|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 24, 2016 12:25:09 GMT
If I remember 'Were you still up for Portillo?' right, Mellor had actually provoked the jeering by making some snide comment likening the minor candidates to zoo animals. And why not? They do distort and demean the democratic process and pollute the count and declaration. They are more circus than zoo. They form NO part of that democratic process and are not serious candidates under any possible view of that term. The whole thing is arrogance, egotism, self-publicity and wishing to be a nuisance. I would be happy to see the end of it. If we bonded all candidates as well as making them provide a deposit, then the deposit is returned at one figure of support but if a candidate fails to garner say 1.5% of the votes cast the bond at £10,000 is called in on basis of vexation. This is an utterly absurd position for a UKIP supporter to adopt, especially so one who has on numerous occasions espoused the view that UKIP's primary purpose is to act as a spoiler. UKIP stood candidates in 1997 and in almost every case where both parties stood won fewer votes than the Referendum Party. They might never have got off the ground had your view prevailed |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
|
Post by Sibboleth on Oct 24, 2016 16:38:26 GMT
Sir Alec Guinness received one of course...
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 24, 2016 19:05:49 GMT
If I remember 'Were you still up for Portillo?' right, Mellor had actually provoked the jeering by making some snide comment likening the minor candidates to zoo animals. And why not? They do distort and demean the democratic process and pollute the count and declaration. They are more circus than zoo. They form NO part of that democratic process and are not serious candidates under any possible view of that term. The whole thing is arrogance, egotism, self-publicity and wishing to be a nuisance. I would be happy to see the end of it. If we bonded all candidates as well as making them provide a deposit, then the deposit is returned at one figure of support but if a candidate fails to garner say 1.5% of the votes cast the bond at £10,000 is called in on basis of vexation. No they do not-this is typical Establishment nonsense used to justify shutting out parties with alternative views to the mainstream.
Deposits are not effective at deterring timewasters, as Bill Boaks' and Screaming Lord Sutch's perennial attempts show-the deposit system stacks the odds in favour of parties with the most money irrespective of views. Having a higher signature requirement is better-20 signatures instead of 10 for a single member constituency and 20* number of seats in a particular region for the list (Britain needs proportional representation for fair democracy and AMS is the most acceptable PR system in my opinion, particularly when three devolved UK legislatures already use it).
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,877 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 24, 2016 21:59:19 GMT
And why not? They do distort and demean the democratic process and pollute the count and declaration. They are more circus than zoo. They form NO part of that democratic process and are not serious candidates under any possible view of that term. The whole thing is arrogance, egotism, self-publicity and wishing to be a nuisance. I would be happy to see the end of it. If we bonded all candidates as well as making them provide a deposit, then the deposit is returned at one figure of support but if a candidate fails to garner say 1.5% of the votes cast the bond at £10,000 is called in on basis of vexation. No they do not-this is typical Establishment nonsense used to justify shutting out parties with alternative views to the mainstream.
Deposits are not effective at deterring timewasters, as Bill Boaks' and Screaming Lord Sutch's perennial attempts show-the deposit system stacks the odds in favour of parties with the most money irrespective of views. Having a higher signature requirement is better-20 signatures instead of 10 for a single member constituency and 20* number of seats in a particular region for the list (Britain needs proportional representation for fair democracy and AMS is the most acceptable PR system in my opinion, particularly when three devolved UK legislatures already use it).
Yep! That's me. Mr. Establishment. Written all over my posts. Mr. Mainstream. I don't mind minor parties but not the flotsam and jetsam in fancy dress. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,877
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 24, 2016 22:04:12 GMT
And why not? They do distort and demean the democratic process and pollute the count and declaration. They are more circus than zoo. They form NO part of that democratic process and are not serious candidates under any possible view of that term. The whole thing is arrogance, egotism, self-publicity and wishing to be a nuisance. I would be happy to see the end of it. If we bonded all candidates as well as making them provide a deposit, then the deposit is returned at one figure of support but if a candidate fails to garner say 1.5% of the votes cast the bond at £10,000 is called in on basis of vexation. I find it strange Carlton that you take such a view on this. UKIP itself was a minor party, losing many deposits before it started creating any earthquakes. their were 78 UKIP candidates whom lost their deposit at the 2015 General Election and I presume in the 2010 & 2005 elections there were I expect many more. To the other parties UKIP would have been seen as something which formed NO part of the democratic process. Yet when I put my views forward here, folks say why not stand then if you don't like everyone on offer. Folks stand for all sorts of reasons. In 1997 Over a million people voted for the referendum party in an election dominated by the pied piper of New Labour, I had always wondered what the result would have been if the Conservatives had done for the 1997 GE what they had done for the 2015 GE and said they would hold a referendum on Europe if reelected. I don;t imagine it would have stopped new Labour winning but it would have dented the landslide. But for you so anti this party which paved the way for UKIP, seems mighty strange. Come on JL you know me better than that. Read what I say not what you think that I say. I said I loathed Goldsmith. I did and I still do. I said nothing at all about the Referendum Party which I regarded at that time to be a sideshow to the then main event of Labour sweeping away a useless ill-led Conservative party. I still stand by that. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 24, 2016 22:11:45 GMT
I didn't receive a copy but my grandparents did, which is the one that I uploaded. I can also remember watching another Referendum Party broadcast on TV which was one of the funniest things I'd ever seen at the time, because it featured an elderly man sternly asking questions of Sir James Goldsmith as if he — the other man — were an impartial interviewer, and then right at the end of the broadcast they both turned to the camera and it became obvious the other man was just as much a supporter of the Referendum Party as Sir James. Why they thought this was a good way of conducting an interview has always been a mystery to me. I've tried to find this broadcast on YouTube but without success so far. I'd like to see it again.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
|
Post by Sibboleth on Oct 24, 2016 22:21:41 GMT
Best fact about Goldsmith is that shortly before he died he made a lengthy trip over mountain roads in absolute agony so as to avoid his estate having to pay inheritance tax in France.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 24, 2016 22:25:11 GMT
I didn't receive a copy but my grandparents did, which is the one that I uploaded. I can also remember watching another Referendum Party broadcast on TV which was one of the funniest things I'd ever seen at the time, because it featured an elderly man sternly asking questions of Sir James Goldsmith as if he — the other man — were an impartial interviewer, and then right at the end of the broadcast they both turned to the camera and it became obvious the other man was just as much a supporter of the Referendum Party as Sir James. Why they thought this was a good way of conducting an interview has always been a mystery to me. I've tried to find this broadcast on YouTube but without success so far. I'd like to see it again. Yes I remember that it was hilarious. I hope you or someone else can find it |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,877
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 24, 2016 22:35:47 GMT
And why not? They do distort and demean the democratic process and pollute the count and declaration. They are more circus than zoo. They form NO part of that democratic process and are not serious candidates under any possible view of that term. The whole thing is arrogance, egotism, self-publicity and wishing to be a nuisance. I would be happy to see the end of it. If we bonded all candidates as well as making them provide a deposit, then the deposit is returned at one figure of support but if a candidate fails to garner say 1.5% of the votes cast the bond at £10,000 is called in on basis of vexation. This is an utterly absurd position for a UKIP supporter to adopt, especially so one who has on numerous occasions espoused the view that UKIP's primary purpose is to act as a spoiler. UKIP stood candidates in 1997 and in almost every case where both parties stood won fewer votes than the Referendum Party. They might never have got off the ground had your view prevailed It really isn't Pete. I am astonished that you even for one minute associated UKIP with that original statement about minority parties being like zoo animals. We are not a minority party. We got more votes than the SNP, LDs and Greens combined. We are not in fancy dress. We don't make scenes at the count. It wasn't about us. I use 'Us' as a phrase whilst it is still us of course, as there must be a chance that post the next set of leadership elections one or both of us depart. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 24, 2016 23:09:16 GMT
I didn't receive a copy but my grandparents did, which is the one that I uploaded. I can also remember watching another Referendum Party broadcast on TV which was one of the funniest things I'd ever seen at the time, because it featured an elderly man sternly asking questions of Sir James Goldsmith as if he — the other man — were an impartial interviewer, and then right at the end of the broadcast they both turned to the camera and it became obvious the other man was just as much a supporter of the Referendum Party as Sir James. Why they thought this was a good way of conducting an interview has always been a mystery to me. I've tried to find this broadcast on YouTube but without success so far. I'd like to see it again. In my VHS collection I have a tape of all the Party Election Broadcasts from the 1997 general election (22 of them), but (according to my index list) it is one of the tapes that I have not (yet) transferred onto DVD. The list on my label calls it "Let the people decide". P.S. It didn't take long to find this one, which (without checking) I suspect is the one on my videotape, but not the one you're referring to. It's just Goldsmith talking to camera for 5 minutes. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 24, 2016 23:37:44 GMT
I think Andrew_S may have confused the Referendum Party broadcast with that from the UK Independence Party. This did indeed feature a mock interview of party leader Alan Sked by a very easily persuaded interviewer - its celebrity supporter, Leo McKern. While the Referendum Party broadcast was hectoring, UKIP's was toe-curlingly embarrassing. So here it is: |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Oct 24, 2016 23:57:52 GMT
I think Andrew_S may have confused the Referendum Party broadcast with that from the UK Independence Party. This did indeed feature a mock interview of party leader Alan Sked by a very easily persuaded interviewer - its celebrity supporter, Leo McKern. While the Referendum Party broadcast was hectoring, UKIP's was toe-curlingly embarrassing. So here it is: That was laugh out loud funny even though I agreed with much of what they said. It was still the You Kay Eye Pea in those days. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 25, 2016 0:06:06 GMT
I think Andrew_S may have confused the Referendum Party broadcast with that from the UK Independence Party. This did indeed feature a mock interview of party leader Alan Sked by a very easily persuaded interviewer - its celebrity supporter, Leo McKern. While the Referendum Party broadcast was hectoring, UKIP's was toe-curlingly embarrassing. So here it is: That was laugh out loud funny even though I agreed with much of what they said. It was still the You Kay Eye Pea in those days. Maybe this was the one I was thinking of. It's not quite as I remember, but it was 19 years ago. The bit where Leo McKern says "I for one was most impressed, no doubt you were as well" is just so embarrassing.  |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 25, 2016 0:18:33 GMT
I think Andrew_S may have confused the Referendum Party broadcast with that from the UK Independence Party. This did indeed feature a mock interview of party leader Alan Sked by a very easily persuaded interviewer - its celebrity supporter, Leo McKern. While the Referendum Party broadcast was hectoring, UKIP's was toe-curlingly embarrassing. So here it is: Oh yes! Hahaha - I was literally lolling at that. "I for one was most impressed. No doubt you were too" HAHAHA |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 25, 2016 0:23:42 GMT
Back to the Referendum Party video: one thing which I immediately noticed when I first watched it (and have remembered ever since) is the edit cut at 8:02 in which the position of his right hand changes. It is not as obvious as I had remembered it, but still noticeable.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 25, 2016 8:37:32 GMT
The Referendum Party were sometimes featured specifically in opinion polls in the run up to the 1997 election, averaging about 2%. They managed to hit 4% at one point. Nigel Farage and the rest of UKIP shared the views of the Referendum Party and must have felt very sidelined during this time. Actually not. The Referendum Party primarily focused on a choice of the type of Europe we wanted. They were heavily criticised by Ukip who had a straight up policy of leaving rather than faffing about with a vote that would ultimately be meaningless because the EU has never been interested in meaningful renegotiation. I dunno what Farage said as this was still the period when Ukip was led by Alan Sked, an LSE professor whose speeches could double as insomnia cures. It was still the You Kay Eye Pea in those days. Well that is the correct way to pronounce "UKIP". Indeed at some of the declarations last year (mainly in Northern Ireland) that is precisely how the ROs declared it. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,877
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 25, 2016 10:01:11 GMT
It really isn't Pete. I am astonished that you even for one minute associated UKIP with that original statement about minority parties being like zoo animals. We are not a minority party. We got more votes than the SNP, LDs and Greens combined. We are not in fancy dress. We don't make scenes at the count. It wasn't about us. I use 'Us' as a phrase whilst it is still us of course, as there must be a chance that post the next set of leadership elections one or both of us depart. UKIP electoral performance Election year # of total votes % of overall vote # of seats won 1997 105,722 Increase 0.3% Increase 0 / 650 2001 390,563 Increase 1.5% Increase 0 / 650 2005 603,298 Increase 2.2% Increase 0 / 646 2010 919,546 Increase 3.1% Increase 0 / 650 2015 3,881,099 Increase 12.6% Increase 1 / 650 European Parliament Election year # of total votes % of overall vote # of seats won Rank 1994 155,487 Increase 1% Increase 0 / 87 1999 696,057 Increase 6.7% Increase 3 / 87 2004 2,650,768 Increase 16.1% Increase 12 / 78 2009 2,498,226 Decrease 16.6% Increase 13 / 72 2014 4,376,635 Increase 27.5% Increase 24 / 73 source for infoReferendum Party Votes received: 810,860 In the 165 seats also contested by UKIP, the Referendum Party beat UKIP in all but two, Romsey and Glasgow Anniesland (the latter by just two votes) source for infoNow I would say you are just being cantankerous, which is your way, and sometimes makes for an enjoyable read. But you seem to have started UKIP history from 2004 bit like a Saints fan might do now and not remembering the times when you were minus 10 at the bottom of league 1. Did enjoy the fact about beating UKIP in all but 2 of the 165 where both parties stood. Maybe UKIP should have stopped being vote splitters?  Somehow I have got to a position of being completely misunderstood for which I accept full responsibility. I am not really cantankerous at all. I am combative and argumentative but if you read closely not usually cantankerous. My sole point in this part of the thread was to express a strong dislike for the silly and the oddball minor parties. The ones in fancy dress, the self promoters and the witless like OMRL. For me, they demean the process and pollute the count. Many of you dislike Independents. I can accept that and I understand why. I like serious independents and have often voted for them in the locals. But I don't like the small end of the minor parties that gain few votes and distort the count proceedings. I saw the Referendum Party as a personal side show funded by a man I had a very deep dislike for at a time when the script was all about New Labour or Failing Conservatives as seen at that time and thus the result. I did not see Goldsmith as a valiant precursor to Farage in the long march to existing UKIP. I would never have voted for him or it. EDIT I don't understand your last paragraph. I don't follow the use of the word increase in front of many of your stats not all of which make sense. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 25, 2016 10:07:51 GMT
As it happens, Farage was one of the handful of UKIP candidates to place above the Referendum Party in that election.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Oct 25, 2016 10:10:51 GMT
As it happens, Farage was one of the handful of UKIP candidates to place above the Referendum Party in that election. There was no Referendum Party candidate in Salisbury? |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 25, 2016 10:22:35 GMT
As it happens, Farage was one of the handful of UKIP candidates to place above the Referendum Party in that election. Farage stood in Salisbury where there doesn't seem to have been a Referendum Party candidate - or was William Holmes a candidate who screwed up his nomination and so did not get his party onto the ballot paper? |
|
