Twenty Two Years And Counting.
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Don't Worry Jezza, Greens To The Rescue!
20 Answers
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Jim,
No she doesn'tave a point. she suffer from Small Party Syndrome. That is self delusion that they think they are influencing results even though hardly anyone is voting for them. UKIP are fellow sufferers of that syndrome.
The Greens average about 3.8%* of the national vote, but most victories are over that margin. They have 1 MP at Brighton Pavillion, who got 31% of the vote. There next best share was Norwich south where they came third and got 13% share. But the winner won by a 16% margin so they did not influence the result. Other than one constitency, the Greens are failures and do not harm any other party's chances.
* 3.8% is skewed by Brighton at 31%. Take that anomoly out, and they would be nearer 2.5% nationally.
No she doesn'tave a point. she suffer from Small Party Syndrome. That is self delusion that they think they are influencing results even though hardly anyone is voting for them. UKIP are fellow sufferers of that syndrome.
The Greens average about 3.8%* of the national vote, but most victories are over that margin. They have 1 MP at Brighton Pavillion, who got 31% of the vote. There next best share was Norwich south where they came third and got 13% share. But the winner won by a 16% margin so they did not influence the result. Other than one constitency, the Greens are failures and do not harm any other party's chances.
* 3.8% is skewed by Brighton at 31%. Take that anomoly out, and they would be nearer 2.5% nationally.
I'm not going to bother explaining the Spoiler effect to you, Gromit. It's still a real thing. The impact it might have on the Green party is, perhaps, negligible (by my reckoning, it would have given them one more seat nationally), but for the Lib Dems and Labour the Spoiler Effect she is complaining about is real, and a sad consequence of our electoral system. It's also the reason we have a Tory Majority government, despite their overall vote share barely changing from 2010.
You could also argue that the Green Party's vote share is as low as it is because people don't have the confidence to pick the party they want, although maybe the Green Party is simply too niche to ever seriously be represented by any system anyhow. Nor is it even reduced to splits between parties of the left -- UKIP's solitary seat in 2015 was a poor return for the support they got nationally, and by (admittedly somewhat naive) projections based on 2015, a Tory-UKIP pact might itself have given UKIP and the Tories another half-dozen seats each (or even more, for the Tories).
Obviously Caroline Lucas is framing it in terms of the Green Party, but this is a wider issue that impacts on the performances of all the parties -- particularly, at 2015, UKIP and the Lib Dems. So yes, she does have a point.
You could also argue that the Green Party's vote share is as low as it is because people don't have the confidence to pick the party they want, although maybe the Green Party is simply too niche to ever seriously be represented by any system anyhow. Nor is it even reduced to splits between parties of the left -- UKIP's solitary seat in 2015 was a poor return for the support they got nationally, and by (admittedly somewhat naive) projections based on 2015, a Tory-UKIP pact might itself have given UKIP and the Tories another half-dozen seats each (or even more, for the Tories).
Obviously Caroline Lucas is framing it in terms of the Green Party, but this is a wider issue that impacts on the performances of all the parties -- particularly, at 2015, UKIP and the Lib Dems. So yes, she does have a point.
Certainly is, Naomi. Add together all the Labour, LD, SNP, PC and Green MPs in the current parliament and you reach a grand total of 300, 26 short of a majority. At the next election the number of MPs will be reduced to 600, the boundary changes being expected to heavily favour the Tories. She is p****** in the wind.
@TTT
"deals with Labour that could involve candidates standing aside in some constituencies"
Now, if the LibDems had done things up front, in that way, I might have given them my vote, two elections ago, albeit in a half-hearted, "let's give this bunch a try, for a change". Instead, Clegg played his cards close to his chest and refused to be drawn on alliances, in the leader's debate, that time.
The Greens have have a different problem though: everyone knows about their eco-policies but few of us know/knew how they stood on regular issues, or on the left-right spectrum. I thought "left-ish" but was never in a position to prove it.
Finally, we have clarity.
Die hard Greens in the constituencies where their candidate steps aside will be miffed that their lifetime voting record cannot be continued and might react by abstaining. As I am fond of saying, a non vote is, effectively, a vote for the eventual winner.
My electoral reform preference would be a variation on FPTP, where the size of the elected MP's majority becomes significant, every time the house divides on a bill. The power of an inner city Labourite's majority thus balances against the equivalent majority of a Tory shire. The "pairing off" system will have to be exercised with more care and MPs will have to attend debates and votes more often than at present.
Marginal seats have been governing our country's changes of direction for too long. Majorities of 20,000 need to count for something.
"deals with Labour that could involve candidates standing aside in some constituencies"
Now, if the LibDems had done things up front, in that way, I might have given them my vote, two elections ago, albeit in a half-hearted, "let's give this bunch a try, for a change". Instead, Clegg played his cards close to his chest and refused to be drawn on alliances, in the leader's debate, that time.
The Greens have have a different problem though: everyone knows about their eco-policies but few of us know/knew how they stood on regular issues, or on the left-right spectrum. I thought "left-ish" but was never in a position to prove it.
Finally, we have clarity.
Die hard Greens in the constituencies where their candidate steps aside will be miffed that their lifetime voting record cannot be continued and might react by abstaining. As I am fond of saying, a non vote is, effectively, a vote for the eventual winner.
My electoral reform preference would be a variation on FPTP, where the size of the elected MP's majority becomes significant, every time the house divides on a bill. The power of an inner city Labourite's majority thus balances against the equivalent majority of a Tory shire. The "pairing off" system will have to be exercised with more care and MPs will have to attend debates and votes more often than at present.
Marginal seats have been governing our country's changes of direction for too long. Majorities of 20,000 need to count for something.
"No she doesn't have a point. she suffer from Small Party Syndrome. That is self delusion that they think they are influencing results even though hardly anyone is voting for them. UKIP are fellow sufferers of that syndrome. " - Hardly gromit UKIP got 3.8m votes, our system means that did not become many seats but 3.8m is not "hardly anyone"
Tora,
The problem is that UKIPs voters are too fragmented, dispersed. They don't have any concentrated area of support.
3.8 million works out at less than 5000 votes per seat. No one is going to get elected on such a paltry total.
True, the system works against them, but the fact they are a minor party is more to blame for their lack of success.
The problem is that UKIPs voters are too fragmented, dispersed. They don't have any concentrated area of support.
3.8 million works out at less than 5000 votes per seat. No one is going to get elected on such a paltry total.
True, the system works against them, but the fact they are a minor party is more to blame for their lack of success.
Gromit: "True, the system works against them, but the fact they are a minor party is more to blame for their lack of success."
It's hard to say exactly what the fortunes of a party like Ukip (or the Greens) would be in a different system as voter mentality would probably be different as well, but then in some sense this is also the point. The current system virtually forces voters to choose between one of two candidates for any seat, and one of two parties for the overall government. And many parties know this, and campaign literature is rife with "it's only us and the other lot with a chance of winning, some other party is well out of it, so you are wasting your vote if you pick them" messages. So the voters know this too, and it's very hard to persuade them in enough numbers to buck the trend and pick an outsider candidate.
So yes, Ukip are a minor party still, but the system is far more to blame for this than people are prepared to admit. Why waste your vote on a no-hope candidate? Of course, if enough people wasted their vote that way then the outside would win after all, but you can't know what other people are doing in the ballot box so any one voter can think "well, may as well keep Labour out" and not bother voting Ukip (or "no point picking Green, the Tories or Labour will fight it out and I don't want Tories to win" from the other side).
The electoral system is letting down voters by imposing this de facto two-party system (or two-candidate system at constituency level), reducing the amount of practical choice available. Any fair system ought to give voters the realistic sense of being able to vote for their actual first choice without feeling like they are wasting their vote in doing so. That could mean PR, that could mean multiple rounds of voting, but whatever it means we should stop pretending that it's somehow the Green Party's, or Ukip's, fault that they can't break through. They don't have a chance in the current system.
It's hard to say exactly what the fortunes of a party like Ukip (or the Greens) would be in a different system as voter mentality would probably be different as well, but then in some sense this is also the point. The current system virtually forces voters to choose between one of two candidates for any seat, and one of two parties for the overall government. And many parties know this, and campaign literature is rife with "it's only us and the other lot with a chance of winning, some other party is well out of it, so you are wasting your vote if you pick them" messages. So the voters know this too, and it's very hard to persuade them in enough numbers to buck the trend and pick an outsider candidate.
So yes, Ukip are a minor party still, but the system is far more to blame for this than people are prepared to admit. Why waste your vote on a no-hope candidate? Of course, if enough people wasted their vote that way then the outside would win after all, but you can't know what other people are doing in the ballot box so any one voter can think "well, may as well keep Labour out" and not bother voting Ukip (or "no point picking Green, the Tories or Labour will fight it out and I don't want Tories to win" from the other side).
The electoral system is letting down voters by imposing this de facto two-party system (or two-candidate system at constituency level), reducing the amount of practical choice available. Any fair system ought to give voters the realistic sense of being able to vote for their actual first choice without feeling like they are wasting their vote in doing so. That could mean PR, that could mean multiple rounds of voting, but whatever it means we should stop pretending that it's somehow the Green Party's, or Ukip's, fault that they can't break through. They don't have a chance in the current system.
1 to 20 of 20
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.