Loz

I use http://orchardhosting.com/. I switched to them from http://www.heartinternet.co.uk/ Both are quite good, but Orchard had a better deal on Joomla hosting, so I switched to them. Orchard charge ?4 per year for a .co.uk domain name (that's portable to another provider if you ever change - you might want to check that other deals) and have hosting packages at ?9.99, ?24.99, ?49.99 per year. The couple of times I have needed to contact support the response has been excellent.

Yep. One very good tip - keep it simple. There are so many whizzy bangie things available, but most of the just hurt the retina. A really good example of what not to do.. A nice clean website design will make things easy. Look at the best example of this - Google (even though they occasionally try to wreck it).

Graffiti was a bit tame in those days, computedshorty!

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In fairness to Loz, the reason her ... I assure you Silverfox, that judging by the contents of my underwear I am most definitely a 'he'.

Only by passing it through a DVD recorder or using a specialist card like the Hauppauge WinTV HVR 1600 to record it as an analog signal.

As for PFI, well I would struggle to think of a more wasteful, inefficient way of financing anything. But that is hardly the private sector's fault.

Blimey. Forum member or the forum itself being sued?

Yep - they fall for it time and again. Standard EDS practice is to come in very low and then either renegotiate pretty much straight away or dump most of the contract into change control. Ker-ching. [Dons flame-proof suit] Actually, in a lot of cases - especially IT - it is. Most PS contracts, in my experience, that go off the rails are due to the some pretty ridiculous meddling and some horrendously badly thought-out requirements that don't in any way match what is actually needed, despite any advice to the contrary. Of course, there are complete cock-ups on the contractors side, but they usually end up in court. But there's a good reason why most of the IT disasters don't end up in court and it generally comes down to what is asked for (and contracted for) and what they actually want not being the same thing. Also, there are a great many successful projects, but they never quite make it to Private Eye for some reason.

Been there, done that MM. There is one simple rule to getting government contracts - be the cheapest. The treasury rule the roost.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Funny you should say that. 8 saffas and an > englishman in the dutch side. Sort of like a > negative of the england side. Waddya mean a negative? That sounds like it could *be* the England side...

Five stories there is rather out of place, as well.

I see what you mean, minkturtle, but you are questioning the whole notion of a parliamentary democracy. Frankly, I'm not sure the UK is quite ready for that debate yet.

karter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's either March or May, think it began with an m.:)) Monday?

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe I'm not as daft as you'd like me to be. Actually, I suspect your not as daft as you are making out to be.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > After jumping through hoops the majority of people > have ended up with second best. But second best is better than something you *really* don't want. I think Huguenot is right - you are feigning daftness and, indeed, borderline trolling now. Nobody can take this long to pick up such a relatively simple concept. Still, as I said above, you've proved useful, both for me to put the AV argument and for you to show the paucity of the FPTP argument. So, thanks.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think you know that, it's why you're feigning daftness. I've suspected that for a while, too. But, silverfox has enabled me to put together what I hope is a good argument for AV that may just convince some of the 200+ viewers of this thread to vote Yes.

No, that's the part you are not following, silverfox. I'm setting the scenario that: 1) Silverfox is actively disliked by 61 of the 100 pupils, but liked by 39 2) Carnell and Loz are liked by all, but because of the vote-splitting nature of FPTP, scored 30 pupils each. (Brendan obviously voted for himself!) 3) Had only silverfox and Carnell been in the election then Carnell would have won easily. This is what AV is really, really good at - showing *preferences*. Try this: imagine you offered an ice-cream to 10 kids, but they all had to have the same flavour. You decide to have a vote. 1) Everyone votes and the outcome is chocolate (4), vanilla (3), strawberry (2) and pistachio (1). 2) You then narrow the choice down by taking pistachio away as an option, as it is least popular. 3) Everyone votes again. This time the result is chocolate (4), vanilla (4) and strawberry (2). 4) You then narrow the choice down by removing strawberry. 5) The final vote (since there are only two choices) and its chocolate (4), vanilla (6 ). Do you think this is a fair way of working out what the most popular choice was, rather than just taking chocolate on the first vote? Do you think more kids are happier with the final choice of flavour? Do you see that chocolate was not as the choice of the majority?

Thank you for this example - it is fundamental to the advantages of AV. You are right that the analysis of the results shows all to be correct. But, because they used FPTP, it doesn't show the full story. Because, although Silverfox had the support of 39 of his classmates, the other 61 cannot stand the sight of him. Had the election used AV, then after preferences had been distributed the final result would have been Silverfox with 39 votes and david_carnell with 61 votes. Carnell would have gone forward in his duty, safe in the knowledge that he had the support of the majority of his classmates. Instead, the majority of the class rebelled and would not recognise Silverfox's authority as milk monitor. You can't 'elect' a person to office to do a job if they don't have the support of the majority.

Not me. Unison's alternative to save ?33M is to "sack wasteful consultants as well the bottomless pit of private contractors. No privatization, bring services back in-house" and to spend the Council's reserves. All they are really worried about is ensuring their membership doesn't decrease.

Idyll

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sad to see more development on what was and > suspect technically still is Metropolitan Open > Land. > Equally, as its next to Dulwiohc Hamlets I'd > welcome some more passive security there - but > very clunky way to achieve that. James, That in itself seems like the best reason to reject this. Do you know what the rules are for building on Metropolitan Open Land?

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz said: ...The whole purpose of democracy in > this country is to elect a representative and send > them off to Westminster... > > No it's not. That may be the purpose of the > electoral system but Democracy is about lots of > very important things such as protecting liberty, > the absence of restraint, freedom of expression, > the ability to worship, not to be unfairly > incarcerated and tortured for opposing the views > of the ruling classes, not to have to bribe > corrupt officials and so on. Many of these ideals > are denied to millions around the world. Electing > representatives to Parliament, local government > and other public offices and the way we organise > this is just a structural means to an end. That's not correct. Democracy is defined as "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." All the things you mention *usually* flow from a democracy, but a democracy could elect a government that does not allow such things, should it so desire. So therefore an improvement, like AV, to the electoral system is, ergo, an enhancement to democracy. > > Why 50% is significant or desirable? > > Loz said: "...Erm... are you kidding? Because it > is majority!..." > > It's one possible majority Loz. 30% can be a > majority of total votes cast if several candidates > receive lesser percentages. In cases where no one > candidate genuinely achieves 50% of the vote, the > AV idea of a 50% majority is a contrivance - an > artifical arrangement whereby the votes are > transferred on a notion of 'best of a bad bunch'. > They are not genuine votes for the candidate to > whom they are transferred. You mistake a majority for a plurality. A majority is *always* more that 50% of the vote, which is why FPTP is an inferior voting system as it does not always respect the wishes of the majority. > Loz said: "... If it means that the will of the > people is better reflected then democracy can only > be the winner..." > > If I thought AV would better reflect the will of > the people then I would support it. But it just > appears to me to be tinkering with process. I > suspect the Conservatives will still get in in > Kensington and Chelsea and Labour will win the > seats in Glasgow. AV may help the smaller parties > but most of these tend to have limited issues or > are single-issue parties. The BNP may win Barking, > the Greens Hampstead. Society will hardly be > transformed. If the BNP win Barking, then that is the will of the people of Barking. Is it democracy to put in an electoral system to achieve a certain result because you don't like what might happen otherwise? > Loz asked: "...what is so good about FPTP?..." > > I'm not claiming FPTP is the best electoral > system. But it works. For all its faults it > generally results in strong governments able to > make policy. Unlike many of our continental > neighbours who are plagued by coalition > governments, compromise that satisfies nobody and > paralysis when it all breaks down, the English > Parliament can legislate even if the policies > aren't to your taste. > > If it ain't broke why fix it? and be careful what > you wish for. That's rather disingenuous. You are trying to cloud this issue by bringing up continental electoral systems, none of which, as far as I'm aware, use AV. AV produces just as stable government as FPTP (as Australia has proven), but with the added advantage of more accurately reflecting the views of the electorate. It's interesting that, when pushed for the advantages of FPTP, you've not come up with any that AV can't match. AV is a better system. Why stay with FPTP just because "it works", especially when there is something better? AV has been proven to work and, with it's greater advantages to the electorate, we'd be crazy not to switch.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Explain to me how AV will enhance democracy? Easy. The whole purpose of democracy in this country is to elect a representative and send them off to Westminster. AV enhances this by allowing people to express their preferences, it allows them to vote for smaller parties and protest parties without it being a wasted vote, means guesswork tactical voting is no longer required and means that, when it comes down to the final two candidates with the most support the winner knows that on that two-person basis he/she has the support of the electorate. FPTP is an extremely limited way of trying to gauge opinion. > Why 50% is significant or desirable? Erm... are you kidding? Because it is majority! Which is pretty much a central tenet of democracy. Apparently two-thirds of MPs in 2010 were elected with less that 50% of the vote. How can that be democracy in action? > Why you think it will do any more than give the > Liberal Democrats perhaps another 10 to 15 seats > in Parliament? What makes you think it will? AV does strike at the two-party system, so I would say all the all the smaller parties will benefit. But the Tories and Labour will also benefit from, in most cases, getting those lost votes back again as the preferences are counted. And does it matter whichever party benefits or loses out? If it means that the will of the people is better reflected then democracy can only be the winner. Interestingly the exchanges between silverfox and I will probably reflect how the campaigns will be run. The Yes camp will be positive and show up the benefits of AV. The No camp will be negative, trying the discredit AV without ever trying to show the benefits of FPTP. Possibly because they realise there aren't that many to shout about. So, how about it silverfox... what is so good about FPTP?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Equally, very very few people praise anything or > anyone when things go well. But boy does the > council and officers get brickbats when it goes > badly. Unsuprisingly this can make council > officers very cautious and wary of outsiders. And > caution can result in lack of initiative leading > to poor service and poorer preceptions of value > for money. Well you should pass this thread around, James. I think Southwark has come out looking rather good.

Silverfox is the best argument for a Yes vote I've seen.