Jump to content

Loz

Member
  • Posts

    8,453
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Loz

  1. Carnell - you are arguing from the same side of the table as UKIP-touting silverfox, Margaret Beckett and most of the Conservative Party. That must tell you something. Give up now! Why do they call it First Past the Post, anyway? It's actually Closest to the Pin (for the golfers), since you don't actually have to make it to the 50% winning line. Actually Australia's huge landmass makes it more suited to the FPTP system, as you don't need to have all the votes in the same place to do the count. But since the UK brings the votes to a single counting room anyway, even for FPTP, there is no real impact on the UK by changing. And you've been reading Margaret Beckett in the Guardian today, haven't you. (She also claimed AV would need "extra polling stations", which is a good indicator of the sorts of fallacies being peddled by the No camp). The first poll in Australia with AV (1917) had normal levels of turnout. The second (1922) did have a lower turnout, but I've not seen anything that attributes that to the change in voting system. In fact, as the table shows here, the voting turnout merely returned to their pre-war, old voting system levels. I think Beckett has jumped on and interpreted a single stat to meet her own prejudices, without actually examining history to see if that was actually the case. Incidentally, a similar drop in turnout can be seen to have occurred after Labout won in 1997. Maybe we should ban Labour...! :)
  2. ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > KeyboardWarrior Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > If I was a shop owner I would display whatever > wanted in my shop window. > > > > Whatever a shop owner wants to display, eh? So > if he was to put up a large picture of you with > the > > word 'rapist' underneath you would support his > right to do this? I don't think so. > > Introducing the notion of 'supporting' a right > just complicates matters. Why not just stick to > the question of whether or not the right exists? > > On that question I think the onus is on you, for > whatever meanings of 'right' you intend, to show > that the right does not exist. If I follow this correctly, you are asking me to show that the right does not exist for a shopkeeper to display whatever they want in their window?? Of course it doesn't. On another thread we are discovering that wearing a T-shirt with 'B****cks to Blair' can get you arrested. Whilst the police were not involved, the recent case at Westfield seems rather relevant. As far as my post goes, it's just a case of using extrapolation to extremes to show the fallacy in a person's argument. It's not always applicable or relevant, but in this case I think it did the job quite nicely.
  3. silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just looking at this again. Loz also said: > > "... 3) Any elected MP knows that they have the > backing of the electorate...." > > No they don't. Unless it's clear cut, they've > reached 50% in their constituency beacause of some > sort of numerical shuffle. If the electorate > really thought he/she was the person for the job > they've put him/her first. > > If Bloggs reaches 50% because the 4th and 3rd > votes were transferred then really - ask yourself > seriously - is this the new dumbing down? > > The paradox of democracy I call it. OK. Try "... 3) Any elected MP knows that they have the backing of the electorate, relative to the other candidates" In Australia they have the concept of the "two-party preferred vote". It comes down to the fact that, even though you were being obtuse in my point that you can vote according to who you like the least, most peoples preferences lie at the extremes. That is, thy know who they like and who they don't like - it's actually the ones in the middle that leave them saying, "Meh...". So, whomever you number last is actually quite significant. Take this list of candidates: Labour, Monster Raving Loony, Tory, BNP, Independent, Lib Dem, UKIP Most people will immediately decide their first 1 or 2... then their last one or two. So the lower preferences are actually quite meaningful, especially when signifying the 'anyone but X' preference. To make it easier, take this candidate list: "Independent 1, Independent 2, Independent 3, BNP". Most people would look at that list and say, "Don't mind, just not the BNP" bloke. Under FPTP that is not possible to reflect on the ballot, except via tactical voting. Under AV it is much simpler to express your wishes.
  4. silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz said: > > " Why AV? > > 1) It allows you not just to vote for who you > want, but who you DON'T want..." > > Surely only a simpleton would vote for who he/she > didn't want? I'll be nice and assume you are being deliberately obtuse. > > If I thought such a change would be fairer > democratically and would lead to a more > representative government then fair enough. But I > suspect it will lead to hung parliaments where no > one party can make decisions. Such compromised > decisions will not necessarily be for the greater > good. The experience in Australia is that it doesn't lead to hung parliaments. In fact, the UK have had more hung parliaments over the years than Oz.
  5. I think you are a bit confused, Narnia. No one puts England players in a cricket team. Especially England.
  6. Usman Khawaja was only the seventh foreign-born player to be capped for Australia in that last 80 years. Coincidentally, seven is the average number of foreign-born players in the England team at any given time over the last 10 years. :))
  7. What? Mothers in Long Frocks? What's wrong with that? B)
  8. ???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > SO in summary, you're scared of Yummies and White > Van man Well the Yummies/MILFs are pretty bloody terrifying. Most of them carting around a small number of Weapons of Mass Destruction (aged 2 to 4) that they think are God's gift to the future of the world, when actually most of the are going to grow up to be accountants. [retreats to concrete bunker]
  9. mike-fitt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sure it is better than Lambeth Council! Anything is better than Lambeth Council. I'd rather a flock of dead sheep than Lambeth Council.
  10. KeyboardWarrior Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If I was a shop owner I would display whatever I > wanted in my shop window. Whatever a shop owner wants to display, eh? So if he was to put up a large picture of you with the word 'rapist' underneath you would support his right to do this? I don't think so. > The shopkeeper surely reserves the right to serve who he wants, and does > not want. I don't recall anyone making any argument otherwise.
  11. Depends what you mean by effective - to me it says that, if Ed and Dave were the only two candidates (and all the other rubbish candidates had stayed out of it :))) then Ed would have won it. Which is what AV sets out to do. Correctly, IMHO.
  12. Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > david_carnell Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Pardon, Brendan? Are you trying to imply I'm > > acting as some mouthpiece? > > Not at all. I'm just trying to annoy you. Well that seems to have worked...
  13. Puzzled - are you connected with Celestial? You might want to jump to this thread...
  14. Southwark do a very good job of emptying my bin, picking up my recycling and keeping the streets clean. Really, that's all I need a council for. Anything else is a bonus.
  15. You're right, but that was my shorthand way of trying to give an example where 69% of the electorate probably least wanted the person that won the election. FPTP can never reflect this, AV can.
  16. It's not a proportionality issue to my mind, it is being able to caste your vote as you see fit. FPTP is extremely limited in reflecting my wishes as a voter. AV allows me to say "I'd like person A, but if I can't have that then I'd like person B. And I certainly don't want person Z". The other advantage with AV (over, in this case, PR) is that it still produces stable governments, rather than leaning towards coalitions. I think Australia have this pretty much right: the lower house is voted with the more stable AV system and the upper, reviewing house with a version of PR. It works well (though I don't really like Oz's PR voting system, but still, it works). Mockney Piers is sort of right on the Lib Dems. A vote for AV will be seen as a vote for electoral reform, wherever that may lead. A vote against AV will be taken as a vote for the status quo and we will probably find that nothing will ever change. Anyone who votes against AV on the basis that they want PR instead is almost certainly going to be disappointed. (And DC - tut tut for quoting that ?250m figure. That is a completely bogus amount - mind you it came from the head of the Tax Payers Alliance, so no surprise it's pulled from thin air.)
  17. Telephone sex for the txting generation.
  18. cincinatti kid Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for all the great advice. I had a look on a > couple of the sites recommended and staggeringly > was quoted approx a grand per person. Admittedly > that included ski lessons, equipment hire and lift > pass, but it still seems to be very expensive. Is > that about the norm or am I looking in the wrong > places? Seems like maybe it's a rich man's sport > if it is the case. Well, to break down a fairly normal holiday... Lift Pass: ?200 Equipment Hire: ?150 Lessons ?150 Flight, Transfer and Accommodation: ?500 So, yes, a grand is not out of the ball park. But, remember that you usually (in Europe) get breakfast and dinner (usually with wine). Also, shop around - there are loads of last minute deals around at the moment. Try lastminute.com and iglu.com. Also, a bit of a well kept secret is UCPA - French hostels that do really, really cheap all-in deals (especially popular with skint teachers who can't afford the inflated half-term prices that UK operators charge). UCPA have three partners in the UK: www.action-outdoors.co.uk www.outgoing.co.uk www.topdecktravel.co.uk About ?600 usually gets you accommodation, meals, liftpass, equipment and lessons - you just need travel on top.
  19. Why AV? 1) It allows you not just to vote for who you want, but who you DON'T want. If you say "I really want the Green party person, but if I can't have that then give me anything but bloody Labour" then AV allows you to express that opinion in full. 2) A vote for a smaller party is no longer a 'wasted' vote. You can vote for the SWP candidate, but as you are in the minority of about 100, your other preference to the Tory candidate still holds. Protest votes won't have unfortunate side effects of allowing a candidate who may not normally have won to sneak through. 3) Any elected MP knows that they have the backing of the electorate. Take an example where the candidates for an election were (and their %age support): Fred (Labout): 25% Sue (Old Labour): 20% Harry (New Labour): 24% Tristan (Tory): 31% Under FPTP the Tory candidate would be the victor, even though it's pretty obvious that a vast majority of the electorate were Labour voters of some form. 4) If you really, really like FPTP, you will still be able to just stick an X next to your favoured candidate. I could go on...!
  20. ... especially considering you just squeaked past Canada.
  21. Loz

    The Law is an Ass

    OK, that sheds more light on that case and I conceded the police probably got that one right. Still, it does leave the other one, though that involves airport security staff, who are hardly known for their common sense sometimes. But the good news is that that article also showed that there is a good black and white side to the knife law: "[...] the law is clear: it is an offence for any person, without lawful authority or good reason, to have with him in a public place, any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed, except for a folding pocket knife which has a cutting edge to its blade not exceeding three inches." Still, it would be nice to know what constitutes a 'good reason'.
  22. According to the article the damages were for "distress and humiliation".
  23. Loz

    The Law is an Ass

    Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The fact is that the law often cannot > differentiate in technicalities between lawful and > unlawful behviour. Take knife carrying for example > (it's allowed for 'good reason') - a teenager > carrying one on a Friday night will be differently > interpreted to one returning from Ikea with a > bundle of shopping. The law however is just the > same in both situations. Two examples, one where the court came to the right conclusion, but it took nine months and a full trial to establish the obvious. The other meant a pensioner ended up with a criminal record. (Ugh. I just linked twice to the Daily Mail. I feel ill. Think I'll have a sit down.)
  24. I saw this and immediately thought of this thread... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-12473446
  25. One strange part of the plan: Objective 4: Improve the health and wellbeing of all by making the borough a better place What's this doing in a travel plan? I suppose the answer - getting people to walk more, mainly by providing led walks - sort of answers that, but then they lob a table in the middle of this section, apropos of not much, entitled "Adult participation in 30 minutes moderate intensity sport". Not sure 'led walks' classes as moderate intensity sport. It's a rather strange section in general, and looks like it has been cut and paste from a bunch of other places. Wierd.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...