|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round
|
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round
asdf wrote:
How could they be forced to? It's a chicken and egg situation; under the current system, the only pratical way the public can "force" Labour to do anything is to (threaten to) elect the Tories, and vice versa, and neither party will introduce PR or STV. Whilst a large Lib Dem opinion poll lead might do the trick, enough of the electorate is firmly stuck in a 2-party (or 1-party) mindset for this to remain pure fantasy. Labour is considering holding a referendum on switching to Alternative Vote on election day. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:02:43 +0100, Bruce
wrote: 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. Single transferable vote, actually. Which would be fine, I think, as long as it was made clear to people that they did not have to put a number against every candidate. Five candidates, express your first and second preference and after that "none of the above". Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round
|
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round
|
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 06:44:37 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:02:43 +0100, Bruce wrote: 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. Single transferable vote, actually. Which would be fine, I think, as long as it was made clear to people that they did not have to put a number against every candidate. Five candidates, express your first and second preference and after that "none of the above". I think you have pretty well described New Labour's Alternative Vote system, which is likely to be more unfair than the current system. The trouble is that none of the current political parties can be trusted to come up with a fair system. Their grip on power is only possible because of unfairness. Didn't Tony Blair commission a report on electoral reform from Lord (Roy) Jenkins, then bin it because he didn't like the recommendations? |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 03:01:23 +0100, "Basil Jet"
wrote: asdf wrote: How could they be forced to? It's a chicken and egg situation; under the current system, the only pratical way the public can "force" Labour to do anything is to (threaten to) elect the Tories, and vice versa, and neither party will introduce PR or STV. Whilst a large Lib Dem opinion poll lead might do the trick, enough of the electorate is firmly stuck in a 2-party (or 1-party) mindset for this to remain pure fantasy. Labour is considering holding a referendum on switching to Alternative Vote on election day. But Alternative Vote is even more unfair than the present system, as it would deliver even larger majorities in Parliament on an even smaller proportion of the total votes cast than now. That cannot be right. Labour is only considering thr referendum in order to paint the Tories as being opposed to any change. But *everyone* should oppose Alternative Vote - it would be a very bad system for the UK. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round
|
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
|
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
Bruce wrote:
I think you have pretty well described New Labour's Alternative Vote system, which is likely to be more unfair than the current system. The trouble is that none of the current political parties can be trusted to come up with a fair system. Their grip on power is only possible because of unfairness. Although most of the time the public seem happy that way. And not just in the UK - voters in British Columbia have recently rejected a proposed move from First Past The Post to mult-member STV, despite it being chosen by a "citizen's jury" and some recent election results that would be a godsend for British PR advocates. Didn't Tony Blair commission a report on electoral reform from Lord (Roy) Jenkins, then bin it because he didn't like the recommendations? Yes but it would be wrong to blame just Blair for this. Enthusiasm for PR in the Labour Party dried up a lot after the 1997 election (much as it did in the Conservatives after 1979) and the Jenkins Commission + referendum was rapidly regarded as an unfortunate inclusion in the manifesto to throw a bone to Liberal Democrat voters. Furthermore the system that the Commission proposed was "Alternative Vote Plus", a ghastly hybrid Additional Member System that would involve: * Most MPs elected in constituencies but on the Alternative Vote * Lots of small regions with a handful of MPs elected on a top-up. It tried to meet all the requirements but calculations suggests it doesn't really: * You can still get governments elected on a minority of the votes cast if their support is sufficiently concentrated to sweep up the seats * The small number of top-up seats mean they would largely serve to help the second and third parties (and fourth in Wales and Scotland) make up a seat deficit rather than providing representation for other parties (this effect can be seen in the Welsh Assembly). * There would be two kinds of MP - constituency and list - in a single chamber which is frequently a recipe for rivalry and chaos. (A big complaint in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly is about list MSPs/AMs presenting themselves as the "local" representative, especially if they go on to contest that constituency at the next election. A law was passed to stop candidates standing in both constituencies and lists in Wales but it still happens in Scotland and London.) * All Additional Member Systems with multiple ballot papers can give some voters more voting power than others (vote for one successful party for the constituency and another for the list) and the likeliehood of overhangs (a party gets more constituency seats than its list vote entitles it to) magnifies this. * Parties can also game the system by running separately on the constituencies and lists (an Italian tactic called "decoy lists"). * "Safe seats" would still exist in constituencies and those politicians at the head of their local list would be guaranteed election. * A big name could lose their constituency but still be in the parliament - this happen in Germany with Helmut Kohl in 1998. As you can guess this system doesn't fill PR campaigners with a great deal of enthusiasm and there are splits over any prospective referendum between those who think any "PR" is better than the present system and those who think adopting this particular system will not solve the cited problems and make a preferred system *less* likely. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 12:22:42 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote: Bruce wrote: I think you have pretty well described New Labour's Alternative Vote system, which is likely to be more unfair than the current system. The trouble is that none of the current political parties can be trusted to come up with a fair system. Their grip on power is only possible because of unfairness. Although most of the time the public seem happy that way. And not just in the UK - voters in British Columbia have recently rejected a proposed move from First Past The Post to mult-member STV, despite it being chosen by a "citizen's jury" and some recent election results that would be a godsend for British PR advocates. Didn't Tony Blair commission a report on electoral reform from Lord (Roy) Jenkins, then bin it because he didn't like the recommendations? Yes but it would be wrong to blame just Blair for this. Enthusiasm for PR in the Labour Party dried up a lot after the 1997 election (much as it did in the Conservatives after 1979) and the Jenkins Commission + referendum was rapidly regarded as an unfortunate inclusion in the manifesto to throw a bone to Liberal Democrat voters. Furthermore the system that the Commission proposed was "Alternative Vote Plus", a ghastly hybrid Additional Member System that would involve: * Most MPs elected in constituencies but on the Alternative Vote * Lots of small regions with a handful of MPs elected on a top-up. It tried to meet all the requirements but calculations suggests it doesn't really: * You can still get governments elected on a minority of the votes cast if their support is sufficiently concentrated to sweep up the seats * The small number of top-up seats mean they would largely serve to help the second and third parties (and fourth in Wales and Scotland) make up a seat deficit rather than providing representation for other parties (this effect can be seen in the Welsh Assembly). * There would be two kinds of MP - constituency and list - in a single chamber which is frequently a recipe for rivalry and chaos. (A big complaint in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly is about list MSPs/AMs presenting themselves as the "local" representative, especially if they go on to contest that constituency at the next election. A law was passed to stop candidates standing in both constituencies and lists in Wales but it still happens in Scotland and London.) * All Additional Member Systems with multiple ballot papers can give some voters more voting power than others (vote for one successful party for the constituency and another for the list) and the likeliehood of overhangs (a party gets more constituency seats than its list vote entitles it to) magnifies this. * Parties can also game the system by running separately on the constituencies and lists (an Italian tactic called "decoy lists"). * "Safe seats" would still exist in constituencies and those politicians at the head of their local list would be guaranteed election. * A big name could lose their constituency but still be in the parliament - this happen in Germany with Helmut Kohl in 1998. As you can guess this system doesn't fill PR campaigners with a great deal of enthusiasm and there are splits over any prospective referendum between those who think any "PR" is better than the present system and those who think adopting this particular system will not solve the cited problems and make a preferred system *less* likely. The trouble is we in Britain always have to invent something of our own. What we should be doing is looking at the most successful comparable democracies (for some values of comparable and democracy) and selecting which successful system would be most approproate for the UK. A Royal Commission would be needed to do this. Unfortunately, Jenkins and his committee were appointed by the New Labour government. His commission therefore lacked the necessary independence, and his chairmanship brought with it Jenkins' legebdary lack of clarity of thought. Never use ten words where a hundred will do, and never overlook the opaque and complex "solutions" for something that is clear, simple and works! |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
"Dave Larrington" wrote in message ... In , tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us: Tell me , are british commuter cyclists just particularly incompetant and/or stupid compared to european ones who've been living with bendy buses for years or are you all - what most people suspect is the case - nothing but a bunch of tedious whingers? Tell me, do the drivers of bendy-buses in other European cities complete their overtaking manouevres before pulling in again, or do they just wait for the front two-thirds of the vehicle to pass the cyclist before forcing them into the kerb? I think the words "of bendy buses" are redundant in your post. And yes. All the best, pOB |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:49:34 +0100, Bruce
wrote: A Royal Commission would be needed to do this. I know you're right, but it does sound ironic, doesn't it? The solution to democratic deficit is to have a Royal commission... what could possibly go wrong? ;-) Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round
|
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round
|
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
Bruce wrote:
The trouble is we in Britain always have to invent something of our own. What we should be doing is looking at the most successful comparable democracies (for some values of comparable and democracy) and selecting which successful system would be most approproate for the UK. I believe the Jenkins Commission did look at other systems but the problem is that their remit contained a number of criteria for any system recommended. Fundamentally the debate on voting systems boils down to which factors people prioritise over one another - strong stable government, government that can be thrown out if the electorate desire it, numeric proportionality and so forth - and it's difficult to find a system that meets all the major ones. The British political culture is such that there are sizeable third parties who are expected to drift from side to side or maintain an independent position, whereas in, say, Germany the main third parties are allied to one or other of the big parties (although recently the emergence of The Left as an independent force is putting a spanner in the works) whilst in Malta third parties just don't appear. A Royal Commission would be needed to do this. Unfortunately, Jenkins and his committee were appointed by the New Labour government. Whether the Commission is government, Speaker's or Royal, it's likely to come to go through much the same process - hearings that just allow the voting system anoraks and ideologically committed to spout off whilst the public show no interest, analysis of various other systems in use and a set of criteria that rules out most of the alternatives before it's started. Until you can get agreement on the basic principles of what takes priority, it will just go round and round in circles. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 22:21:08 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote: Whether the Commission is government, Speaker's or Royal, it's likely to come to go through much the same process - hearings that just allow the voting system anoraks and ideologically committed to spout off whilst the public show no interest, analysis of various other systems in use and a set of criteria that rules out most of the alternatives before it's started. Until you can get agreement on the basic principles of what takes priority, it will just go round and round in circles. That was certainly true of the Jenkins Commission. But the mistake was surely for the (New Labour) government to be allowed to commission it then handicap it with over-specific terms of reference. Jenkins had no option but to please Blair, whereas a Royal Commission would have been independent and would have set its own agenda. Also, the fact that Blair had commissioned Jenkins meant that he could safely ignore the Commission's conclusions and recommendations. Blair would have found it much more difficult to ignore the recommendations of a Royal Commission. The Jenkins Commission was a sop to the LibDems whom Blair had courted with the promise of electoral reform if they supported a Labour government after the 1997 election - Labour might not have secured a large majority and the LibDems would have been crucial to getting legislation through Parliament. In the event, Blair got his majority and discarded the LibDems like a used tissue. He still set up the Jenkins Commission as promised, but there was never any chance of electoral reform coming out of it because Blair no longer needed the support of any other party. Anyone who believes that New Labour's current musing about electoral reform is in any way genuine should consider what happened to the conclusions and recommendations of the Jenkins Commission. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round
In article ,
(Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote: wrote: * There would be two kinds of MP - constituency and list - in a single chamber which is frequently a recipe for rivalry and chaos. (A big complaint in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly is about list MSPs/AMs presenting themselves as the "local" representative, especially if they go on to contest that constituency at the next election. A law was passed to stop candidates standing in both constituencies and lists in Wales but it still happens in Scotland and London.) A bit of personal P Hain spitefulness. I seem to remember Labour trying to introduce it for Scotland as well but failing, possibly because they were directly and openly targetting Alex Salmond. They still haven't explained why various Labour candidates for the London Assembly stood for both constituency and list (e.g. Nicky Gavron). I have to say I don;t remember it in Scotland, maybe because the Welsh legislation was put through Westminster rather than Cardiff. A little over 30 years ago there was no debate on PR systems in this country. STV was the only "British" system which worked in accordance with the purely informal status of political parties in British political traditions. Things have changed a lot since 1976. Lord Blake has a lot to answer for. Was that when the Hansard Society did a report and recommended AMS? Thassaone. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round
|
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round
|
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round
In article ,
(Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote: wrote: A bit of personal P Hain spitefulness. I seem to remember Labour trying to introduce it for Scotland as well but failing, possibly because they were directly and openly targetting Alex Salmond. They still haven't explained why various Labour candidates for the London Assembly stood for both constituency and list (e.g. Nicky Gavron). I have to say I don;t remember it in Scotland, maybe because the Welsh legislation was put through Westminster rather than Cardiff. Wasn't the Scottish election also covered by Westminster legislation? Certainly the issue came up a bit at PMQs with Scottish Labour MPs expressing fake moral outrage that it was possible for this to happen. I suspect the difference may have been the ability of other parties to make an issue of this in Scotland compared to Wales. ISTR that happening too, I have to say. Perhaps it was just ministerial support that was lacking. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in
: Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: Not the first time. I believe the last Tory government polled fewer votes than Labour. No, the Conservatives in 1992 polled 14,093,007 votes (the largest number ever cast for a single party) and Labour polled 11,560,484. Though Blair/Brown polled less in 2005 (9,562,122) than Major did in 1997 (9,600,943) - this could be the statistic that Guy misremembered? |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
John B wrote in
: On Aug 1, 4:39*pm, nospam_lonelytraveller_nospam wrote: OTOH carrying on with a policy regardless of all the evidence for it be ing a bad idea and with cost cutting going on already in public transport whi ch really didn't need the cost of a new fleet of buses imposed on top smac ks of bloody mindedness at best. It seems Boris isn't a big enough man to admit when he's wrong, so I suppose in that sense he's not at all rare in pol itical circles. It seems Boris is a big enough man to carry out one of the major headline grabbing manifesto commitments that got him elected by the majority of the voting electorate. If you don't like that, remember you're in the minority. Presumably you were also well in favour of the[*] US state legislature that passed a law deeming the value of pi to be 4? Was that a manifesto pledge? |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
Lucas wrote:
The 29 is awfully busy along the whole route I feel, even after Manor House it stays incredibly busy; and gets busier even because of the big gap between Manor House and Turnpike Lane tube stations that is Harringay. The problem is simply Green Lanes itself which is ridiculously congested and always the slowest part of the route, but I can't think of much of an alternative, given that the only parallel road is also quite busy (Wightman Rd) Introduce a new bus from Piccadilly Circus via Portland Place, Hampstead Road, Junction Road and Tottenham Lane to Wood Green, extended at night to Enfield. It should be quicker than the 29 day and night, so it will get most of the long distance traffic. Cut the frequency of the 29, and terminate it at Wood Green day and night. No-one going from Wood Green to Camden will ever have to suffer Green Lanes again. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk