Jump to content

Vote YES today - take back your nation.


Huguenot

Recommended Posts

The BNP know what's in their own best interests - that's why they're voting NO


The BNP can't obtain the majority support that AV demands from a winner. That's why the BNP don't want it.


If you don't want minority extermist parties getting in, vote YES to AV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes......av will get of them ?......what bunkum.........anyone for a intelligent debate ? its scandalous how little time both Labour and the Liberal party have invested on this issue.


Denmark

Danish People's party (DPP)

Key figure: Pia Kjaersgaard (leader, DPP)

The ultra-right DPP swept into parliament as the country's third-largest party following the 2001 elections, taking 12% of the vote and 22 seats under Denmark's partial PR system. Now underpinning a centre-right government coalition, it has drafted tough new asylum policies and cut aid to the developing world



Belgium

Flemish Block (VB)

Key figure: Frank Vanhecke (VB's president)

The far-right Vlaams Blok became the biggest political force in its Flemish stronghold city, Antwerp, in October 2000, taking 20 out of 50 seats on the city council. In the 1999 parliamentary elections it took 9.9% of the vote, translating under the PR system to 15 seats in the lower house. VB is fiercely anti-immigrant, openly anti-semitic and advocates Flemish self-rule.


Austria

Freedom party (FPO)

Key figures: J?rg Haider (FPO's de facto leader and governor of Carinthia),

Susanne Riess-Passer (FPO leader and vice chancellor, Austrian sports minister)

Led from 1986 to 2000 by Nazi sympathiser J?rg Haider, the FPO came second in the 1999 general elections on an anti-immigration and anti-EU ticket, winning 27% of the vote and 52 seats in parliament under the PR system. Soon after the vote, Austria weathered the wrath and sanctions of the EU after the rightwing People's party agreed to form a coalition government with the FPO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the risk you take with democracy. Does not mean the current system is right. Sadly, these parties coming to power (more likely under PR than AV) means that this is the people's will!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

misscarmelite, first you accuse me of racism (WTF?)


Then you claim to criticise AV by bringing up examples of proportional representation, a completely different system? Moronic.


'Intelligent Debate'???? Are you a complete prat?


The problem is that it's idiots like you talking complete bullshit that have actually undermined democracy.


Vote 'Yes' to AV to give yourself a chance to marginalise idiocy and prejudice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. H, I am sorry, but you are going to think me a complete prat too. I haven't voted yet, because (TBH) I still don't get it. Most stuff I have read says that saying yes will make it easier for the likes of the BNP. But this thread is suggesting otherwise. I don't know what to do. Do you have an idiot's simple (unbiased and impartial) explanation that I could read? :-$ I do not want extremists in.


Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries Auntie Mimi. I'm sorry you've been getting poor information from the right wing media.


In AV to win a seat you have to have been supported by at least 50% of the electorate (a majority).


In FPTP if you have, say, 8 candidates, you could get in by being voted for by as few as 15% of the electorate (you only need to have more votes than any of the other candidates).


The BNP know they're never going to get votes from as much as 50% of the population, but they know they might be able to get 20%.


For this reason, the BNP want FPTP.


If you don't want the BNP, don't vote the way the BNP want you to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No worries Auntie Mimi. I'm sorry you've been

> getting poor information from the right wing

> media.


LOL! Excuse fisk-like response.


> In AV to win a seat you have to have been

> supported by at least 50% of the electorate (a

> majority).


Got that!


> In FPTP if you have, say, 8 candidates, you could

> get in by being voted for by as few as 15% of the

> electorate (you only need to have more votes than

> any of the other candidates).


And that!


> The BNP know they're never going to get votes from

> as much as 50% of the population, but they know

> they might be able to get 20%.


Okaaaaay(ish)


> For this reason, the BNP want FPTP.


hmmmmm


> If you don't want the BNP, don't vote the way the

> BNP want you to.


Now THAT sounds logical! I think I am just going to have to trust you on this. Thank you, nephew H.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just what are you reading LaddyMuck? Apart from

> silverfox?s rantings I haven?t read a single piece

> suggesting such a thing


Just stuff which came through my letterbox. Also, I'm pretty certain there was a piece on Question Time. But it's quite possible that I may have got the wrong end of the stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tory arguments for fptp are to do with self preservation. The only arguments for fptp from labour are (to paraphrase Caroline Flint) to give Clegg a bloody nose.


Not good enough. Opportunistic short-termism.


Whilst I wish it went further and wish both sides had made more of an effort in this debate (as i suspect most people are thinking 'why bother?') I am voting YES as there is simply no alternative vote (see what i did there?) in a true democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes any desire to smack Nick Clegg by voting no is foolish (and trust me I'd love to have voted no for that reason).


I saw a little piece last night on TV that succinctly explained how the stystem works.


So in the election, counting the first choice on the voting papers, lets say that,


Conservative get 35%, Labour get 30%, Libs get 20%, An Other 15%


So no one candidate has achieved 50%.....so the lowest polling candidate 'An other' is removed, and from the ballot papers of those that voted for 'An Other' as their first choice, the second choice votes are taken and added to the other three parties.


So now we have Conservative 40%, Labour 38%, Lib Dems 22%


So still no-one has passed the 50% mark......so next the Lib Dems as the next lowest polling party are removed and from their Ballot papers the second preference votes are added, or third preference if the second preference was for 'An Other'.


Now we have Consevative 46% Labour 54%


Labour win.


That I think illustrates just how AV works and how in smaller majority holding seats it can make a difference. One argument given for AV is that it would increase the percentage of seats that actually decide an election, because at the moment, so many seats are safe seats with high majorities that the number of seats that actually decide which of two parties get power is woefully small as a percentage. AV would increase that percentage and that seems right to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I agree with the posts that housing is an urgent need in Peckham and throughout Southwark. But as Alice says, it’s the percentage of social / affordable housing that matters. In October last year, there were over 4,200 households on the Council’s waiting list for housing in Peckham alone (over 17 thousand across Southwark). But the developer is only offering 35% affordable housing (which means that 65% will be unaffordable). Both Southwark Council and the GLA say that a big development like this should provide 50% affordable housing.   Re-development of the site is a great opportunity to make the town centre “cleaner, safer and more sustainable and welcoming” (borrowing Nigello’s great words). Is this dense development going to do that, when it provides no real green and open space where people can spend time outside and nature can help us tackle the growing problems of climate change like absorbing flood water, cooling the air on baking summer days? Are 7-storey buildings along Rye Lane (where the average buildings are 2-3 storeys) going to be welcoming to users of the town centre? How will the development impact on Peckham’s economy? Currently there is busy daytime commercial activity of shops providing for different demographics and needs including a rich offering of international groceries and other products, alongside a thriving night-time economy. I can’t see anything in the proposal that suggests how it will enhance and empower the local economy. Yes please, let’s have a great development on this site that enhances the town centre. This means not letting the developer get away with packing people into dense blocks that turn their back on the town centre and which will be a recipe for urban decay in the long run. Peckham deserves better than this!
    • You know when you are wrong but think you're right because the internet etc? Read it and twist it how you want if it makes you feel better. I use a card as well as cash. You are pro jumping the gun and pro cynical. Yeah,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pro cash 🙃Who isn't? Is being pro card some kind of middle class virtue signaling thing? Like jumping to conclusions seems to be. Oooh the uncouth commoner uses that dirty cash stuff. Orf with his head.
    • Using cash is a good way of budgeting for some, if they don't have the cash in their pocket they can't buy things they may not need.  Financial institutions are keen to get us to all use plastic and credit because its harder to spot when you are at your limit and debit equates to interest which is how they make money. So dear Sephiroth, before you slam people for being pro cash, maybe think about why they are and not just view the world from your limited perspective 🤔 
    • The card machine in the dry cleaner's wasn't working, so the guy asked my husband to go to the cash till and withdraw some money....
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...