen in 2018 I think, although it could be pulled forward. I do need to double check on that, but fairly confident.

 

As a percentage share of overall population we are largely appropriately represented in Westminster. 9% of the population and 9% of seats, but compared to say Yorkshire where the population is greater, but with less MPs there is a significant disparity.

 

Based on revenue share of national income we are also appropriately represented, but again that is at a macro level.

 

The new changes are designed to say that 1 vote carries the same weight, where ever it is cast and that has to be fair, but you are right, it will be spun as being desperately unfair.

[kdubya]

looks like UKIP wont let him stand down, the BBC are making a huge issue of it seems they do not like the proposal that he may lead a push for the north east of England, still as we have just seen the jock flag raised at Westminster, who knows a Tyne Tees Wear independent state looming?

 

 

KW