Editor's Blog0 min ago
Four Million Voted For Ukip At The Last General Election
Remember the refrain we heard ad nauseam after UKIP got four million votes, but that didn't result in much of the way of seats in the General Election.
Many on AB pointed out that the voices of these four million should be heard.
They had a point, although under our electoral system - nothing could be done.
This being the case, should we tell the 15 million who voted to remain in the EU to shush, in the same way we told the four million UKIP voters to like it or lump it?
Many on AB pointed out that the voices of these four million should be heard.
They had a point, although under our electoral system - nothing could be done.
This being the case, should we tell the 15 million who voted to remain in the EU to shush, in the same way we told the four million UKIP voters to like it or lump it?
Answers
I suppose it depends on what they are being asked to "shut up" about. Leave voters have to accept that, unless circumstance
18:05 Tue 12th Jul 2016
and what about those who didn't vote.....?
We have a system; there is no perfect one out there, otherwise it would have been discovered - an analogy being Bridge bidding systems....therefore, respect of it is necessary, though I would undertag it by legality and this is uncertain as the referendum was an advisory one, not an absolute mandate.
We have a system; there is no perfect one out there, otherwise it would have been discovered - an analogy being Bridge bidding systems....therefore, respect of it is necessary, though I would undertag it by legality and this is uncertain as the referendum was an advisory one, not an absolute mandate.
But we did'nt like it but accepted that was the way our electoral system worked. It was accepted. According to LBC earlier with regard to Labour, Corbyn and voter disillusionment it could well be more than 4 million UKIP votes next time and Labour will sink. The people have already risen and voted and what a shock that caused. Just bide the time.
-- answer removed --
No I try to filter out nonsense criticism of the FPTP system. Was there much of a refrain ?
Referendums differ. They are one big pot of votes divided into two (or more) rather than separate areas giving a local choice. So should be considerably less vulnerable to unreasonable complaints. But sure, tell whomever you like to, "Shush", just be polite about it.
Referendums differ. They are one big pot of votes divided into two (or more) rather than separate areas giving a local choice. So should be considerably less vulnerable to unreasonable complaints. But sure, tell whomever you like to, "Shush", just be polite about it.
I suppose it depends on what they are being asked to "shut up" about. Leave voters have to accept that, unless circumstances change drastically, the result on 23rd June is going to be honoured, and they have at least to "shut up" about trying to stop the UK from leaving the EU as a whole. Scottish people are welcome to not shut up about it if this leads to a further Independence referendum but triggering of Article 50 will have to happen now. By contrast the fate of UKIP in 2015 could in principle be undone only five years later if supporters turn out in further numbers in 2020.
Complaining about the result, or the legitimacy of it, is very different from worrying about the outcome and trying to shape it. The concerns of Remainers surely have to be addressed as far as possible. In practice, this would presumably mean negotiating a deal that demonstrates that Project Fear was, after all, total baloney. Which would be nice.
But anyway. It's not a democracy if the only time you are allowed to be heard is at the ballot box.
Complaining about the result, or the legitimacy of it, is very different from worrying about the outcome and trying to shape it. The concerns of Remainers surely have to be addressed as far as possible. In practice, this would presumably mean negotiating a deal that demonstrates that Project Fear was, after all, total baloney. Which would be nice.
But anyway. It's not a democracy if the only time you are allowed to be heard is at the ballot box.
4 million people voted for a party who by the admission of their own former leader were "Turkeys voting for Christmas" in the referendum. Well, you said it Nigel :-)
Plainly Mr Farage didn't regard UKIP or his own political career (many would say "the same thing" in his eyes) as anything more than a "get to point A and then disappear in a puff of smoke" operation. No vision for a post-Brexit Britain other than one with less nasty foreigners, it would seem. UKIP will probably implode now: they have a bizarre rule whereby no one who joined the party within the last 5 years can stand as leader, and it would seem that many of the more rational candidates are either newer recruits, or suspended. Without Nigel's tube of Bostik it's likely to start disintegrating.
As for the Remain voice, that is a strong voice that will continue to be heard for months, probably years, whether others like or not. Just because you lose a vote doesn't mean you give up your beliefs . And crucially they have an entire government in Holyrood speaking for them, as well as a majority of MPs at Westminster (in theory) and MLAs at Stormont.
Plainly Mr Farage didn't regard UKIP or his own political career (many would say "the same thing" in his eyes) as anything more than a "get to point A and then disappear in a puff of smoke" operation. No vision for a post-Brexit Britain other than one with less nasty foreigners, it would seem. UKIP will probably implode now: they have a bizarre rule whereby no one who joined the party within the last 5 years can stand as leader, and it would seem that many of the more rational candidates are either newer recruits, or suspended. Without Nigel's tube of Bostik it's likely to start disintegrating.
As for the Remain voice, that is a strong voice that will continue to be heard for months, probably years, whether others like or not. Just because you lose a vote doesn't mean you give up your beliefs . And crucially they have an entire government in Holyrood speaking for them, as well as a majority of MPs at Westminster (in theory) and MLAs at Stormont.
You will presumably be aware that the "Turkeys voting for Christmas" statement would have been about the MEPs losing their job if 'leave' won, rather than a comment on the UK's situation ? In which case none of the voters were doing anything of the sort.
Nothing is permanent and having and achieving a goal is more important than simply sticking around because something is a lucrative career choice.
A party's rules for leadership are theirs to define. It's not unreasonable to try to ensure only committed members try for high office.
We don't know if UKIP will thrive from here on or not; if not then it will be because it has achieved it's aim and does not see value in putting in effort to remain as a force.
As for Holyrood, they should concentrate on getting things right in Scotland not spending effort supporting critics of what the UK has decided.
Nothing is permanent and having and achieving a goal is more important than simply sticking around because something is a lucrative career choice.
A party's rules for leadership are theirs to define. It's not unreasonable to try to ensure only committed members try for high office.
We don't know if UKIP will thrive from here on or not; if not then it will be because it has achieved it's aim and does not see value in putting in effort to remain as a force.
As for Holyrood, they should concentrate on getting things right in Scotland not spending effort supporting critics of what the UK has decided.
The question is stupid.
You are not comparing like with like.
Electorates in General Elections are carved up into many constituencies. MPs tend to be elected by about 25% of the possible voters. Terrble democracy.
In referendums it is one constuency, the country. Every vote counts to the total, and whoever wins is indisputable.
You are not comparing like with like.
Electorates in General Elections are carved up into many constituencies. MPs tend to be elected by about 25% of the possible voters. Terrble democracy.
In referendums it is one constuency, the country. Every vote counts to the total, and whoever wins is indisputable.
Seems that some STILL can't get over the result of the most fundamentally democratic vote and decision in the history of these Isles. No wards or electoral boundaries to muddy the water, a simple yes or no, in or out.
As for the 4 million/15 million argument you need to pester Parliament about proprtional representation.
Good luck with that............
As for the 4 million/15 million argument you need to pester Parliament about proprtional representation.
Good luck with that............
@Gromit
Wouldn't it be intriguing if the General Election was an all-nation vote, to decide the "winning team" (the manifesto package) followed by the winning party putting sackable appointees in place to administer at constituency level.
Presently, national government is an emergent property of voting for a local-only rep, whom you might have voted for for no better reason than the fact that they had the decency to come to your front door and listen to you.
Best local rep (who you may know on a personal level) and the policy package the nation gets as a consequence of voters thinking locally aren't always the best result for the nation. An all-nation vote is certainly impenetrable to analysts (unless processed the way this referendum was) but at least points the direction in which the majority wishes to go.
Closing thought: the referendum was 28% no show. No shows get what they're given. As I am fond if repeating, not voting is equivalent to voting for the eventual winner.
Wouldn't it be intriguing if the General Election was an all-nation vote, to decide the "winning team" (the manifesto package) followed by the winning party putting sackable appointees in place to administer at constituency level.
Presently, national government is an emergent property of voting for a local-only rep, whom you might have voted for for no better reason than the fact that they had the decency to come to your front door and listen to you.
Best local rep (who you may know on a personal level) and the policy package the nation gets as a consequence of voters thinking locally aren't always the best result for the nation. An all-nation vote is certainly impenetrable to analysts (unless processed the way this referendum was) but at least points the direction in which the majority wishes to go.
Closing thought: the referendum was 28% no show. No shows get what they're given. As I am fond if repeating, not voting is equivalent to voting for the eventual winner.
@ichkeria
If I, unfairly, edit your opening sentence, you may understand why I understood your words the same way Old_Geezer did
"4 million people voted for a party who (snip) were "Turkeys voting for Christmas" in the referendum. "
Turkeys is plural; people is plural; party is singular, so "Turkeys" can only apply to the people.
Blah, blah, context-sensitive language, blah blah.
If I, unfairly, edit your opening sentence, you may understand why I understood your words the same way Old_Geezer did
"4 million people voted for a party who (snip) were "Turkeys voting for Christmas" in the referendum. "
Turkeys is plural; people is plural; party is singular, so "Turkeys" can only apply to the people.
Blah, blah, context-sensitive language, blah blah.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.