These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear
 

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, wrote:

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

On 1 Aug, 20:20, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:
On 31 July, 19:51, "Recliner" wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message



On 29 July, 15:09, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:
On 28 July, 17:16, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, James Farrar wrote:

The concept of a Mayor is undemocratic and intended to allow
unelected political party officials to override the views of
elected council members (and those they represent) while hiding
behind the figurehead of the Mayor.

When you say 'the concept of a mayor', do you mean 'the
implementation of a mayor as it is in London?'. If so, would you
agree that the implementation could be improved, and if not,
could you explain why you think a mayor is different to a
president?

Well, I'm not particularly bothered about what it's called, which
is why I used a capital M to refer to the specific implementation.

I just generally object to representative democracy (which ain't
perfect) being cynically overruled by setting up a system where a
single elected person who can also claim a mandate and hand total
control to his/her own party.

It would be better if there were a council a bit like the GLA but
with real decision-making powers ... you could call it the GLC.

Would that prevent the sort of palace coup that allowed an
ambitious young politician to mount a successful coup against an
elected GLC leader like Andrew Macintosh?-

Wot, by getting elected and winning votes?

What, like how Gordon Brown became Prime Minister?

Both the Westminster and Washington systems of choosing a leader have
their strengths and weaknesses, but it's simply nonsense to say that
an elected mayoralty is an antidemocratic.

The imposition of such systems on local authorities has the intention
of imposing central rule via a single figurehead, disregarding the
wide range of views represented by many tens of councillors (or GLA
members). The chances of effective democracy are slim regardless.

A directly-elected president who did not have to refer to Parliament
would not be a Good Thing. Within their respective scopes, I don't
think that the the US President has as much power as the London Mayor.

The single strongest bit of evidence against UK mayors being properly
democratic is that their major policies and budgets are adopted *unless*
two-thirds of the Council or London Assembly vote against them. So just
over one third of the body supporting the Mayor is all he needs to rule as
they wish.

Well, that and being elected by a majority of the electorate in the first
place.

tom

--
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity -- Hanlon's Razor

These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
 

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:59:29 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:40:48 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

I find it sad and ironic that people seem to think that the way to
"fix" a government which has become arrogant and corrupt is to vote
instead for the party they kicked out a dozen years earlier for being
arrogant and corrupt.

Agreed. But it is the only option available under the current system.

Only the two parties standing in your constituency, then?


In these days of tactical voting, if people are unhappy with the
ruling party, they vote to unseat the incumbent if he/she is a member
of the ruling party.

So there are basically two options; vote for the incumbent or vote for
whoever has the best chance of beating them.

These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
 

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:24:08 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

So there are basically two options; vote for the incumbent or vote for
whoever has the best chance of beating them.

Which is, of course, why the two alternating bunches of venal *******s
invest so much time and effort in assuring you that the two
alternating bunches of venal *******s are your only choices.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
 

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:46:32 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

Which is, of course, why the two alternating bunches of venal *******s
invest so much time and effort in assuring you that the two
alternating bunches of venal *******s are your only choices.

And is in itself both an excellent argument in favour of proportional
representation, and the precise reason why neither party will ever
bring it in.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round
 

In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:46:32 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

Which is, of course, why the two alternating bunches of venal *******s
invest so much time and effort in assuring you that the two
alternating bunches of venal *******s are your only choices.

And is in itself both an excellent argument in favour of proportional
representation, and the precise reason why neither party will ever
bring it in.

Unless they are forced to. I just wish the public pressure from the
expenses scandal would lead to this. It could still happen, especially if
the "it'll all go away over the summer" hopes of leading politicians turns
out to be wrong.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
 

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:46:32 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:24:08 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

So there are basically two options; vote for the incumbent or vote for
whoever has the best chance of beating them.

Which is, of course, why the two alternating bunches of venal *******s
invest so much time and effort in assuring you that the two
alternating bunches of venal *******s are your only choices.


Of course. A vote for a party that can never hope to form a
government is of course "a wasted vote".

These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round
 

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:46:32 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:24:08 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

So there are basically two options; vote for the incumbent or vote for
whoever has the best chance of beating them.

Which is, of course, why the two alternating bunches of venal *******s
invest so much time and effort in assuring you that the two
alternating bunches of venal *******s are your only choices.


Of course. A vote for a party that can never hope to form a
government is of course "a wasted vote".

The evidence is against you there these days. The number of MPs not from
the two largest parties has been rising throughout my lifetime and their
influence is far from trivial these days.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
 

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:38:25 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

Of course. A vote for a party that can never hope to form a
government is of course "a wasted vote".

See, when I rule the world the rules will be as follows: single
transferrable vote, and nobody elected who polls less than 50% of the
eligible electorate after transfers.

And of course if they introduce that, most MPs would be out of a job.
And the best thing for them.

I'll wait until they have picked themselves up off the floor before
outlining the rest of it: anyone with a degree in politics or similar
is disqualified, minimum age for candidacy is 40, 2 term limit in any
cabinet position and you must have worked for at least five of the
previous ten years in a job not immediately connected with politics.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round
 

In article ,
(Just zis Guy, you know?) wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:38:25 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

Of course. A vote for a party that can never hope to form a
government is of course "a wasted vote".

See, when I rule the world the rules will be as follows: single
transferrable vote, and nobody elected who polls less than 50% of the
eligible electorate after transfers.

That's hardly compatible with STV with multi-member constituencies and
quota counting, the standard British form of PR. Almost no-one will then
poll over 50% of the electorate personally.

And of course if they introduce that, most MPs would be out of a job.
And the best thing for them.

Indeed. But I want some of the advantages, like reduced power of the
parties to coerce MPs to do what the people the represent don't.

I'll wait until they have picked themselves up off the floor before
outlining the rest of it: anyone with a degree in politics or similar
is disqualified, minimum age for candidacy is 40, 2 term limit in any
cabinet position and you must have worked for at least five of the
previous ten years in a job not immediately connected with politics.

Yes, that would be good, but then the first problem is to stop the "no
external jobs" idea. Ministers have two jobs already of course.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
 

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:03:05 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:38:25 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

Of course. A vote for a party that can never hope to form a
government is of course "a wasted vote".

See, when I rule the world the rules will be as follows: single
transferrable vote, and nobody elected who polls less than 50% of the
eligible electorate after transfers.


The 50% requirement means you are talking about the Alternative Vote
system which is being actively considered by "New" Labour.

The problem with it is that, on a national basis, it would produce
results that are even further removed from true proportional
representation than the current system.