Marmora Man

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Yes silverfox, party A does not win under AV because they do not have a majority. To give party A control when the majority do not want them in power is not democracy, it's a large scale fraud as big as the one the Tories are currently perpetrating on the public by ruling when 65% of the voters did not want them in power. That's absolutely clear and simple. Vote Yes to AV, because it's democratic, it's honest and it's representative. BUT ...... Half of Party B voters would have been quite happy with Party A in power and more than 25% of Party C voters would have been happy with Party A as well so it's a little simplistic to say that the majority of voters did not want Party A in power. If you add first & second preference votes together, and give them equal weight, it looks like: Party A: 4,100 1st Pref votes + 2,300 2nd Pref votes = 6,400 votes Party B: 3,000 1st Pref votes + 2,900 2nd Pref votes = 5,900 votes Party C: 2,900 1st Pref votes + 4,800 2nd Pref votes = 7,700 votes However, due to the vagaries of this more democratic, honest and representative AV system Party C, the one with the greatest number of first & second preference votes is eliminated in Round One. Party A which came first in Round One comes second in Round Two but loses to Party B despite having a greater total of first and second preference votes. Hugenot says it's simple, democratic, honest and representative but I get confused - and I can handle a 5 ship submarine attack in poor light and high seas using three stop watches, two control room clocks and my brain to compute range(s) [using heights, angles and simple trigonmetry], time, safety, attack angles and torpedo running time while remaining totally undetected. Vote NO on 5th May - I will, you know it makes sense.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If it helps - I was watching Ice Station Zebra. A classic of submarine movies - the best scene being when the Captain instructs the engineer to "take it (the reactor) into the red, Kowalski". Second best scene - where in passing the reactor compartment the reactor is seen to throb gently with a red light. Oh how we laughed when at sea in nuclear boats.

Who are these minority right wingers that are in control? In the last 14 years UK has had a New Labour administration followed by a coalition administration of a year's standing. Prior to that there was the 5 year John Major led conservative administration which was essentially ineffectual. So in the last 20 years the majority have been left of centre led. As for dishonesty - the Yes vote claim AV will make MPs work harder and not fiddle expenses and will be fairer. None of these claims is verifiable or even testable. The NO vote claims FPTP is simpler and less costly. Both are verifiable and testable. PS: Some Yes to AV supporters even claim it would have avoided slavery - which is simply laughable.

Not a great post DJKQ - kneejerk perhaps?: It is, of course, the same shared British history that lead the world in abolishing the established slave trade. The peak of Britain's involvement in the slave trade was probably the 17th & 18th centuries - and while Liverpool and Bristol undoubtedly spent on grand buildings - much of the tourist grabbing grand building took place outside this period. Tower of London, Hadrian's Wall, Stonehenge, Westminster Cathedral anyone?

huncamunca Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry to say oil worker, you are not going to get > a representative sample by asking this on the > EDcatForum Yup, this forum will generally takes a position that is left of left of centre and reflect modish guardianista opinion rather than the more traditional, centrist and sensible views of the country at large.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > yup - Social media is full of bah-humbug > contrived, gesturing, it's below me, > quasi-republicans... > > YES below you etc, now STF up and let most people > enjoy a bit of fun and pageantry on a day off > Hey - I'm no republican - just not good with formal weddings. Very happy for all those that enjoyed the show as I enjoyed my walk. > The decent republicans have either kept quite or > gone abroad the banging drum spoiling it for > everyone else posturers are hovering about all > over the internet.....

Nobody is paying even 68p a day. Civil List budget 2011: ?7.9m Crown estate income: ?212m Simples - the country makes a profit from the 19th century deal between Parliament and the Monarchy

Just back from my walk - anything interesting happen while I was out?

IN fact she's only guilty of the last sin - the crown gave up its income from Crown Estates about 180 years ago in return for the Civil List payments to the Royal Family. At that stage George III was effectively bankrupt and he agreed the exchange. Any riches the Queen has in her personal possession arise from wise investments, savings and gifts during the last 180 years. The state takes an income from the Crown Estate that is vastly in excess of the Civil List payments made to the Monarchy. While I wouldn't usually quote Wikipedia this article is pretty accurate. PS: I support the monarchy as an institution but recognise that certain members of the extended Windsor family are fair game for criicism - Fergie, Andrew and their offspring being top of my personal horror list.

I see from today's papers that Tim Farron MP (Lib Dem) claims FPTP sustained slavery and Thatcherism and, by implication, that AV would have Prevented both. If this campaign runs for much longer no doubt we'll discover that AV will cure cancer and lead to world peace.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Marmora Man, you are quite beyond belief. What > would your wife say if you said 'calm down dear' > in front of your mates in order to remind her that > you are a man and she needs to know her place? > > *comprehensive non Labour MP disbelief* > > Looking for the men-stuck-in-1050 poster book. My wife would laugh and come back at me with a similar, non threatening, relevant and perhaps marginally amusing put down. Neither of us believes in po faced rectitude. I'm not defending Cameron's wit - as a parliamentary put down it was weak - I'm amused by the degree of righteousness that Labour and its supporters can muster in response to such a lame joke.

Lady Deliah - the argument put up by Nashoi is very weak indeed. I call for robust management in the NHS. I would ask for the same robust management of poor performers in any sector - from schools to the armed forces to parliament and everywhere in between. However, I do not see the link you profess to make between a strange, unusual and illogical new voting system and improving the performance of politicians. There are many ways of keeping politicians honest - but changing the way we vote for them every 5 years isn't one of them. Try - attending their surgeries, press interest, full transparency on all payments and links to sponsors, regular Q&A sessions, the right to recall for re-election, an end to super injunctions, a free and intrusive press among others. Additionally even the YES proponents only claim it will make a difference in about 60 constituencies - so what happens in the other 500?

do tell

Not exactly a major political story. Priggish Labour MPs can't take a joke - what's newsworthy about that?

It seems from reports that apathy and the traditional British resistance to change will result in a small margin, on a low turn out, for retaining the status quo. As long as the Yes campaigners cannot invoke the EU rule of continuing to hold referenda until the answer meets the politico / bureaucrat wish we'll be OK for another generation.

But one kid has what they really wanted and one has to make do with their third preference - which out of a choice of three "kinda sucks" as my children would have said.

Loz - I take it that you are Australian. I further assume you have lived mostly in London over recent years. Within the metropoliltan, ethnic / political / cultural mix that makes up London's political geeks your comment would pass as received wisdom. However, I believe your view is slightly misguided or based on a misapprehension. Those of us that have lived in UK all our lives and are old enough to remember the 80s can recall a time when received wisdom was that the Conservatives were the natural party of government. Equally, outside of London the current supposed left of centre leaning is not quite as apparent as you would have us believe - Cornwall, Devon, West Midlands, Essex are just some of the areas I've lived in - the general approach to life and politics in these areas is a cross between - not too much change too quickly, "them Lunnun Politicians don't know owt", and "let's apply common sense and keep it simple" and a very strong belief in the concept of fairness - as defined by "getting what they deserve, not free handouts" - broadly right of centre on almost everything.

Because the AV system does not mean a politician has to appeal to 50% of the electorate. He/she has to ensure that they collect enough second preference votes to accumulate a winning number of votes as set out in accordance with a new rule book. Amusingly this is exactly what the principal Yes to AV spokesman did - and shafted his brother in the process. This is not the same as appealing to 50%. Second preference means - less preferred, it's a ranking. So an AV winer may have 35% first preference votes and 16% second preference or 16% of "well he's not my first choice but I can live with him / or I don't want that other bloke to get in" voters. That's not democracy - it's a con. Democracy as I understand it involves putting your case to the voters and seeing which case wins the most votes. It's simple and it can be brutal but it works. If "left" or "right" cannot combine around a single candidate and thus split their own "natural" supporters, then more fool them. Their arguments are either too weak or they're too disorganised to put up an effective opposition.

When Scotland introduced STV the cost of elections rose, over twofold, from ?17 million to ?39 million. A similar increase would lift the current cost of a General Election from circa ?85m to roughly ?185m. The Scottish costs included the cost of vote counting machines, and I know that Australia don?t use vote counting machines but they are, essentially, a two party political system ? UK is a three party and AV, in UK would, I content, tend to increase the number of ?bit player parties? making vote counting machines inevitable. My forecast of ?50m additional cost was intended to be a conservative (no pun intended) estimate ? so as not to court charges of hyperbole.

BUT: Cleggie Speaks

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sure dictatorship is even cheaper than FPTP. Maybe we should go for that instead. Dictatorship is way too expensive - mainly of lives, not money. cf: Libya, Syria, Bahrain, USSR, China, et al.

Hugenot, You call the No supporters "bullshitters" for apparently shading the truth - but I can see very similar shading of the truth from the yes "bullshitters". There will be an increased cost of elections if AV is introduced, not I am sure a threefold increase but certainly a measurable number of millions at each election. I believe ?50m is closer to the mark. Yes "bullshitters" claim AV is more democratic, that it will make MPs work harder and that it would make MPs abuse of expenses a thing of the past. None of these propositions is at all measurable. The AV system is not self evidently more democratic and simply repeatedly saying it is does not constitute a rational argument. I cannot see how a changed voting system will make MPs work harder and quite how a changed voting system will prevent abuse of expenses is beyond me. Finally you have exhibited a tendency in this thread to characterise opponents of AV as right wing and anti democratic, implying somehow that left of centre is more democratic. Given that over half the parliamentary Labour Party is intending to vote no - including a number of shadow cabinet members such as Caroline Flint and John Healey I cannot see how the Left /Right analysis supports the Yes case

Mr Loxley - you have many options: a. Call the police b. Call the Southwark Noise Nuisance team c. Pop round and complain d. Ignore Not sure that the one you have chosen - whinging on the EDF, will effect any change tho.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > *chuckle* > > I haven't got time to locate all those quotes from > MM where he says 'the British don't do sudden > change' is a good thing. > > Now it's 'trickle change' is a bad thing. > > You can't have it both ways!! > > It is clear that politicians under AV will have to > do far more to attract a broader base of voters > under AV. What FPTP offers is a sudden change to a > minority extremist position. > > According to MM's own views, that's a bad thing. No inconsistency here - I am a conservative with a small "c". I see no need to change the FPTP system which has worked effectively for over 200 years. The purported advantages of AV are specious and suspect. I am therefore against this change. I also prefer decisiveness to dither. I campaigned against New Labour and T Blair in the 90's but accepted the overwhelming result and, intellectually (if not emotionally) accepted that the Conservative administration had run out of steam. I was disappointed in the Nu Labour administration and campaigned against it where I could, I am glad that while the General Election result last May was not as decisive as I would have wished it did, at least, rid us of a failed administration.

NHS Reforms - some basic propositions for discussion: Stop regarding the NHS, a system created 70 years ago to serve a very different country and population, as a sacred cow that cannot be changed, developed or improved. 1. Reduce bureaucracy and get rid of SHAs and PCTs - saving approximately ?10bn a year. 2. Hand over the decisions about what treatments are required, where they are carried out and when they are carried out to primary care professionals that meet patients every day. NOTE: Additional management and transactions costs of 2. approximately ?5bn a year. Net saving from 1 & 2 = ?5bn a year. 3. Give most NHS managers a spinal stiffener to enable them to confront and weed out the lazy, incompetent and dangerous staff they all know are in the system. 4. Keep the NHS free at the point of delivery and tax funded - but allow top ups (for example to purchase drugs on trial and not yet NICE approved, or to move to a side rooms, or to purchase food from the restaurant across the road rather than suffer warmed up "cook/chill" slop). 5. Allow the primary care professionals to purchase care from whoever and wherever they find most effective, efficient, safe and price sensitive. 6. Support private healthcare - every person that is treated at their personal(or insurer's) cost represents money that doesn't have to be spent by the NHS - so its funding goes further toward treating those that cannot afford private healthcare. WARNING ANECDOTE: In Cambridge, with a large liberal left / academic population, approximately 12.5% of the population have private health insurance - much provided by the University to its lecturers and dons. Yet overall up to 50% of those insured do not use their insurance - preferring to quote "support their local NHS". This is very shortsighted thinking. 7. Politicians and government should treat the public like grown ups and not pretend, for the sake of votes, that it is possible to have a hospital on every street corner and a 24/7 GP service in every home.