silverfox

Yes but if you look at the video (link below) he is insulting a person or persons to the left of the person recording the scene. we don't know what led to the tirade and the recording smacks of a set up. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3433777/Fashion-legend-Galliano-arrested.html

okay, he shouldn't have said what he said. And on the mobile phone video I've seen he's bang to rights although clearly tipsy. He's said sorry. Surely this should be end of? Why destroy the career of a maverick because a private conversation in a Paris cafe has gone global? I don't for a minute believe he meant what he said. we all say things we don't mean. The question I'm asking here is - is modern technology making us one-dimensional? That is, is the baying of the mob on Titter and Facebook overriding tried and tested legal procedures? Strikes me modern communications are starting to enslave mankind with some naive view that the majority is important.

Did something similar many years ago Got stuck in a compartment with a number of yanks worried that they wouldn't eat real cheddar cheese from Wisconsin for years. Do yourself a favor - fly

Huguenot exposed? Any idiot knows advertising is the attempt to brain-wash people in to buying product. New improved Daz? Hang on, are you telling me that what I've been buying for the last few years is crap?

"... impoverished serfs who lived a life of indescribable malnutrition and slavery..." didn't know any different - that was their lot. Ireland has lived high on the hog and seen how sweet life can be thanks to cheap loans and low ECB interest rates and now a couple of generations will be sacrificed to pay the bill.

"...some of the political decisions - particualrly the one that guaranteed all Irish bank debt were foolish..." Tricky one this. The question is what would have happened if the Irish government hadn't made this guarantee? Bankruptcy obviously. The Irish people losing all their savings? Also, many mortgages in the UK were taken out with Irish Banks. Would thousands of people here have lost their houses?

Ireland's problems started the day it joined the EEC. Saw a naive documentary by Fergal Keane the other day, trying to explain Ireland's problems as some sort of mistake made in the last tHree or four years. The rot started many years ago. Portugal next?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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'. Sincere apologies Loz, I can't get used to this bloody iPad virtual keypad with my fat fingers and end up with loads of typos and it takes twice as long to post anything

Don't know David as FPTP and AV are incompatible. In fairness to Loz, the reason her ice-cream example didn't work and (with all due respect) the reason your victory was questionable, is you can't apply AV process to a FPTP election. Had both elections been AV then there would have been clear preferences - as Huguenot said, "If I can't have A, I'll have B" etc - and thus the transfer process would be transparent as the voters' secondary or alternative wishes were clear. Which begs the question, how could David Cameron claim yesterday that Gordon Brown would still be in power had AV applied at the last election if no preferences are available to test this claim? In short, I won under FPTP, I'm the Milk Monitor and if any of the majority who didn't vote for me grumble about it then there may be an explosion in cases of Rickets in the coming years.

Loz, you've quoted me selectively. You conveniently missed out the bit that after three votes more people ended up with an ice-cream they didn't want in the first place (70%) than would have been the case in the fist place (60%). they are your figures not mine. As an argument justifying AV it does not appear to be very convincing. more people now have a flavour they didn't want and it's taken three votes to get there. If you translate that into the real world how many millions of pounds will be wasted to give people a result they didn't want? Maybe I'm not as daft as you'd like me to be.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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? The most popular choice was chocolate at step 1 because more people voted for it than other flavours. After jumping through hoops the majority of people have ended up with second best. At step 1, 60% of people would have been disappointed. At step 4, 70% of people have ended up with what they didn't want. Seems simple to be. Also, at step 4, what if the result had been Chocolate 5 and Vanilla 5? Do the kids have to lick half it away and then swap with the other 5 kids for the other flavour? Therein the madness of coalitions lies.

Stop being such a sore loser Huguenot. Cross me palm with silver and I might make you my milk monitor deputy. You can't ridicule mathematics Huguenot. On Loz's example a less popular person has won. It's enough to make the milk go sour. It's quite possible under AV millions of people will try "If I can 't have A, I'll have B, then C, then D then E etc" and still end up with someone they didn't want as their MP. So what's different?

But surely Loz, on the basis of your argument, if 61 classmates (61%) cannot stand the sight of Silverfox, then one could assume 70 or 70% of people can't stand the sight of Loz and david_carnell - and as for poor old Huguenot ... So potentially, Mr Unpopular, david_carnell, has usurped the coveted position but only 30% of the people wanted him - 9% less than popular life-and-soul-of-the-party Silverfox. The FPTP vote was clear, Silverfox was voted for by more people but under AV these people's wishes have been ignored and in the interests of 'fairness' an unpopular person has been imposed on the helpless mites. So really AV has screwed up? To be absoluely clear - the majority of people (70%) didn't want david_carnell (in the theoretical example) but under AV with a bit of jiggery-pokery those 70% of people are now being told yes you did want him you silly people, your majority wasn't a majority but now you have a majority?

To save time I won't go into detail counteracting some of the replies above but just make the following observations: minkturtle has hit the nail on the head, as below. Huguenot in desperation tries his usual trick of inventing what he'd like you to have said and then shoots down his own fantasy. Loz, you're getting closer to a definition of democracy that I would recognise but don't forget Democracy flourished in Ancient Greece if you were a man although the society was based on slavery. There have been numerous forms of Democracy in between then and now. Let's just come back to this idea of a majority which appears to be fundamental to the rationanle for AV. If 100 school children vote to elect a milk monitor and there are five candidates the result of the election, where all the school children have to do is put an X next to their chosen candidate, could be as follows: Silverfox 39 votes (39%), Loz 30 votes (30%), david_carnell 30 votes (30%), Brendan 1 vote (1%), Huguenot 0 votes (0%) How do we analyse this result? Let's assume all is above board. The hustings were fair, nobody breached any election guidelines with character assassination, racial or homophobic slurs, playgound canvassing and posters were legit. No money changed hands and no promises of an extra bottle of milk were offered. Now Silverfox is the clear winner here. He has received the most votes cast for a single candidate. He has the majority of the votes cast for a single candidate. Okay, he doesn't have the majority of all votes cast but he is a clear winner, judged by his peers to be deserving of holding such high office. Is this vote unfair because Silverfox didn't get 51% of the vote? If so, unfair to whom? Silverfox can now exercise the burdens of office freely, knowing that he received the most votes from his peers. He doesn't have to attending all-night meetings with a committee to decide if he's distributing the milk efficiently and who question why he always serves pretty little Samantha who sits in the front row first having warmed her bottle on the radiator first on winter mornings. In short you can't elect a person to office to do a job and then tie one hand behind his or her back. Now, back to minkturtle who has perceptively identified the real problem here - the relationship of votes to seats in Parliamentary Elections. At last year's General Election the Tories gained 36 per cent of the vote compared to 29 per cent for Labour and 23 per for the Lib Dems. But the Conservatives received 47 per cent of the seats, with Labour on 40 per cent and the Liberal Democrats eight per cent. (Source http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/8331360/David-Cameron-Gordon-Brown-would-still-be-prime-minister-under-AV.html] So Cameron is a bit like Milk Monitor Silverfox above. But the allocation of seats in the House here is the issue of unfairness. How will AV change this?

David Cameron: Gordon Brown would still be prime minister under AV Gordon Brown would still be prime minister if the alternative vote system had been in place at the last general election, David Cameron will warn today. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/8331360/David-Cameron-Gordon-Brown-would-still-be-prime-minister-under-AV.html

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. > 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. 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. 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.

Brendan, if that is an answer to Loz's question ... what is so good about FPTP? I think you should apologise - that's no way to talk to a lady.

Loz, Explain to me how AV will enhance democracy? Why 50% is significant or desirable? Why you think it will do any more than give the Liberal Democrats perhaps another 10 to 15 seats in Parliament? That'll do for starters.

Okay Sean, fair enough. But do you realise under AV, by voting for me because you don't want me to get into Parliament, I could get into Parliament by default because of a sort of numerical musical chairs. So, if I understand it, you're better off voting for me because there's less chance of me getting in/50% etc. Confused? I am. Actually Sean, while I think of it, you must be old enough to vote these days so let me put an idea to you if I may. If AV is such a good idea, why not make the referendum on AV an AV referendum? It seems absurd to have a yes/no referendum to introduce, or reject, AV, ie relying on a FPTP type vote to possibly replace FPTP. So, let's make the referendum AV. Obviously we'd have to introduce a least one more category, ie yes/no/maybe - maybe could mean postpone any decision for discussion by the next Parliament. How would it work? No bloody idea. By the time votes are redistributed Global warming may have claimed this fair isle. What do you think?

What david_carnell said so eloquently. Proponents of AV are not only barking up the wrong tree but also barking mad. It will not improve democracy in this country one jot and all this talk of empowering the electorate is drivel. "... It allows you not just to vote for who you want, but who you DON'T want..." What will improve democracy in this country is limiting the powers of the European Union and telling them parliament is supreme and we make our own rules. If you have 100 candidates standing in your constituency and some super computer that can work out how the hell to transfer all the AV votes the winning candidate will still have to doff his or her cap and tug forelock to Europe. Forget Egypt and the Spring uprisings in the Middle East - the people of Europe should be hanging several hundred gravy train Eurocrats from the nearest lampost. Vote (FPTP) Silverfox for Parliament!

Australia is a small, fairly insignificant country on the world stage. A Federal system not comparable with ours. Why do you keep harping on about it? If Australia is the only, or best, example you can offer then we're probably better off staying with what we've got.

Margaret Thatcher said there is no such thing as society. Her successor, David Cameron, speaks of the Big Society. What does he mean? Is it a fatuous term to disguise the cuts to public services - ie forget the idea the state will provide, it's over to you now. What does it mean in practice? Dog poo outside your house, forget calling the council, clear it up yourself and form a neighbourhood watch committee to deter bad dog owners? If the big society is really about empowering people and communities why not divert the cash to those communities to use on their own local services. So if the local library closes but creches are maintained that is the decision of the community, not the local council. Strikes me this is a huge idea, not thought through, with huge implications.

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.

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? 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.

As there's been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing and a mixed response to this idea I think we've reached the stage where it is now too late for well-meaning amateurs to organise this event. What is now required is someone with good organisational experience of putting on events to step up to the plate and I would nominate Sue. Sue, The Goose is Out, has the qualities we need and her posts seem to be hinting she's dying to be asked to step in at the 11th hour and sort this out. Unfortunately I'll have to withdraw my services as I've now rented out my house to a Japanese TV Crew. Does anyone have the phone number for the Sushi lady outside Moxons to advise me on stocking my cupboards? PS - where can I buy Kate and William souvenirs on the Lane and thereabouts? Tea towels, China cups, ashtrays etc. This must be one of the biggest opportunities for the independent shops for years.