Loz

Hi Shane, I have a rather shady corner of my garden where very little thrives. Any ideas on good looking shrubs (1m high or thereabouts) or other mid-sized plants?

Tsk. Hope not. My future place in the scientific elite is under threat. Prachett had the world resting on the backs of four huge elephants which are in turn standing on the back of an enormous turtle*. But that's just silly. Professor Loz (* not to be confused with Hawking's story about it being "turtles all the way down").

Good grief - you sound like a stalker...

Yup. He's not omniscient, though. But he does have acne.

Apologies, Silverfox, I have my terminology mixed. What I referred to as STV is actually what is being proposed for the Alternative Vote system (but not the AV+ idea). AV seems to be a UK term. Preferential voting is the Austrlian term. STV is actually more of a PR system as you said. I will edit my post as it is erroneous at the moment.

The entire universe is a Higher Being Teenager's high school science project. He started with a 'Make Your Own Universe!!" science kit and set it off with a big bang early in the semester. He will pop back later to see exactly what happened. By the end of the year (his time scale, 40 billion years in ours) we'll be binned. It's the only possible explanation. Science can't really explain what happened before the big bang - or even what went bang. The "Science Project" theory brings science and a god concept together quite neatly. And it's all mine. Take that, Hawking.

The Australian system works reasonably well: - AV (or Preferential Voting) for the lower house - PR (or STV) for the upper house (though via a rather iffy party-preference version). This gives (generally) stable one-party government in the lower house, where policy and laws are usually enacted, but a wider cross section in the upper house where the laws are reviewed. Back in the 80's and 90's, when the Australian Democrats held the balance of power in the upper house, this tended to be a very good arrangement. AV works as an improved version of FPTP. There is less tactical voting as your preferences are taken into account, so that vote for, say, the Greens is not necessarily a wasted vote. Critics say it means 'some people have more than one vote', but I don't see how following preferences does that. I hate the BNP as much as anyone, but I recognise that, in a democracy, they have a right to exist. You should not discard a perfectly legitimate voting method just because it may cause a BNP candidate to be elected, if that is the will of the electorate. (And actually, the BNP has a far, far lower chance of winning under AV than PR, anyway.) AV essentially reduces all contests down to a two horse race. For example, the voting on who wins the Olympics starts with every candidate city being voted upon. The city with the least number of votes is eliminated and everyone votes again on the remainder. And so on and so on until one city attracts at least 50% of the votes. That way, everyone is seen to be in agreement as to who won. Many, many times the leader at the end of the first round of votes (which would, under FPTP, be declared the winner) does not go on to attract the necessary 50% in the later rounds. AV does the same, except you can't change your vote between rounds. It means that any MP can legitimately say (s)he has the mandate from a majority of his/her electorate - something that most MPs currently in parliament cannot currently say. It also means that smaller parties have a much better idea of their support. I suspect that the current surge of LibDem support has actually always existed in the UK, but people did not vote for them because they were seen to not be able to win and therefore seen as a wasted vote under FPTP. What Nick Clegg did in the first debate was put the LibDems up as legitimate contenders and released this dormant voting support. Under AV, this dormant vote would have come out much earlier - years ago. Also, 'tactical voting' becomes unnecessary, which can only be a positive thing for democracy. It is a lot easier on the soul to number the Tory candidate as number "5" and Hattie The Harpie as number "6" than put an X in the Tory box (just to make sure the evil cow gets turfed out) even though, if it came down to it, it would have the same effect. Of course, the Australian system also has the democratic advantage of the 'compulsory voting' law (which is actually just a compulsory attendance law - you are not compelled to actually vote). But that has a snowball's chance in hell of ever coming into law in the UK.

Well at least it wasn't a satsuma, a bin bag and a length of cord.

But what is 'too fast'? Assuming 'too fast' means 'exceeding the speed limit' (as it is the only type detected by speed cameras), then according to a Department of Transport report covering 2005: So a huge majority of fatal accidents are not caused by cars exceeding the speed limit, so therefore the statement "fast cars kill the most" is not correct. This is not an argument for abandoning speed detection, just that it is not the outstanding factor that you may think. The concentration of road safety resources on speeding (as it is easy to detect and pays for itself) has meant that trying to tackle the other causes of accidents has suffered. For instance, 'going too fast for conditions' causes a similar amount of accidents/deaths, but no speed camera will detect this issue, whereas a policeman on patrol will. But most of these have been replace by automatic detection systems, because it looks like it is 'doing something' and does make good headlines.

Turn on the TV and see what stations there are. Sad, really.

ImpetuousVrouw: Fast cars kill the most. Fairly meaningless statement. What is a 'fast car'? The fastest cars can be found on motorways, where deaths are lowest. Or do you mean BWM/Mercs/Porche, in which case that seems wrong as there are much, much less of them. And sounds more like the politics of envy. Cars need to be slowed down to stop people being killed. To what speed? Where? Do we lower the motorway speed (which actually could be increased to 80mph)? Or in residential areas only? Current speed cameras do not make cars slow down, except just in front of the speed camera. Agreed. But you assume that the purpose of the speed cameras is to slow people down... Another method is needed. Average speed cameras are another method. I rather like average speed cameras. It removes the ability for some dodgy practices (or the "why are so many speed cameras positioned at the bottom of hills" question) and they do slow traffic down, as anyone who has been through motorway roadworks that use them will agree. Banning cars altogether in cities or fitting speed restrictors are other methods I'd prefer. Agreed, to an extent. But it's gonna take some politicians with bigger cojones that has ever been seen in this country before. You have to provide an alternative before you ban cars, so that means a huge investment in public transport (which is not coping at the moment) and revamping the cities to be more bicycle orientated (like Holland). Speed restrictors would need to be GPS based (unless you want the whole country to travel at 20 mph), which would be expensive to set up and take years. Or, again, take a brave government that would enact legislation to make them mandatory in, say, two years and force people to cough up for installation. Interestingly, this would lead to the current speed trap infrastructure to be dismantled (as there would be no money to pay for it), so the people who disabled their systems by blocking the GPS reception would be less likely to be caught.

Not Australia. WA and QLD mining is bankrolling the country. Canberra is unproductive (in most senses of the word) and Sydney is like high maintenance dolly bird of a girlfriend. Looks pretty, but is generally useless.

I believe that parties shouldn't govern for more than 10 years. They run out of ideas and start doing some wildly stupid things, and that is being proved by the current government. But, I'm not convinced that the Tories are quite ready to take over and the LibDems would need another massive surge to get a full majority. A hung parliament may be the best we can hope for, even with its inherent dangers. But, a hung parliament would only work (and indeed useful in the longer term), providing the coalition is two parties only (i.e. LibDem/Labour or LibDem/Tory). If the coalition is made up of LibDem+(Tory/Labour)+SNP+Plaid Cymru then it will be an unmitigated disaster.

PeterJohn, Thanks for your reply. Like Huguenot, my politics are left of centre, but I too cannot fathom how your policy fits in that framework. From a post I made on another thread a while ago (based on some figures from other Labour counsellors): Current number of free school meals: 7000 Number of free school meals proposed: 20000 Number of "too embarrassed" to take up school meals children: 1800. Current cost per meal: 94p So you are proposing to feed for free - needlessly - 11,200 children just because 1800 aren't taking them up, with no guarantee this will get them to take them up anyway (having seen the "burgers through the fence" scene on Jamie's School Dinners). It's ?2M wasted on a poorly thought-out theory, Peter. It's not going to solve childhood obesity - hell, it won't make an iota of difference. The kids you are allegedly trying to help will still be munching in chips after school, eating high-salt/high-fat meals in the evening and playing sod all sport. (And, not your fault, but how much has the Labour government done to kill off grassroots sports for kids? Can they make it any more bureaucratic?) Also, regarding service merging: it's all very well saying that Southwark is a poorly performing borough but as any businessperson will tell you, merging two failing businesses does not give you a successful business. Why Lambeth? Can't we merge services with a borough that isn't failing? Sorry, but my ballot is in an envelope downstairs (being a postal voter) and it's not looking good for you. The X that went in your box last time (as I am in your ward) looks like going somewhere else this time.

Good lord - life's too short to go trawling through the EDF archives. That comment was made based on my memory of your postings. But if others were to post and say that they didn't you had a strong posting record in this department, I'll retract. How's that?

Hmmm. Your posting record says otherwise. And, as they say, if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck...

I disagree that motoring is cheap. Depreciation + car tax + servicing + insurance means that, even before you put petrol in the damn thing you've probably forked out at least a grand. On top of that, many people in London then payout for daily public transport on top of that. On lower wages, that means an incredibly large percentage on take home pay goes to transport. But people still have them. Lots of them. Why? Because they don't sit down and understand the costs and, even if they did, would probably try and justify them anyway. It's a bit like smoking. You can keep putting the price up and up, but people will still find the money.

Peter, The whole 'shared services' model within government is a good one, though doesn't seem to be warmly greeted by a lot of departments. There is definitely scope for saving money that should be explored. However, when councillors/candidates like Vikki say things like, "What Lambeth and Southwark Labour have pledged is to" it immediately make me worry that it's more a single party stitch-up, rather than a well-thought out strategy. I want to know that you will shared services with the best partner, not just the closest one that is also Labour controlled. Your explanation is a lot better - the fact that the council can work with neighbouring boroughs like Westminster with a different controlling party is more of a comfort. (PS As one of your constituents that voted for you last time, I'll say again: the stupid waste of money that is free school meals for middle and upper classes is a complete vote loser for me.)

Careful now, quids. Don't you go interrupting one of Sean's anti-motorist tirades with facts or logic now...

The 'from space' bit sounds like marketing bumpf. A few cameras + knowledge of their position = same average speed stuff you get on the motorway roadworks. Frankly, anyone that can speed on roads in London for the length of time to warrant average speed checking is probably travelling on roads I don't. Getting over an average 10mph for some trips is a minor success.

St Francis Place!

I heard him on the radio once specifically saying that is his name: Meat Loaf, not Meatloaf.

That's the one in the middle. Tony Blair put a bland white veneer on it.

Funny, the main reason I want Labour out is the assault on civil liberties. The Beeb had a topic-by-topic breakdown of the three main party's policies. Under 'Civil Liberties' the LibDems and the Tories outlined how they would improve civil liberties whilst Labour gave an essay on what other freedoms would be shot down by them over the next five years. At least they are honest about being Fascists, I suppose. They think it's a vote winner and, sadly, in some quarters they are right.

Shame there wasn't a pink one. They could have had it complaining "WHY. DO. I. HAVE. TO. BE. MR. PINK?"