EU, Immigration and UKIP

[43021HST]

With the prospect of a "geek" assuming the Great Office of State are you surprised

I think we need a geek, geeks aren't known to do anything atrocious, unless we're talking about Apple .

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Surely the problem is not the voting system, but the fact that the chosen representatives do not represent their constituents. No amount of PR will change that. But if all votes in Parliament were "Free votes" (i.e abolish whipping), with who voted which way published, there would be a lot more pressure on the MPs to vote as their constituents required.

The voting system has two bad effects on voters: Firstly, it discourages people from voting for who they really want to vote for. For example if you live in a Lab-Tory marginal and you really want to vote Green, but the Greens have no chance of winning in your constituency, the system in effect pressurizes you to vote for who you regard as least bad out of Labour or Tory - because it's only by doing that that you can have any influence on the result. That kind of effect leaves people who support minor parties feeling disenfranchised, and prevents the total numbers of votes across the country from accurately reflecting who people really want to vote for.

And secondly, if you live in a safe seat, it discourages voting at all because you know who you vote for will definitely have zero effect on the outcome. On the other hand, if there was a system of PR, then (depending on the precise electoral system) you could vote for whoever you want, knowing that that has a small chance of influencing the total numbers of MPs who'll be elected for the party you support.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think we need a geek, geeks aren't known to do anything atrocious, unless we're talking about Apple .

Indeed. A geek might not come across as inspiring, but is more likely to have carefully thought through the policies he wants to implement.

 

[radamfi]

The voting system has two bad effects on voters: Firstly, it discourages people from voting for who they really want to vote for. For example if you live in a Lab-Tory marginal and you really want to vote Green, but the Greens have no chance of winning in your constituency

Not only that, but more than likely there won't even be a Green candidate in your constituency under First Past the Post.

 

[AM9]

Surely the problem is not the voting system, but the fact that the chosen representatives do not represent their constituents. No amount of PR will change that. But if all votes in Parliament were "Free votes" (i.e abolish whipping), with who voted which way published, there would be a lot more pressure on the MPs to vote as their constituents required.

Then there would hardly ever be laws that would result in one part of the country getting something that the rest of the country had to fund, e.g. How about flood defences?

 

[Tetchytyke]

But we do have a 'none of the other' option on our ballot papers. Every voter is entitled to 'spoil' (as in render it invalid in the count of votes) their ballot paper if they choose

...and their is no distinction between someone who made a mistake on the ballot paper and someone who wrote "I hate you all" on the ballot paper.

Naturally, politicians choose to believe that spoiled papers are as a result of voter stupidity rather than a protest about their policies.

In students' union elections there is a "re-open nominations" option, i.e. "none of the above". Bring that in and I think you'd see a rise in turnout. But it won't be brought in because MPs know they are hated and that 90% of people would vote "none of the above".

As DynamicSpirit says, the other problem with FPTP is that it creates negative, tactical voting. You vote for the least-bad option, not the option you truly want. I want neither Labour nor Tory, they're both two cheeks of the same backside. When I lived in Newcastle I voted for whoever was most likely to keep Labour out, and now I live in the Home Counties I'll vote for whoever is most likely to keep the Tories out.

The other issue with our voting system is the electoral deposit. Brought in to stop small parties standing for election, it is working exactly as designed to ensure that only the big parties will stand.

 

[NSEFAN]

Maybe we should get rid of voting, and turn the system into something like jury service. You are selected randomly from the population to be an MP for ten years, all expenses paid. Arguably you'd end up with a commons which actually represents the population, rather than picking from the political class which seems to exist in this country.

 

[Wyvern]

To return to the OP briefy, this has just been published by a MEP of the Green Party:

(Offered without comment)

http://www.keithtaylormep.org.uk/2014/11/10/immigration-mythbuster/

IMMIGRATION IN THE UK:
MYTHBUSTER - NOVEMBER 2014
Myth: Immigrants are to blame for the UK's economic & social problems
Fact: Current housing shortages have been caused by bad decisions from Government. The banking crisis was caused by bankers. Neither are the fault of immigrants.
Solution: All the other political parties should stop pandering to UKIP by scapegoating immigration for all of the UK's economic problems.

Myth: Britain is full
Fact: The number of European migrants in the UK is almost exactly balanced by the number of Britons living elsewhere in the EU. According to Government estimates there is 1.8m Brits living abroad in Europe and 2.34m EU citizens living in the UK.
- Immigrants make up just over 10% of Britain's population, which is lower than many other countries like the USA or Australia (Government Figures).
- Although London is crowded, many cities in the north face the opposite problem.
Solution: The government should focus on investing in economies across the UK, so there are more job opportunities outside the South East.

Myth: Immigrants are taking all the jobs
Fact: Labour Force Survey data over the past three years shows that approximately 15% of new hires go to immigrants and 85% to British workers.
- Employers are more likely to give jobs to immigrants only if they are more highly skilled than their British counterparts (National Institute of Economic and Social Research).
Solution: The government should embark on a serious job creation project so everyone who wants to work can.

 

[ExRes]

To return to the OP briefy, this has just been published by a MEP of the Green Party:

(Offered without comment)

http://www.keithtaylormep.org.uk/2014/11/10/immigration-mythbuster/

An excellent piece of Green thinking, I wonder who exactly the political parties are that Taylor thinks are 'pandering to UKIP' and precisely what 'serious job creation' does he think is likely as more and more automation and computerisation are brought in, shelf stacking in Lidl ?

 

[radamfi]

An excellent piece of Green thinking, I wonder who exactly the political parties are that Taylor thinks are 'pandering to UKIP' and precisely what 'serious job creation' does he think is likely as more and more automation and computerisation are brought in, shelf stacking in Lidl ?

Just think how much automation there has been since the 80s, when unemployment was sky high. It would seem logical that it would lead to much higher unemployment as humans would no longer be needed. But that hasn't been the experience. In fact, unemployment has been much lower throughout most of the last 30 years, compared to the 80s, and has only really been high in the most recent recession.

Automation means that humans are released from tedious jobs so that they can do things which are less appropriate for automation. That means two jobs get done instead of one, increasing productivity.

 

[Wyvern]

Automation means that humans are released from tedious jobs so that they can do things which are less appropriate for automation. That means two jobs get done instead of one, increasing productivity.

I remember forty years ago that we were told how the machines would take all the tedious jobs off us and allow us to have a life of leisure. It didnt mention the life of leisure wouldnt give us an income.

As for employment figures, you have to compare like with like. At some time in the nineties I believe they stopped counting people who were on Income Support after six months out of work and men over 60 who no longer signed on. Now as many people as possible areput onto schemes like Workfare and so on, oe simply sanctioned, and are taken out of the figures.

I was also around when we were being told that the total population of Jamaica was going to move to the UK. I alspo remember the "Rivers of Blood" speech. Do governments raise up the spectre of immigration to hide other problems they have? I suppose it's better than stirring up a war like Argentina did and Russia is doing.

 

[radamfi]

I left university in 1994, just as unemployment was starting to go down after the early 90s crash. At the time I thought my future would be bleak, fearing computerisation, but I've actually been in work almost the whole time. Same for everyone else I know. There are still a heck of a lot of people going to work.

 

[St Rollox]

I remember 40 years back hearing how the future retirement age would be 55.
We've seen how that worked out.
And oh, the oil would run out during the early 21st century.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Labour and the Tories are falling over themselves to climb the furthest inside Nigel Farage's backside be seen as tough on immigration. It's pathetic.

As for the hypocrisy, look at that MP who was forced from her job about that photo. It wasn't the brightest idea to mock White Van Man (although his subsequent comments proved she was right). But down the road the BBC's political editor was caught schmoozing with the genuinely racist Britain First, and nothing's been done about him.

Which brings us neatly back to the fact that Ed Miliband is a cretin.

As for "job creation", automation changes the jobs that are needed but it doesn't do people out of a job.

 

[EM2]

...precisely what 'serious job creation' does he think is likely as more and more automation and computerisation are brought in, shelf stacking in Lidl ?

Build HS2?
Widen the A14 as the Government promised?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But down the road the BBC's political editor was caught schmoozing with the genuinely racist Britain First, and nothing's been done about him.

Maybe because Robinson made a full apology, and said it was entirely his fault?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-photo-candidate-far-right-Britain-First.html

Writing on the social media site, Mr Robinson said: ‘Lesson of the day. Never agree to have selfie taken without first checking who's asking. Shame but my mistake.’

 

[ExRes]

Build HS2?
Widen the A14 as the Government promised?

I have to admit that I have no idea whatsoever on the Green view of HS2 but I really don't think the type of employment it brings, at least during the building phase, is very inclusive to the general job market

The Greens are likely to back the widening of the A14 ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which brings us neatly back to the fact that Ed Miliband is a cretin.

As for "job creation", automation changes the jobs that are needed but it doesn't do people out of a job.

Totally agree with your first point but not so sure about the second, take a look at the automation of a car production plant, where are the staff now that used to make the cars ?

 

[jon0844]

Maybe we should get rid of voting, and turn the system into something like jury service. You are selected randomly from the population to be an MP for ten years, all expenses paid. Arguably you'd end up with a commons which actually represents the population, rather than picking from the political class which seems to exist in this country.

Nah, you just go with social media and whatever policy is trending at any given time!

 

[EM2]

I have to admit that I have no idea whatsoever on the Green view of HS2 but I really don't think the type of employment it brings, at least during the building phase, is very inclusive to the general job market

The Greens are likely to back the widening of the A14 ?

Does he say 'the Greens'? No, he says 'the Government'.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Maybe because Robinson made a full apology, and said it was entirely his fault?

He tried to claim he "didn't realise" the person wearing a Britain First hoodie and carrying a huge lanyard saying "Britain First CANDIDATE" (both visible in the photo) was a Britain First candidate.

Call me an old cynic, but I'm not 100% certain I believe him.

 

[Butts]

I left university in 1994, just as unemployment was starting to go down after the early 90s crash. At the time I thought my future would be bleak, fearing computerisation, but I've actually been in work almost the whole time. Same for everyone else I know. There are still a heck of a lot of people going to work.

Hence the reason there is no Political Pressure for a Living Wage
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Labour and the Tories are falling over themselves to climb the furthest inside Nigel Farage's backside be seen as tough on immigration. It's pathetic.

As for the hypocrisy, look at that MP who was forced from her job about that photo. It wasn't the brightest idea to mock White Van Man (although his subsequent comments proved she was right). But down the road the BBC's political editor was caught schmoozing with the genuinely racist Britain First, and nothing's been done about him.

Which brings us neatly back to the fact that Ed Miliband is a cretin.As for "job creation", automation changes the jobs that are needed but it doesn't do people out of a job.

That's the most perceptive comment you've made to date

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Which brings us neatly back to the fact that Ed Miliband is a cretin.

Strange, I can recall a few instances recently on railforums in where people have used much milder terms of abuse against fellow users, and have immediately, quite rightly, been called out for personal abuse.

Do different rules apply to politicians? Are politicians considered somehow not to be proper human beings and therefore not deserving of normal rules of forum etiquette?

 

[Butts]

Strange, I can recall a few instances recently on railforums in where people have used much milder terms of abuse against fellow users, and have immediately, quite rightly, been called out for personal abuse.

Do different rules apply to politicians? Are politicians considered somehow not to be proper human beings and therefore not deserving of normal rules of forum etiquette?

If the remarks about Ed Milliband offend you sensibilities I can assure they are quite mild compared to those afforded to Mrs Thatcher on her demise.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If the remarks about Ed Milliband offend you sensibilities I can assure they are quite mild compared to those afforded to Mrs Thatcher on her demise.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

I am well aware of the kinds of things that were said about Margaret Thatcher, and I was rather shocked by those too. I personally regard many of the things her Government did with quite a bit of horror, but in the end there's no justification for personal abuse of a human being who was, almost certainly doing what she believed to be right. Whether that person is a current Labour politician or was a Conservative politician makes no difference.

 

[Butts]

Two wrongs do not make a right.

I am well aware of the kinds of things that were said about Margaret Thatcher, and I was rather shocked by those too. I personally regard many of the things her Government did with quite a bit of horror, but in the end there's no justification for personal abuse of a human being who was, almost certainly doing what she believed to be right. Whether that person is a current Labour politician or was a Conservative politician makes no difference.

In reflection it is hard to disagree with the central premise of your argument.

However the problem the Labour Party have is their perceived association with the less fortunate in Society. When you hear Ed Milliband complaining about tax cut's for Millionaires and using Bankers as an example it would be more credible if he redirected his opprobrium towards his own friends and perhaps Premiership Footballers. An acknowledgment of the fact he belongs to the same "Metropolitan Elite" as Cameron and Clegg but believes they should contribute more would be a more acceptable stance to take.

When he sacks his Shadow Attorney General Emily Thornberry for her tweet and it is reported she is holed up in her £3 Million Pound Islington mansion recovering, you have some idea of what I am referring to.

I am not saying that wealthy people should not have an involvement in Politics,
but let's have a little more transparency.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

.

When he sacks his Shadow Attorney General Emily Thornberry for her tweet and it is reported she is holed up in her £3 Million Pound Islington mansion recovering, you have some idea of what I am referring to.

Yet if she was holed up in her council house a la Bob Crow she would have received the same amount of opprobrium...or more!

 

[muz379]

In reflection it is hard to disagree with the central premise of your argument.

However the problem the Labour Party have is their perceived association with the less fortunate in Society. When you hear Ed Milliband complaining about tax cut's for Millionaires and using Bankers as an example it would be more credible if he redirected his opprobrium towards his own friends and perhaps Premiership Footballers. An acknowledgment of the fact he belongs to the same "Metropolitan Elite" as Cameron and Clegg but believes they should contribute more would be a more acceptable stance to take.

When he sacks his Shadow Attorney General Emily Thornberry for her tweet and it is reported she is holed up in her £3 Million Pound Islington mansion recovering, you have some idea of what I am referring to.

I am not saying that wealthy people should not have an involvement in Politics,
but let's have a little more transparency.

This is politics in this country all over though with the two main parties . As soon as anybody senior in either party starts going on about dodgy donors , elitist front benches ,party members with the biggest mansion or dodgiest expenses its just a race to who can breif the media about the most shocking stories first .

The people I actually feel sorry for are the Councillors and backbench MP's up and down the country trying their best for their constituents but because of the partisan nature of politics they are forced to choose a party and a side . But then because of party machinery and the whip system they get drawn into this system

 

[Butts]

Yet if she was holed up in her council house a la Bob Crow she would have received the same amount of opprobrium...or more!

But at least had a bit more credibility when it came to representing the underprivileged. - after all her neighbours would probably have the same flags out unlike all her millionaire buddies in Islington.

 

[St Rollox]

Looks as though Labour is going to get it tight come the election.
Although the reality next May might be somewhat different.
There might be a case the UK public will back off from the likes of Ukip as they did with other far right characters.

 

[Butts]

Looks as though Labour is going to get it tight come the election.
Although the reality next May might be somewhat different.
There might be a case the UK public will back off from the likes of Ukip as they did with other far right characters.

It will certainly be worth watching David Dimbleby and co next May

 

[DynamicSpirit]

In reflection it is hard to disagree with the central premise of your argument.

However the problem the Labour Party have is their perceived association with the less fortunate in Society. When you hear Ed Milliband complaining about tax cut's for Millionaires and using Bankers as an example it would be more credible if he redirected his opprobrium towards his own friends and perhaps Premiership Footballers. An acknowledgment of the fact he belongs to the same "Metropolitan Elite" as Cameron and Clegg but believes they should contribute more would be a more acceptable stance to take.

When he sacks his Shadow Attorney General Emily Thornberry for her tweet and it is reported she is holed up in her £3 Million Pound Islington mansion recovering, you have some idea of what I am referring to.

I am not saying that wealthy people should not have an involvement in Politics,
but let's have a little more transparency.

That's a rather dramatic change of subject But I'm not quite sure what your criticism is here. Sure, Ed Miliband comes from a broadly middle class intellectual background. Emily Thornberry appears to be relatively wealthy as a result of her previous (pre-politics) career. Nothing wrong with either of those backgrounds. I don't believe having a particular background should disqualify you from holding political opinions! And as far as I can see, neither is seeking to hide their backgrounds, everything is out in the open. So what makes you think there's a lack of transparency?

 

[Butts]

That's a rather dramatic change of subject But I'm not quite sure what your criticism is here. Sure, Ed Miliband comes from a broadly middle class intellectual background. Emily Thornberry appears to be relatively wealthy as a result of her previous (pre-politics) career. Nothing wrong with either of those backgrounds. I don't believe having a particular background should disqualify you from holding political opinions! And as far as I can see, neither is seeking to hide their backgrounds, everything is out in the open. So what makes you think there's a lack of transparency?

If you note the other point in my post I am trying to say that Milliband's criticisms of Tax Cuts for Millionaires would be more credible if he admitted he and a lot of his associates fall into that category but are prepared to make a sacrifice for the greater good, rather than just berating Bankers.