"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 08/06/15 17:08, dennis@home wrote:

It would appear you are in a very small minority of people that want to
change it. Just as well we don't have to listen to such a small minority
unlike if we had proportional representation where little voices hold a
lot of power.

Does not change the assertion that a party with less vote share gets 8
times the seats of another.

Yes, but that is what the voters decided they wanted. Radical concept I
know.

In article , Tim Watts
writes
On 07/06/15 22:11, John Chance wrote:

Unlikely given the pathetic result UKIP got in the most recent elections,
just one MP elected, and that one a refugee from the Tories that who
wouldnt even do what UKIP wanted him to do about putting his snout
in the HoC trough on staff. Nothing to be scared of there.


And yet:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Ordered by share of the votes

Party Vote share Seats
Cons 36.9% 331
Lab 30.4% 232
UKIP 12.6% 1
LibDem 7.9% 8


And tell me again why we still used this broken arsed voting system?
Because we elect a representative to send to parliament. We do not elect
a government. There are arguments for and against but neither is
perfect. I prefer this one precisely because it prevents minority
parties having too much influence through the balance of power. Of
course there are means other than parliamentary seats of exerting
influence . Witness the crap talked about climate change and renewable
energy.
--
bert

In article , Tim Watts
writes
On 08/06/15 07:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/06/15 07:47, Tim Watts wrote:
On 07/06/15 22:11, John Chance wrote:

Unlikely given the pathetic result UKIP got in the most recent
elections,
just one MP elected, and that one a refugee from the Tories that who
wouldnt even do what UKIP wanted him to do about putting his snout
in the HoC trough on staff. Nothing to be scared of there.


And yet:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Ordered by share of the votes

Party Vote share Seats
Cons 36.9% 331
Lab 30.4% 232
UKIP 12.6% 1
LibDem 7.9% 8


And tell me again why we still used this broken arsed voting system?

Because it produces a clear winner usually.

Why not cut out the middle man - and just have a dictator?

And clear winners are held to be better than endless coalitions.

Even if 12.6% of the electorate get 0.15% representation?


Every one gets representation by the candidate in their constituency who
gets the most votes.
--
bert

In article , Adrian
writes
On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 09:09:32 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

And clear winners are held to be better than endless coalitions.

Even if 12.6% of the electorate get 0.15% representation?

Every single constituency has the single most popular candidate as their
MP. In Clacton, 28.4% of the electorate get 100% representation.

Well, actually, no - 100% of the electorate get 100% of the
representation, both in Clacton and nationally - because an MPs job is to
represent ALL of the electorate in his constituency, not just those who
agree with him.
For once I agree with you Adrian.
--
bert

In article , Tim Watts
writes
On 08/06/15 13:01, John Chance wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 08/06/15 08:07, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 07:47:57 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

And tell me again why we still used this broken arsed voting system?

Because we don't vote nationally. Never have done. We vote for our
representative for our area, just as we have for centuries since
parliament became democratically voted-for.


Therein lies the problem.

I don't really care who my MP is. I care more about who's running the
country.

I do accept that people like having a local man to who they can write,
but clearly we do have a very broken arsed voting system and we need
to find a better one.

The voters felt otherwise.

I do not know why they voted that way - the AV at least does away with
"wasted vote" syndrome.

It does not change the fact that a system that gives the seats vs votes
above is broken.
It may be imperfect but you don't advance your argument by exaggerating
your case.
--
bert

In article , Tim Watts
writes
On 08/06/15 20:42, John Chance wrote:
Any voting system has advantages and disadvantages.

The voters decided which one they want.

This is why I despair of this country...
The help Cameron achieve his objective of reducing net migration to
tens of thousands.
--
bert

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 08/06/15 20:42, John Chance wrote:
Any voting system has advantages and disadvantages.

The voters decided which one they want.

This is why I despair of this country...

It's doing quite a bit better than plenty of others on unemployment.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 07/06/15 22:11, John Chance wrote:

Unlikely given the pathetic result UKIP got in the most recent elections,
just one MP elected, and that one a refugee from the Tories that who
wouldn€˜t even do what UKIP wanted him to do about putting his snout
in the HoC trough on staff. Nothing to be scared of there.


And yet:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Ordered by share of the votes

Party Vote share Seats
Cons 36.9% 331
Lab 30.4% 232
UKIP 12.6% 1
LibDem 7.9% 8


And tell me again why we still used this broken arsed voting system?

And each time there is any form of vote to change, it loses.

And if you want somethings more based on the views of everyone, you'd need
to make sure everyone voted.

Strange the way the Tories want a clear majority of all when it comes to
strike action. But not for parliamentiary elections.

This old chestnut. You elect the candidate out of an indefinite list who
gets the most votes. Majority isn't relevant.
A strike ballot presents a yes/no option and the majority vote holds
sway. It's simply a question of deciding a majority of what union
members or union members who vote. I've never understood why so many
don't vote on such a critical issue.
--
bert

On 08/06/15 21:09, bert wrote:
Because we elect a representative to send to parliament. We do not elect
a government. There are arguments for and against but neither is
perfect. I prefer this one precisely because it prevents minority
parties having too much influence through the balance of power. Of
course there are means other than parliamentary seats of exerting
influence . Witness the crap talked about climate change and renewable
energy.

I see your point, but I disagree that a party that got 12% vote share is
a "minority". Noone can argue that that is "fair" in any way, shape or form.

I sympathise with the point of view that we elect a local rep to
government, but most people consider that when they vote they are voting
for a government too.

I do not accept that the current system is the best possible.

Something that elects a local person is fair from the local perspective,
but I would prefer the vote share to be reflected in the overall
government even if by artificial means ("Party X gets a voting
multiplier of 0.76 in HoC votes" for example".

I have never accepted in anything the view that "we've always done it
this way, so why change" is a good enough reason for inaction.

On 08/06/15 21:16, bert wrote:
In article , Tim Watts

It does not change the fact that a system that gives the seats vs
votes above is broken.
It may be imperfect but you don't advance your argument by exaggerating
your case.

It's not an exaggeration - it is a statement of pure and unarguable
quantitative fact which no one can dispute.

The only thing that is debatable is "is it right?". I say no.

And I remain aware of all the arguments as to why the classic
"solutions" are somehow "worse".

This does not change the basic arguments:

1) I would claim (not a fact) that the typical man on the Clapham
Omnibus considers he is voting for the government, over and over a local
MP, even though he is aware that the mechanics mean he is actually
voting for an MP for his constituency. By this I mean, he is more
concerned about the candidate's party affiliation than he is the candidate.

2) The numbers show (a fact) a large mismatch between seats awarded and
votes cast over the nation.

3) Saying that FPTP is less bad than some of the alternatives does not
mean that is it right to give up seeking a better system. People who
think like that would never have invented anything.

On 08/06/15 21:17, bert wrote:
In article , Tim Watts
writes
On 08/06/15 20:42, John Chance wrote:
Any voting system has advantages and disadvantages.

The voters decided which one they want.

This is why I despair of this country...
The help Cameron achieve his objective of reducing net migration to
tens of thousands.

Believe me, if I did not have reasons to remain here, I'd be off...

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 08/06/15 21:16, bert wrote:
In article , Tim Watts

It does not change the fact that a system that gives the seats vs
votes above is broken.
It may be imperfect but you don't advance your argument by exaggerating
your case.

It's not an exaggeration - it is a statement of pure and unarguable
quantitative fact which no one can dispute.

The only thing that is debatable is "is it right?". I say no.

And I remain aware of all the arguments as to why the classic "solutions"
are somehow "worse".

This does not change the basic arguments:

1) I would claim (not a fact) that the typical man on the Clapham Omnibus
considers he is voting for the government, over and over a local MP, even
though he is aware that the mechanics mean he is actually voting for an MP
for his constituency. By this I mean, he is more concerned about the
candidate's party affiliation than he is the candidate.

2) The numbers show (a fact) a large mismatch between seats awarded and
votes cast over the nation.

3) Saying that FPTP is less bad than some of the alternatives does not
mean that is it right to give up seeking a better system. People who think
like that would never have invented anything.

The problem with that line is that we have tried a great raft
of alternatives for centuries now, arguably millennia in fact
and it is just a little unlikely that there is going to be anything
invented that does any better any time soon.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/15 15:53, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 15:46:33 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

I see the need for controlled immigration. I also accept that I, as a
white bloke, cannot nonce off to New Zealand without passing their
immigration measurements

Well, that's OK, because people from New Zealand can't just "nonce off"
to the UK without passing immigration measurements, either.


However, NZ don't have people wandering in from the EU territories to
worry about.

They have islanders instead.

In article ,
bert wrote:
The help Cameron achieve his objective of reducing net migration to
tens of thousands.

He promised to do this during the last parliament and failed miserably.
What makes you think he'll succeed this time?

And before you start about immigration from the EU, that from outside the
EU was still many times what he said he'd cut it to. And that is *only*
under UK control.

--
*Velcro - what a rip off!*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
bert wrote:
Strange the way the Tories want a clear majority of all when it comes to
strike action. But not for parliamentiary elections.

This old chestnut. You elect the candidate out of an indefinite list who
gets the most votes. Majority isn't relevant.
A strike ballot presents a yes/no option and the majority vote holds
sway. It's simply a question of deciding a majority of what union
members or union members who vote. I've never understood why so many
don't vote on such a critical issue.

Surely who runs the country is a far more important thing than a strike -
which may be inconvenient for some, but rarely last for long.

I've personally never understood why so many don't vote at election time.
It's hardly a difficult thing to do.

--
*Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I see your point, but I disagree that a party that got 12% vote share is
a "minority".

Is there any official definition of minority when it comes to political
parties?

If there were only two, and the lesser got 49.999% while the greater
50.001%, the lesser would still be a minority.

--
*Upon the advice of my attorney, my shirt bears no message at this time

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
The help Cameron achieve his objective of reducing net migration to
tens of thousands.

Believe me, if I did not have reasons to remain here, I'd be off...

To become an immigrant in another country? ;-)

--
*Could it be that "I do " is the longest sentence? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 09/06/15 14:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
The help Cameron achieve his objective of reducing net migration to
tens of thousands.

Believe me, if I did not have reasons to remain here, I'd be off...

To become an immigrant in another country? ;-)


Yes - I was planning on going to Somalia just to spite them

On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 14:00:53 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I see your point, but I disagree that a party that got 12% vote share
is a "minority".

Is there any official definition of minority when it comes to political
parties?

When we're talking about a Marmite all-or-nothing, love-or-hate party who
only 8.3% of the electorate vote for (down from 9.4% in a "historic
victory" the previous year), I'd say that's a fairly decent definition...

On 09/06/2015 14:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I see your point, but I disagree that a party that got 12% vote share is
a "minority".

Is there any official definition of minority when it comes to political
parties?...

Generally, any party that has so little electoral support that it has no
realistic prospect of forming or being part of a government.

--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 09/06/2015 14:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I see your point, but I disagree that a party that got 12% vote share is
a "minority".

Is there any official definition of minority when it comes to political
parties?...

Generally, any party that has so little electoral support that it has no
realistic prospect of forming or being part of a government.

Ah. Thanks. UKIP supporters will be in denial about this.

--
*WHY IS THERE AN EXPIRATION DATE ON SOUR CREAM?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
bert wrote

The help Cameron achieve his objective of
reducing net migration to tens of thousands.

He promised to do this during the last parliament and failed miserably.

Yes.

What makes you think he'll succeed this time?

He has a majority govt this time.

And before you start about immigration from the EU,
that from outside the EU was still many times what he
said he'd cut it to. And that is *only* under UK control.

But he was in a coalition with the LimpDems so couldn’t do anything he
liked.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
bert wrote

Strange the way the Tories want a clear majority of all when it
comes to strike action. But not for parliamentiary elections.

This old chestnut. You elect the candidate out of an indefinite
list who gets the most votes. Majority isn't relevant.

A strike ballot presents a yes/no option and the majority vote
holds sway. It's simply a question of deciding a majority of
what union members or union members who vote. I've never
understood why so many don't vote on such a critical issue.

Surely who runs the country is a far more important thing than a
strike - which may be inconvenient for some, but rarely last for long.

But does disrupt things much more than who is running the country usually.

I've personally never understood why so many don't vote at election time.

They mostly have no interest in politics or have decided
that how they personally vote won't make any difference.

They are right.

You only have to look at the result UKIP got to see why
many who chose to vote for them may well decide that
it was a complete waste of time to vote at all.

It's hardly a difficult thing to do.

That has nothing to do with why they don’t.

On 09/06/15 16:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 09/06/2015 14:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I see your point, but I disagree that a party that got 12% vote share is
a "minority".

Is there any official definition of minority when it comes to political
parties?...

Generally, any party that has so little electoral support that it has no
realistic prospect of forming or being part of a government.

Ah. Thanks. UKIP supporters will be in denial about this.

ITYM greens or liberal democrats or SNP actually. All polled far less
than UKIP.

In fact apart from Labour and Tory, UKIP is the ONLY other party likely
to form a national government in the next decade


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
The help Cameron achieve his objective of reducing net migration to
tens of thousands.

He promised to do this during the last parliament and failed miserably.
What makes you think he'll succeed this time?

I didn't say he would. I was merely suggesting that Mr Streater might
like to help him
And before you start about immigration from the EU, that from outside the
EU was still many times what he said he'd cut it to. And that is *only*
under UK control.

So you think he should try harder and clamp down more on immigration
from outside the EU as well?
--
bert

In article , Tim Watts
writes
On 08/06/15 21:16, bert wrote:
In article , Tim Watts

It does not change the fact that a system that gives the seats vs
votes above is broken.
It may be imperfect but you don't advance your argument by exaggerating
your case.

It's not an exaggeration - it is a statement of pure and unarguable
quantitative fact which no one can dispute.

The only thing that is debatable is "is it right?". I say no.

And I remain aware of all the arguments as to why the classic
"solutions" are somehow "worse".

This does not change the basic arguments:

1) I would claim (not a fact) that the typical man on the Clapham
Omnibus considers he is voting for the government, over and over a
local MP, even though he is aware that the mechanics mean he is
actually voting for an MP for his constituency. By this I mean, he is
more concerned about the candidate's party affiliation than he is the
candidate.

2) The numbers show (a fact) a large mismatch between seats awarded and
votes cast over the nation.

3) Saying that FPTP is less bad than some of the alternatives does not
mean that is it right to give up seeking a better system. People who
think like that would never have invented anything.
I didn't say it was less bad, I said it was not perfect. Now perhaps you
can suggest a system that is.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
Strange the way the Tories want a clear majority of all when it comes to
strike action. But not for parliamentiary elections.

This old chestnut. You elect the candidate out of an indefinite list who
gets the most votes. Majority isn't relevant.
A strike ballot presents a yes/no option and the majority vote holds
sway. It's simply a question of deciding a majority of what union
members or union members who vote. I've never understood why so many
don't vote on such a critical issue.

Surely who runs the country is a far more important thing than a strike -
which may be inconvenient for some, but rarely last for long.

Importance is irrelevant to the logic of the decision making process.
I've personally never understood why so many don't vote at election time.
It's hardly a difficult thing to do.

Neither do I but again nothing to do with the decision making process in
the two scenarios.
--
bert

On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 22:38:27 +0100, bert wrote:

The help Cameron achieve his objective of reducing net migration to
tens of thousands.

He promised to do this during the last parliament and failed miserably.
What makes you think he'll succeed this time?

I didn't say he would. I was merely suggesting that Mr Streater might
like to help him

By emigrating? That'd certainly be one way for Tim to reduce net
migration, albeit slightly.

And before you start about immigration from the EU, that from outside
the EU was still many times what he said he'd cut it to. And that is
*only* under UK control.

So you think he should try harder and clamp down more on immigration
from outside the EU as well?

I don't. But, then, I don't particularly think migration is that big an
issue. I happen to think it's just a sign of this country's successful
economy, and a major contribution to this country's vibrant culture.

On 09/06/2015 22:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/06/15 16:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 09/06/2015 14:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I see your point, but I disagree that a party that got 12% vote
share is
a "minority".

Is there any official definition of minority when it comes to political
parties?...

Generally, any party that has so little electoral support that it has no
realistic prospect of forming or being part of a government.

Ah. Thanks. UKIP supporters will be in denial about this.

ITYM greens or liberal democrats or SNP actually. All polled far less
than UKIP.

Not much use if that doesn't translate to seats in Parliament.

In fact apart from Labour and Tory, UKIP is the ONLY other party likely
to form a national government in the next decade

Going by the demographics of UKIP supporters, a lot of them will have
popped their clogs before then.


--
Colin Bignell

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 09/06/15 16:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 09/06/2015 14:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I see your point, but I disagree that a party that got 12% vote share
is
a "minority".

Is there any official definition of minority when it comes to political
parties?...

Generally, any party that has so little electoral support that it has no
realistic prospect of forming or being part of a government.

Ah. Thanks. UKIP supporters will be in denial about this.

ITYM greens or liberal democrats or SNP actually. All polled far less than
UKIP.

In fact apart from Labour and Tory, UKIP is the ONLY other party likely to
form a national government in the next decade

A party that has only ever managed to get two refugees from
the Tories elected in a by election, has just one of them still
elected, and which couldnt even manage to get its own leader
elected is never going to form a national government.

Yes, the Greens which got just as bad a result aren't going to either.

The liberal democrats aren't going to either.

Neither is the SNP, because they get none elected outside Scotland.

On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:06:34 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

I see your point, but I disagree that a party that got 12% vote
share is a "minority".

Is there any official definition of minority when it comes to
political parties?...

Generally, any party that has so little electoral support that it has
no realistic prospect of forming or being part of a government.

Ah. Thanks. UKIP supporters will be in denial about this.

ITYM greens or liberal democrats or SNP actually. All polled far less
than UKIP.

Not much use if that doesn't translate to seats in Parliament.

I don't think any of them would argue about being a "minority" party, tbh,
although there's a fair case that the SNP aren't - not with 50% of votes
cast, 35.5% of the electorate, and 95% of seats...

On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 22:15:19 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/06/15 16:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 09/06/2015 14:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I see your point, but I disagree that a party that got 12% vote share is
a "minority".

Is there any official definition of minority when it comes to political
parties?...

Generally, any party that has so little electoral support that it has no
realistic prospect of forming or being part of a government.

Ah. Thanks. UKIP supporters will be in denial about this.

ITYM greens or liberal democrats or SNP actually. All polled far less
than UKIP.

In fact apart from Labour and Tory, UKIP is the ONLY other party likely
to form a national government in the next decade

The SNP is a lot more likely to form a national government than UKIP.

On 09/06/2015 23:13, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:06:34 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

I see your point, but I disagree that a party that got 12% vote
share is a "minority".

Is there any official definition of minority when it comes to
political parties?...

Generally, any party that has so little electoral support that it has
no realistic prospect of forming or being part of a government.

Ah. Thanks. UKIP supporters will be in denial about this.

ITYM greens or liberal democrats or SNP actually. All polled far less
than UKIP.

Not much use if that doesn't translate to seats in Parliament.

I don't think any of them would argue about being a "minority" party, tbh,
although there's a fair case that the SNP aren't - not with 50% of votes
cast, 35.5% of the electorate, and 95% of seats...

I would say there are three broad categories:

A major party is one that can reasonably hope to be able to form a
government; really only Labour and the Conservatives.

A minor party is unlikely to be able to form a government by itself, but
has enough clout to be asked to form a government with another party
that does not have a clear majority. I would still class the Lib Dems as
a minor party, irrespective of their recent showing, and the SNP have
moved up to that category since the last election.

A minority party has no realistic chance of being part of a government,
which covers everybody else.

--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Generally, any party that has so little electoral support that it has no
realistic prospect of forming or being part of a government.

Ah. Thanks. UKIP supporters will be in denial about this.

ITYM greens or liberal democrats or SNP actually. All polled far less
than UKIP.

Not really surprising the SNP polled less than UKIP, since they had no
candidates other than in Scotland. But in that country, the UKIP vote
really was a minority.

In fact apart from Labour and Tory, UKIP is the ONLY other party likely
to form a national government in the next decade

Only a true optimist would think a party who got half the number of seats
at this election they'd had before it has any chance of forming a
government in the next decade.

--
*Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
The help Cameron achieve his objective of reducing net migration to
tens of thousands.

He promised to do this during the last parliament and failed miserably.
What makes you think he'll succeed this time?

I didn't say he would. I was merely suggesting that Mr Streater might
like to help him
And before you start about immigration from the EU, that from outside
the EU was still many times what he said he'd cut it to. And that is
*only* under UK control.

So you think he should try harder and clamp down more on immigration
from outside the EU as well?

What I think is irrelevant. We're talking about broken promises made by
the prime minister.

--
*Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
The help Cameron achieve his objective of reducing net migration to
tens of thousands.

He promised to do this during the last parliament and failed miserably.
What makes you think he'll succeed this time?

I didn't say he would. I was merely suggesting that Mr Streater might
like to help him
And before you start about immigration from the EU, that from outside
the EU was still many times what he said he'd cut it to. And that is
*only* under UK control.

So you think he should try harder and clamp down more on immigration
from outside the EU as well?

What I think is irrelevant. We're talking about broken promises made by
the prime minister.

Its hardly surprising that he couldn’t deliver on that promise
when he was stuck with a coalition with the LimpDems.

We'll see if he can deliver on that now that he has an absolute majority.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Generally, any party that has so little electoral support that it has
no
realistic prospect of forming or being part of a government.

Ah. Thanks. UKIP supporters will be in denial about this.

ITYM greens or liberal democrats or SNP actually. All polled far less
than UKIP.

Not really surprising the SNP polled less than UKIP, since they had no
candidates other than in Scotland. But in that country, the UKIP vote
really was a minority.

In fact apart from Labour and Tory, UKIP is the ONLY other party likely
to form a national government in the next decade

Only a true optimist would think a party who got half the number of seats
at this election they'd had before it has any chance of forming a
government in the next decade.

More delusional than optimist IMO.

On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:32:25 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

I don't think any of them would argue about being a "minority" party,
tbh, although there's a fair case that the SNP aren't - not with 50% of
votes cast, 35.5% of the electorate, and 95% of seats...

I would say there are three broad categories:

A major party is one that can reasonably hope to be able to form a
government; really only Labour and the Conservatives.

A minor party is unlikely to be able to form a government by itself, but
has enough clout to be asked to form a government with another party
that does not have a clear majority. I would still class the Lib Dems as
a minor party, irrespective of their recent showing, and the SNP have
moved up to that category since the last election.

A minority party has no realistic chance of being part of a government,
which covers everybody else.

Yep, works for me. The difference between LD/"minor" and UKIP/"minority"
is as much one of acceptability to other parties as one of popularity, of
course. Either of the major parties were happy to go into coalition with
the LDs, neither would partner with UKIP.

Should regional parties be broken out of that, though? Even if they
polled 100% if the electorate, they'd never be "major", simply because
they don't even stand in enough seats.

On 10/06/15 00:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Generally, any party that has so little electoral support that it has no
realistic prospect of forming or being part of a government.

Ah. Thanks. UKIP supporters will be in denial about this.

ITYM greens or liberal democrats or SNP actually. All polled far less
than UKIP.

Not really surprising the SNP polled less than UKIP, since they had no
candidates other than in Scotland. But in that country, the UKIP vote
really was a minority.

In fact apart from Labour and Tory, UKIP is the ONLY other party likely
to form a national government in the next decade

Only a true optimist would think a party who got half the number of seats
at this election they'd had before it has any chance of forming a
government in the next decade.

It has occurred to me that people like you Dave, are the reason that so
many people voted for Margaret Thatcher, back in the day, and are now
flocking to UKIP.

There's something about that whining snarling hate filled bigoted
rhetoric that you come out with, the clear lack of logic and the desire
to win and trample anyone who gets in your way into the mud, that is
precisely what gets up the noses of the average working man.

Carry on. You are UKIP's best friend and recruiting agent.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 10/06/15 07:38, Adrian wrote:
Either of the major parties were happy to go into coalition with
the LDs, neither would partner with UKIP.

complete nonsense. The other main parties will 'coalesce' with whoever
is necessary to gain power and you know it. The demographics made the
LDs a more likely choice up to 2015, that's all. Now there is no talk of
any coalition with anyone.

UKIP is the third most popular party in the UK by votes cast. You can't
escape that fact, and if that position improves I can assure you there
will be a scramble of people wanting a coalition with them.

LDs and Labour are on the decline, the Tories are barely holding on to
vote share - the parties on the move are the SNP and UKIP.

Get over it.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.