Remind me where I mentioned 100k AED? Been a while since I did that video.

1:10, you write 100k aed and bellow 10k pounds, 13k dollars, but when you are talking you are stating that lot of them are 50k which is the amount in pounds and dollars. Never mind, small thing, but you basically said it correctly. Either way, thanks, good points in this video.

@@vukziza4868 Thank you! Its had 22,000+ views and you're the first to point that out I hadn't realised, but yes you are totally right. I believe the numbers I mention later are correct save for minor currency fluctuations on AED to GBP. I think I'll do another video like this that's updated and more to the point. Thanks for pointing it out! 🙏

No problem! Hope it goes well for you 🙏🏽

They've been running the asylum the past 14 years

Rubbish.

@@gordonhamilton727 is that the best you can do ?....do some research and try to back up your comment.

Lib Dem’s 71 seats. Reform 5 seats despite having over 600,000 more votes than Lib Dem’s. If everyone’s votes were equal, Reform should have 91 seats, not just 5. I never voted for Reform, I’ve always voted Conservative but it doesn’t sound right to me as it’s not reflective of the wishes of the people who did vote. The 3 main parties would never vote for an alternative system weighted on actual votes because this system really does well for them. Either way Labour won if you base it on actual votes or constituencies won, I’m not against that at all. But there are a lot of people who voted Reform and have very little say in this parliament to hold the sitting government to account and pose a real challenge to them.

@@AaronHenray your point that the current system does well for the main parties is not accurate....ask the Conservatives how it did well for them last week.

So you think Lib Dem’s getting 71 seats with 600,000 fewer votes than Reform who received 5 seats is representing the wishes of the people who voted? I never even voted for Reform but based on the number of votes they received, if everyone’s votes were equal they have 91 seats, not 5.

@@AaronHenray Yes I do. What matters is where those votes are. I say again, it is the constituency that matters, not the number of votes nationwide. Why can't you understand this? It's all about locality and community.

I never said I voted Reform because I never. And the 2011 referendum was nothing to do with the voting system. This system has been around for nearly 200 years! Even so the fact that Lib Dems received 600,000 fewer votes than Reform but gained 71 seats vs Reform with only 5 is not at all representative of the voting population. By the number of votes Reform should have 91 votes. I voted for who I’ve always voted for even if they have screwed things up being in government, but that doesn’t change the fact smaller parties like Reform don’t have the voice they should have to challenge whoever the sitting government is at the time.

@@AaronHenray There's some stuff around about the mathematical proof that there is no 100% perfect democratic system. Better the devil you know.

.. and according to Wikipedia, that font of worldly knowledge, the 2011 referendum was called the "United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum" that Cleggy wanted as he was pissed off getting so many votes but so few seats. That saw him off to Meta and good riddance.

I’m sure racists also voted Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrat’s, Greens and every other party that exists. The current system has been around nearly 200 years. It’s interesting people seem to think I voted remain from this too… I never, I was a firm vote for leave.

@@AaronHenray The Remoaner was a p!ss take. Remainers were Remoaners because they thought Brexit was a stupid idea (it still is) but now Reformers are the new Remoaners because they want PR. Just like remaining - it ain't going to happen. And as for other parties being racist - The Lib Dems are far too soft. Labour is desperately woke, with just a touch of Islamophobia . I'm sure the posh Tories will have a few Nazis in their ranks, though let's face it they hate all plebs, but the scum have found their home in Farage. He lied about Brexit and he's lying now. That 'contract' is unworkable tosh - but I've heard with my own ears how people want refugees blown out the water. It's quite a shock to hear those words from your own manager, I must admit, but that's the Reform Remoaners for you. (And his opinions didn't end with the boats). Don't be a Reform schill. - but if you're a dedicated leaver, of course you'll be desperate to defend your Glorious Leader and His Great Plan. Remember, not all Reform Remoaners are racist, but racists love their little Hitler. 😁

@@AaronHenray has my reply been removed? How curious. I'll try again. The Tories offered a form of PR in 2011 and of the 42% of the public who voted 67% said no. You had your chance mate. You blew it.

No you’re wrong! Reform got 5 seats 🤣 it’s a total joke. Shouldn’t happen but it would require a vote by MPs to change it. Why would the three main parties change this system when it serves them so well. They don’t want 91 Reform MPs challenging them, so this system won’t be changed by them. It’s totally bonkers.

@@AaronHenray Oh yeah. Mybad... 5 seat against 71 / 9 does make it a little less ridiculous. 🤣 I think a lot of people are just glad they FINALLY managed to rid the Tories. One baby step at a time I guess.

It is! But it’s been converted and recently given authorisation to setup companies and apply for residency visas at the request of IFZA after I sent so many people to them from this video!

Awesome, thank you! 🙏🏽

Totally agree.

When this system was developed the only form of transport on land was the horse and cart. No joke.

I wonder how many of the 40% who failed to vote this year for whatever reason may have done so if they felt their vote was equal and would count. However you look at it, Reform (who I did NOT vote for) ended up with 14% of the vote but have <1% of the seats. Lib Dems had 600k fewer votes than Reform but have 71 seats vs Reform with only 5 seats. If it was weighted on actual votes, Reform should have 91 seats and be able to present a real challenge to the sitting government. Either way Labour won this election without any doubt and that’s no my point. But there is no incentive at all for Labour, Conservatives or Lib Dems to vote for a change to the system because it works so well for them. 14% of those who voted should not have less than 1% of the say in parliament, but that is the case today.

Totally agree. I did NOT vote for Reform but compare them to Lib Dems… Lib Dems walk away with 71 seats and Reform with only 5 seats. But Reform had 600k more votes than Lib Dems. How can that be right? Weighted equally on votes, Reform should have 91 seats. The 3 main parties would never vote for a change to this system though, it works so well for them, why would they vote to allow parties like Reform to be able to really pose a challenge to them. It’s not right in my opinion.

@@AaronHenray The voting system itself shapes voting behaviour - Thursday's result alone proves that reality. I always advocate for Single Transferable Vote [STV] in multi-member constituencies - once the UK electorate adjusted to expressing their political preferences in 1,2,3,4,5 etc format such a change would foster not only a more accurate Parliamentary reflection of ballots cast but also a more informed and politically literate populace? Under STV parties like ReformUK are subject to the marmite effect so they may gain a decent number of first preferences but relatively few second, third and fourth options, meaning their candidates would often fail to reach the quota threshold required to succeed?

​@AaronHenray it's not right in my opinion either , our voting system is not fit for purpose anymore .

That's usually who gets the blame

Well it's difficult to represent people who choose not to vote for whatever reason. I keep using this example but Lib Dems received 71 seats vs Reform with 5 seats. However, Reform had 600,000+ more votes than Lib Dems. If it were based on every voter being equal, then Reform would have 91 seats not just 5. Reform had 14% of the vote and received <1% of the seats. I DID NOT vote for Reform, but that gap is not a small discrepancy. It has not resulted in any kind of balanced representation in parliament based on the wishes of the people who voted. This current system is nearly 200 years old and it needs a change.

We have this discussion after every election and nothing changes. Anyone want to guess why? Surely the EU should have forced PR on the UK when we were in and this would have resulted in fair elections. They didn't though did they.

Totally right... this first past the post system is nearly 200 years old, so you're bang on when you say belonging in the era of the horse and cart. It was literally designed in that era and has barely changed.

This video really isn't aimed at Labour or Conservatives. The current system is very much in the favour of the two main parties and there would be no incentive to change. I strongly suspect, should such a challenge ever be raised in parliament today, it would be voted away swiftly by Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems. A change based on actual votes would lead to them having to work together on matters more. Nobody would have a majority. My main issue with this result is where the way it is done does not represent the wishes of the voting public. Lib Dems received over 600,000 fewer votes than Reform. Lib Dems received 71 seats vs Reform with only 5 seats. I think its rigged against the smaller parties from getting a voice in parliament. If everyones votes were equal, Reform would have 91 seats today instead of 5 and be able to really challenge the sitting government and ensure the voices of their voters are heard. Like I said, I did NOT vote for Reform personally. But even so, I stand up for what I think is right, this doesn't seem right to me. Although I am not disputing at all that Labour won both on votes and constituencies and deserve to be in power today based on the wishes of those who voted.

You are correct.....its not rigged because despite the outcome the starting point is the same for everybody, plus of course if the reverse had happened and it was the Tories who won with a big majority....as they have done before.....Aaron probably wouldnt be so critical of the system :)

In the past couple of years all the constituencies in the UK were re-made precisely to ensure that each had roughly the same number of voters. Previously rural constituencies tended to have a smaller number of people but this was changed such that each now has approximately the same number of voters. That doesn't fix the problems with First Past The Post which is outdated and unfair.

I've just researched this, it seems the rule is now "within 5% of the “electoral quota” of 73,393". There seems to be places where that doesn't apply. But either way as you said, the first past the post is very outdated. It seems this way of voting originated early in the 1800's and has barely changed since.

you'd better not be a remoaner.

Actually, I won, or at least my party won. That doesn't mean the system itself is complete bollocks and enshrines unfairness. This also tends to make people permanently pissed off about politics.

What did I lose? I NEVER voted for Reform but I'm balanced enough to be able to say it's not right (or representative of the UK voters) that they have such little representation in the commons <1% of the seats when they had 14% of the votes. Lib Dems had 600,000 FEWER votes than Reform but have 71 seats vs Reform getting getting just 5 seats. Any rational person looking at that objectively would conclude it doesn't sound right and certainly doesn't equal all votes being equal. I didn't lose anything and not disputing Labour won fairly either, they won both by numbers of votes and also by the number of seats.

@@lapisredux Stop bleating it's very boring

@@richardpovall3020 Them is the rules.

Really? Most countries with coalition governments do rather well because decision-making is much more equitable.

In my lifetime the coalitions never seemed to work. It would be very split in the house if they went purely by actual votes. Perhaps nothing would ever get done, or they'd just have to learn to work with each other and stop this stance of just disagreeing because the "opposition" said it. I think the terminology is wrong in any case, they should be working to one aim and that's in the interests of the British people. And nothing else.

It's true, but this video wasn't really aimed at Labour winning. They won both by number of seats and also by the number of votes. However of course the majority they have wouldn't exist if it were based on the number of votes alone. My main issue is for a party like Reform (who I did NOT vote for) they received 14% of the votes but have <1% of the seats. Lib Dems had 600k less votes than Reform but received 71 seats vs Reform getting just 5. That is not right in my view. Its not what the people who voted asked for and they are not being represented in parliment fairly. Had it been based on votes, Reform would have 91 seats, not 5.

Perhaps!

Well please feel free to show me your math. If all votes are equal, my math shows that Reform (who I did NOT vote for) should have 91 seats vs the 5 seats they have. Lib Dems had 600,000 fewer votes than Reform, but have 71 seats. Reform have 5 seats. That doesn't reflect the wishes of the British voters, so not all votes are equal, in my opinion.

@@AaronHenray by the way if you are British, it's MATHS not math. It's votes by constituency, the one with more votes in a single constituency wins. It's not perfect but it's served the UK well for a long time. That doesn't mean it doesn't need reviewing but it's what we've got at the moment.

@@AaronHenray Basic maths.....if 49% of an area votes it means 51% chose not to, so do you want to reflect the wishes of the 51% ?.....that means no MP o representation. The picture is bigger than the one you paint.

Has it? Because all I’ve heard is people complaining about 14 years of tories rule. Prior to that the complaints were about Labour. It doesn’t seem to have worked well and it’s a system designed when horse and cart were the normal method of transport. Times have changed.

It's a very old system and needs to change.

You are incorrect there. This system originates from the early 1800's. Nobody in my lifetime (to my knowledge) has been able to vote on the current voting system which is nearly 200 years old. Plus you've assumed I voted remain... I did not. I was very firmly in leave. But as I said above, that referendum was nothing at all to do with our voting system.

The only way to effect change is for the MP's to agree to change it. Do you really think Labour with a super majority would want to change it? Reform can't change it with their 5 seats (<1% of seats vs getting 14% of the vote). I never voted Reform, and I think Labour won fairly (they won on actual votes and constituencies). However, Lib Dems received 71 seats but had 600,000 LESS votes than Reform who received only 5 seats. That cannot be right. The system now works for the party in charge and that is the only way it could be changed if those MP's vote for it. The same applies to Conservatives, that system usually works well for them and so they are unlikely to vote for a change either. Those pushing for a change cannot just change it, no matter how much its demanded.

Time will tell!

Well the number of seats certainly do not represent the will of the people. If it were based on actual votes, Reform would have 91 seats, but they only have 5 seats. Lib Dems had 600,000 LESS votes than Reform but have 71 seats. That cannot be right. There is no incentive for the main parties to vote for a change of how this is done though, it works for them, doing so would be very dangerous for them, and that's why this system that's nearly 200 years old is unlikely to change.

Interesting points and all valid I feel. The issue I really take is we're made to believe each vote counts and are equal to the next, but it's not true. It depends on where you live. If you live in an area with a small population, your vote may count 2-5x more than other places. I don't like the current system at all. I have no issue with the local representation for dealing with local issues, I guess similar to how states in the USA have a lot of individual control on its laws outside of federal interference. I think we should be able to vote for who our PM is, not just the party and the representation in the houses of parliament should focus on national issues and as such have representation proportional to the actual votes. This should mean fewer MP's, plus as a side note I also think they should be paid considerably more, on a sliding scale with the PM on several million a year and the rest on a sliding scale based on seniority and time in service. If this happened you'd see a very different calibre of candidate (who would typically now be in, or on track for senior corporate roles) and unseat many of these MP's who operate with very little competition against them but have a huge influence on our society, all with the common skill of being able to make things worse over time. To avoid a huge change in how things are done, they need to find a way to make each constituency more equal. That could mean some of the smaller ones are combined, so there are fewer seats in parliament. I wouldn't support more MP's, I think less would be the answer. Right now 14% of people who voted have <1% impact on national governance. I never voted for Reform but I still don't think its right. It's a huge issue, but I get it's a very difficult one to change and would require a huge change to how things are done here and as you say... it could be detrimental on a local level.

@@AaronHenray I have heard many people say the same thing about the american system before. I think you are fantasizing about america. The most important thing to understand is that each constituency is voting for a person whose ideas they identify with; not a political party. the only people who vote along party lines are the less informed. Political parties are a construct that make it difficult to see the forest through the trees. They are an evil that has resulted from representative democracy. That's why they are not recognized by many constitutions.

Traditionally in the UK you are not voting for the MP but for their party and that party's manifesto. That's become a bit lost as the media has made everything about the individual - the system has become much more 'presidential'. A general election is supposed to be about national issues and national policies.

@@AaronHenray Thanks for the response, excuse my delay in replying, I was having a think on the matter. Firstly as an example we have a ref for Brexit. The ref was a direct vote and those that lost the vote obstructed those that won, then those that lost moaned that it was a failure like they said it would be. The point is that when you vote, if you follow democracy, when you lose, you must bow down and allow the winners to implement their policies. Your voice is heard, counted and if more disagree, then your ideals won't be followed as the majority don't agree. This is also how our voting system works. You have a voice in your vote, you vote for those with similar views to yourself and hope enough of the population feel the same way. In this regard the main issues to everyone are taken care of and changes in other ways in local government can be done if people vote for the local council they want. We do actually have local representation for local issue and we have nation representation for each area with the person representing that areas main concerns being put forward. The loser can't always have a say or you would never get anything done. You can never please everyone, the system is far from perfect, but in all honesty I think it's better than what just happened in France. I think the question would become what gives the loser the right to frustrate and block the will of the people? It doesn't seem democratic. My point is simply that regardless of first past the post or proportional representation, if you lose the vote, you had your say. Your say doesn't mean what you want happens, it means you vote for what you think and hope enough feel the same way. I could be wrong though.

Totally agree. Just look at Reform vs Lib Dems. 5 seats vs 71 seats even though Reform had 600k more votes than Lib Dems. Its insane and does not reflect the wishes of the public at all. I did not even vote for Reform, but they should have a considerable number of MP's representing them and yet they're basically powerless under this system.

Agreed on that point. They say every vote matters, but it doesn't because the end result is not reflective of the actual number of votes. Reform ended up with 5 seats vs Lib dems with 71 seats, despite the fact reform has over 600,000 more votes than Lib Dems. I don't understand how a system like this was ever put in place.

Great to hear you've done it and sounds like it went smoothly for you :)

@@AaronHenray Absolutely. Everything went smoothly. Thanks again, man!

Hi Jesse! I've heard about this before. Its point #2 under the Requirements section for the Golden Visa eligibility rules on the UAE government website. u.ae/en/information-and-services/visa-and-emirates-id/residence-visas/golden-visa