Huguenot

How are those two comments related?

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. In your chocloate analogy the the majority of people who would have been ripped off by having a solution forced upon them by a minority. The people who would have been 'fobbed off' would have been the majority. That's absolutely clear and simple. You know it's clear, you know it's simple, you've been told a hundred times before. What you have then done is turned to your asinine trolling strategy of trying to confuse the issue. It's dishonest and tragic. Vote Yes to AV, because it's democratic, it's honest and it's representative.

I'm not sure whether you're being obtuse Willard, the situation you referred to has no relevance. Your reference to 'liars' suggests you have no interest in an answer and you're just messing around. In the first round the candidate with the least amount of votes is eliminated. Their votes are reallocated according to voter preference. Once again the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated and their votes are reallocated until either one candidate hits at least 51% or one candidate remains. There is no question of 2nd or 3rd votes being less valuable, they are simply reallocated as first choices are eliminated. Everyone has one vote and if their original choices are eliminated it's reallocated according to their preference. You can allocate your preference as far as you wish. The key is this - politicians use AV in their own elections because they know it's best. If they don't want us to have it, it's because they're being dishonest.

Ha ha. Silverfox was wondering why The Times wasn't supporting AV, the answer is that Cameron bought them off.. Yet more chicanery and manipulation from the 'No' crowd. Vote Yes to democracy.

I believe the point was made by Loz in another thread, but Australia has had AV for the last century, and has had fewer coalition governments than the UK. So that particular claim from the 'No' camp is baseless fear-mongering. As with many of the other claims, please put it in the box marked 'bogus'.

You've already voted using AV in you vote for the London Mayor, so it's obviously not too difficult to grasp. Anyone who tells you it is, is insulting your intelligence. No surprise from the Tories to do that. They've already stolen your money and given it to their big city mates, now they're happy to steal your opportunity for fair government. The main political parties use AV for their own elections. If they thought it was bad they wouldn't use it. If they're pretending 'no to AV' now they must be lying to you about their reasons. If you vote 'No' now edcam, and you'll never see electoral reform in your lifetime. You'll be waiting until you're dead. The Tories know that, but they're not going to tell you. Reasons to vote 'Yes'. Minority government isn't democracy - the tories are currently running the country with only 35% of the vote. That means that 65% did not want them. Only 1 in 3 politicians actually got their seat with a majority. That's a massive fraud on the electorate. Be heard - Under AV MPs need to gain the support of 50% or more of the vote, ensuring they listen harder to their constituents, and do more to represent their views. Expand voter choice - currently fears of 'splitting' the FPTP vote means voters are pressurised into a two party state. AV means that you can consider a larger variety of left or right wing candidates whilst using your preference to ensure that you haven't wasted the vote if your primary candidate doesn't earn enough support. Vote honestly - AV means that you don't have to 'guess' what other people in your ward are doing with their vote in order to vote tactically. You can choose the candidates you really want to win in order of preference. Stop party machinations from destroying voter freedom - currently your candidate isn't chosen by you, it's chosen by your party's selection process, effectively leaving you with NO choice. NO choice means no accountability and no democracy. Limit extremism - because extremist parties don't need a majority under FPTP they know they can sneak into power. That's why the BNP is voting against the alternative vote. Generate mature politics - when politicians needs to find a compromise to win a majority, they start listening to their voters instead of slinging mud at each other in some sort of pathetic playground stunt. As you can see none of those reasons is the bullshit continually made up by certain posters and their Tory chums to push a No vote. That gives you a pretty clear idea of their dishonesty. In short they're lying to you. If they tried to persuade you to take on a new voting system called 'FPTP' where a minority of voters could choose who rules the country you'd throw them out of your house because the fraud would be clear. Tory politicians use AV for their own elections, if they're telling you to vote No, they're lying to you.

I think they're only teasing. There is, however, a forum rule about posting under multiple usernames that you might be familiar with? ;-)

There's a thread in the Drawing Room on this subject. It demonstrates the dishonesty and manipulation that supports the 'No' campaign, and is allowing minority right wingers to control an essentially socially minded nation. Vote 'Yes' to give democracy a chance.

I don't really understand what the problem with compromise is, it's a fundamental strength of the British that they understand the benefits of compromise and the quest for common ground. Maxxi, cutting off your nose to spite your face springs to mind. I do feel you're fundamentally misguided if you imagine a rejection of AV will result in accelleration to PR. A 'no' vote will be taken as a rejection of all change, and an endorsement of the decrepit self serving system we have in place. Conversely AV will deliver us a more representative and responsive political environment where politicans are under much more pressure to listen to the needs of the electorate. FPTP delivers us minority governments supported and driven by unaccountable self-serving elites. Currently maxxi, you don't have any democracy. The system is driven by selection committees and a two party state. Under FPTP you have no choices at all. More fool you if you reject AV on the basis of an empty dream of PR.

The wealth of every country historically was made off the backs of ordinary people who were worked to death etc. We're still wearing clothes and using smart phones built by slaves and indentured labour. Its very ubiquity makes it an illogical choice as a stick with which to beat the British. Incidentally, I don't really understand what this attack on Guardian readers is all about. Toynbee is just one of many columnists, and they don't always reflect the paper's politics. Monbiot is pro-nuclear for example, but the paper is not. I read the Guardian, but thought the Royal Wedding was a terrific event. Assuming the Guardian or it's readers all fit into a particular mould is a prejudice worthy of the Daily Mail? ;-)

My understanding is that a significant number of older people are visiting doctors because of social rather than medical issues. If we need to address the fractures in society that means old people need to use the medical and police services to compensate for other failings, then we need to find a more appropriate solution.

That's a misunderstanding maxxi, you're trying to judge the success of AV by putting in an a two party state. FPTP creates a two party state by its very nature. FPTP prevents people with similar views but different strategies appearing on the ticket because they split the vote and let in the opposite end of the spectrum. AV allows more people with similar views but different strategies to appear on the ticket without threatening the overall picture. It increases voter choice because they don't have to choose one or the other, but can choose between candidates who, for example, were both left wing, but may differ in their approach to education or defence. In this context the AV preferences have a great deal of benefits. People who are campaigning for FPTP don't want voter choice, they don't want a range of candidates. They want to control elections through selection committees and restricted voter choice to keep their jobs for life. It's important that the electorate understand that the No campaign are dishonest and self-serving. They don't want better solutions for the country, they want power and control.

It seems unlikely that Bin Laden would have been 'found' now for political reasons. There have been plenty of other times historically where it would have been expedient to find him, not least for the Dubya legacy. I tend to agree in general with the points about the dumping of the body at sea, but not for the same reasons. It's an obligation under Islam to bury bodies within 24 hours, and the outcry if this hadn't taken place would have been extremely destructive. Hence whether it was dumped or not dumped it needed to be seen to be disposed of. A land burial would have risked becoming a shrine or the body being dug up again for any number of unhelpful reasons, so was out of the question. I don't really see the benefit of holding the body if it can't be used for propaganda purposes. I mean what are they going to do? Examine the brain for evidence of evil? So on balance if there was a body, I think they probably wanted to get rid of it as soon as possible. That doesn't mean he's not somewhere extremely unpleasant at some uncomfortable midpoint between life and death.

So desperate for attention that he's now posting under multiple user names?

"A history stained by the proceeds of slavery..." That'll be just about everywhere and every race then? Or are we going to pretend that slavery only happened to Africa and only by the British?

Conspiracy? Strange? This is tin foil hat stuff. A moderate empathy with other people would issue a completely different account. It's far more likely that she simply tried to ignore it, despite her distress, thinking that in time she'd be able to put behind her. In the end it may have turned out to be a persistent stress that only increased over time, until eventually she needed to talk to someone about it. That person probably then put her into the system. Nothing strange, no consipracy. Just real people behaving in understandable ways.

Okay,sorry, I was being unnecessarily dismissive. I was rude. Sorry. :( I honestly don't think there are enough people in the country who are scared of telephones to justify keeping front desks open. I think your point about face to face discussion is a good one - but you don't need a front desk for this. You can ring and make an appointment, invite the SNT over and explain your situation. We simply live in a different world now. We have phones and internet. There are people who would argue that front desks discriminate against the disabled or the aged as much as the phone or internet do. It's about finding practical solutions that account for modern society that the society is willing to pay for.

Think about it: one in ten Heads have been assaulted by parents on school grounds. One in ten. One in ten assaulted for doing their job which is essentially caring for and developing children. One in ten. Then think about the possible effects of posters showing lynch mobs. Then think about the teachers kids who get assaulted because their parents are teachers. Imagine the terrible fears that teachers go through thinking that their kids are going to be assaulted because of their choice in job. Then think about how reasonable these pathetic excuses for this poster are, based on technicalities.

The damage that cretinous parents do because they think they're so clever. DPF I'm merely pointing out that people arguing this poster was okay based on a technicality (which is what you're messing around with here also) are completely missing the point. We're not in some poncey sixth form debate. This is the real world and real people who get abused and attacked by people over a long period of time. Ofsted have made it clear that this was a good Head doing a good job. Many posters on here have described their enthusiasm and support for her. Other posters have demonstrated a complete lack of support, have persisted with rather snotty arguments that this poster is not offensive based on rather pathetic technicalities. Mainly it's clear that what you've got is what goes on persistently in education. It's simply bullying. Bully from a nasty vindictive clique of parents who are exploiting this situation for their own goals, whatever they may be. There is a process for addressing underperforming Heads, and it doesn't include malicious posters and daubing B**** C*** on the side of school buildings.

Sure Loz, but that argument has the moral equivalence of saying 'get rid of racism by deporting black people because they're creating ill feeling'. Absolutely not. There needs to be a just resolution to this episode, and whether you can see it or not, in my family fortunes quip earlier I pointed out that the are no positive associations for lynch mobs. White people rarely experience the detrimental effects of persistent racism, but I was (un)lucky enough to experience this in China. The remorseless effects of this can be thoroughly exhausting. It's not one off occasions, it's every second of the day, and every encounter you have with people. I'm not suggesting that Moyles was racist, I'm just highlighting that within this context and considering the extended attack the Head had been under posting photos of lynch mobs was more that catastrophically insensitive, it was downright offensive. I understand you can't see it, but I can. You don't fire people on the grounds that somebody has attacked them in what appears to be (from Ofsted) a completely unjustified way.

Yes Zeban ;-) The point is that the Head didn't parade nasty posters around the school that could be misinterpreted to order. Now she has to stand down? Ridiculous. An idiot on the governers made a stupid decision to put up offensive crap, and the Head went through the system to gain redress. You want them both fired? Absolute rubbish. Teachers have a terrible existence with twattish parents. Tell them to get lost.

Gabby Logan dressed in a Scrooge nightgown riding a large fish and gripping a trident. *sighs*

What's he done? Or is he the odd one out?

'Marxist Communism is a classless society' I think there's certainly a belief that this would be the end result, but it seems to me that most of the philosophy is about the act of revolution itself, and the subsequent impoverishment and destruction of the bourgeoisie. Hence I don't feel it's fair to present it as an 'equal' society.

Loz, mate, the governer and the Head standing down are not equivalent. One is a small minded opinionated crapster who harrasses other people in his spare time. He stands down, he gets more time to drink Heineken. The other, it's her job. She stands down she can't feed her kids. I'm with Citizen. All the evidence is that it's a successful moderately ambitious local school that's been turned over by unimaginative local prejudices. LadyLibra, I think you overcooked it.