Question John Tennant

Westcountryman · 10-07-2008, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grim up north

Good on John for stepping forward. Everyone has to start somewhere. If you wait until you've got loads of experience before you start then how do you get the experience in the first place?

I understand he is a member of the Gateshead Branch and recently returned there after completing his degree.

I am saddened by UKIP members apparent fixation with where candidates live! I do understand parochialism is almost a pre-requisite for membership of UKIP but it closes a lot of doors to a lot of talent just because of where they were born.

Not born necessarily, but I do think it's important where a candidate lives and works. For example, I would not vote for a prospective MEP in the South West who hails from London - what do they know of my local area or country life?

Grim up north · 10-07-2008, 04:54 PM

As I've said on another thread I think there are very few unique local issues anymore above local council level and parochial regional representation is the worst thing that could happen to the UK. We should be electing a national list not regional lists. The best people to fight for the UK are then our representatives not just the one who happens to have lived in a particular area the longest. Local issues need to be fought locally by local Councillors and Constituency MPs. The EU is not a local issue. It is a national and international issue. The EU needs to be fought by MEPs with the best interests of the UK as their central mantra. The UK does not need locally focused, inward looking, parochial MEPs, but of course that is exactly what UKIP will get since UKIP Membership seem to value where someone lives as a key criteria. Locally focused, inward looking, parochial MEPs are exactly what the EU wants us to have. Keep them busy with local trivia while the EU gets on with destroying our sovereignty and out nation states.

I don’t want someone to represent the North East, the South West, London or any other EU Region. I want MEPs who represent the United Kingdom. Get your head out of the sand and look at the big picture for once

Aardvark · 10-07-2008, 05:52 PM

A national list would have the advantage that some small national parties would be better represented since only 1.5% of the national vote would be required for each MEP. The skulduggery involved in getting the top slots would be phenomenal as UKIP would get a couple of seats with no apparent effort. It sounds good apart from the problems:

1. No MEPs would have any knowledge of or interest in Northern Ireland. Currently NI has 3 MEPs representing about 2.5% of the population. No party is big enough to make the cut and therefore none would be represented.

2. Plaid Cymru and the SNP would also be virtually eliminated - one or 2 MEPs respectively at the absolute maximum, but more likely none and one.

3. UKIP is a regional party. There is virtually no membership of note in Wales, Scotland, NI and large swathes of the industrial North-West, North-East and Midlands. This will be more obvious at the next GE when we have less paper candidates in places where we have little or no hope. We had high votes in some regions last time but were an irrelevancy in others. Our national vote share might only give us 2 or 3 MEPs.

It also depends what the percentage cut is for a national list. If the bar is set too high you can end up with lots of small parties with one or 2 per cent getting no seats, but representing 10-15% of the populace or more. A 5% bar would see only 3 parties getting seats and 20% of the population not being represented. I actually observed an election where, with some judicious rigging, the ruling party received 100% of the seats as nobody else made the 7.5% bar (Kazakhstan). About 15% of the Armenian population are likewise disenfranchised.

Having observed proportional representation based on national and regional lists I'd go for a single transferrable vote, first past the post system or an additional member system like Scotland's.

Proportional representation is a lot more complex than people realise and there are many different systems around the world. National lists systems concentrate power in national party headquarters and amongst people who have the time and money to develop a national profile. We would not have the best candidates since only those who could afford to travel the whole nation (petrol prices are relevant) would be able to do hustings in Edinburgh and Exeter. Many people would be deterred from putting themselves forward and we'd end up with white, middle-class males over 60.

MEPs also need to be parochial. If there were no Scots MEPs, as the national lists threw up only Englishmen at the top of the respective piles, then when fisheries were discussed there would be nobody to fight the corner of the Scots trawlermen. Given that Scots Gaelic and Welsh are to become official EU languages we could end up with the absurdity that translators were sitting in Brussels and Strasbourg talking to nobody!

Israel has a single list with no cut off. The seats are divided proportionally in relation to the parties. The country is small (size of Wales) and has only 6 million people. Every nutter imaginable gets into the Knesset. When I lived in Jerusalem I used to watch live sessions. I couldn't understand a word of Hebrew and little Arabic, but basically every time an Arab MK tried to speak the ultra-Orthodox settlers would have a rant. The Balad representatives were forever being thrown out of sessions as they would take offence when the settlers advocated stealing more land, locking up more Palestinians, invading Jordan and all the other good policies those who want an Eretz Israel advocate.

Democracy is very complicated.

kernow · 10-07-2008, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westcountryman

Not born necessarily, but I do think it's important where a candidate lives and works. For example, I would not vote for a prospective MEP in the South West who hails from London - what do they know of my local area or country life?

My thoughts also!

Hartlepool · 10-07-2008, 08:50 PM

What Grim area are you standing in Brother Grim?

John Tennant · 11-07-2008, 06:40 PM

Interesting to see myself being discussed. Who started it?

Grim up north · 11-07-2008, 07:21 PM

There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about........that's NOT being talked about!

Get used to it John, you're a target now! Say one wrong thing and the armchair generals on here will turn on you like a flash.

Those who dare stand for election, those who dare not stand come on internet forums and pontificate about how much better everything would be if they were in charge!

Well done for having the balls to stand! More power to you.

John Tennant · 11-07-2008, 11:20 PM

Many truths there Grim, I wonder, are you attending the Rally on 26th July in Stockton?

HM · 12-07-2008, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Tennant

Interesting to see myself being discussed. Who started it?

Hmm... what a coincidence that you have turned up. Not.

Alex McKee · 12-07-2008, 12:21 AM

This thread does link to his website. It's entirely possible he found it via the referrer logs.

10-07-2008, 05:52 PM	#13 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,928	A national list would have the advantage that some small national parties would be better represented since only 1.5% of the national vote would be required for each MEP. The skulduggery involved in getting the top slots would be phenomenal as UKIP would get a couple of seats with no apparent effort. It sounds good apart from the problems: 1. No MEPs would have any knowledge of or interest in Northern Ireland. Currently NI has 3 MEPs representing about 2.5% of the population. No party is big enough to make the cut and therefore none would be represented. 2. Plaid Cymru and the SNP would also be virtually eliminated - one or 2 MEPs respectively at the absolute maximum, but more likely none and one. 3. UKIP is a regional party. There is virtually no membership of note in Wales, Scotland, NI and large swathes of the industrial North-West, North-East and Midlands. This will be more obvious at the next GE when we have less paper candidates in places where we have little or no hope. We had high votes in some regions last time but were an irrelevancy in others. Our national vote share might only give us 2 or 3 MEPs. It also depends what the percentage cut is for a national list. If the bar is set too high you can end up with lots of small parties with one or 2 per cent getting no seats, but representing 10-15% of the populace or more. A 5% bar would see only 3 parties getting seats and 20% of the population not being represented. I actually observed an election where, with some judicious rigging, the ruling party received 100% of the seats as nobody else made the 7.5% bar (Kazakhstan). About 15% of the Armenian population are likewise disenfranchised. Having observed proportional representation based on national and regional lists I'd go for a single transferrable vote, first past the post system or an additional member system like Scotland's. Proportional representation is a lot more complex than people realise and there are many different systems around the world. National lists systems concentrate power in national party headquarters and amongst people who have the time and money to develop a national profile. We would not have the best candidates since only those who could afford to travel the whole nation (petrol prices are relevant) would be able to do hustings in Edinburgh and Exeter. Many people would be deterred from putting themselves forward and we'd end up with white, middle-class males over 60. MEPs also need to be parochial. If there were no Scots MEPs, as the national lists threw up only Englishmen at the top of the respective piles, then when fisheries were discussed there would be nobody to fight the corner of the Scots trawlermen. Given that Scots Gaelic and Welsh are to become official EU languages we could end up with the absurdity that translators were sitting in Brussels and Strasbourg talking to nobody! Israel has a single list with no cut off. The seats are divided proportionally in relation to the parties. The country is small (size of Wales) and has only 6 million people. Every nutter imaginable gets into the Knesset. When I lived in Jerusalem I used to watch live sessions. I couldn't understand a word of Hebrew and little Arabic, but basically every time an Arab MK tried to speak the ultra-Orthodox settlers would have a rant. The Balad representatives were forever being thrown out of sessions as they would take offence when the settlers advocated stealing more land, locking up more Palestinians, invading Jordan and all the other good policies those who want an Eretz Israel advocate. Democracy is very complicated. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008 Last edited by Aardvark; 10-07-2008 at 05:54 PM.

12-07-2008, 12:21 AM	#20 (permalink)
Alex McKee Moderator Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Gloucester Posts: 6,666	This thread does link to his website. It's entirely possible he found it via the referrer logs. __________________ Anything I post on this web forum is my personal opinion only. Users on Ignore list: None.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-07-2008, 04:54 PM	#12 (permalink)
Grim up north Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 22	As I've said on another thread I think there are very few unique local issues anymore above local council level and parochial regional representation is the worst thing that could happen to the UK. We should be electing a national list not regional lists. The best people to fight for the UK are then our representatives not just the one who happens to have lived in a particular area the longest. Local issues need to be fought locally by local Councillors and Constituency MPs. The EU is not a local issue. It is a national and international issue. The EU needs to be fought by MEPs with the best interests of the UK as their central mantra. The UK does not need locally focused, inward looking, parochial MEPs, but of course that is exactly what UKIP will get since UKIP Membership seem to value where someone lives as a key criteria. Locally focused, inward looking, parochial MEPs are exactly what the EU wants us to have. Keep them busy with local trivia while the EU gets on with destroying our sovereignty and out nation states. I don’t want someone to represent the North East, the South West, London or any other EU Region. I want MEPs who represent the United Kingdom. Get your head out of the sand and look at the big picture for once

10-07-2008, 08:50 PM	#15 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,785 Party: Free England Party	What Grim area are you standing in Brother Grim?

11-07-2008, 06:40 PM	#16 (permalink)
John Tennant Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 17	Interesting to see myself being discussed. Who started it?

11-07-2008, 07:21 PM	#17 (permalink)
Grim up north Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 22	There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about........that's NOT being talked about! Get used to it John, you're a target now! Say one wrong thing and the armchair generals on here will turn on you like a flash. Those who dare stand for election, those who dare not stand come on internet forums and pontificate about how much better everything would be if they were in charge! Well done for having the balls to stand! More power to you.

11-07-2008, 11:20 PM	#18 (permalink)
John Tennant Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 17	Many truths there Grim, I wonder, are you attending the Rally on 26th July in Stockton?