主播大秀

BUT IT WILL STILL BE PARTY POLITICS UNDER THE WESTMINSTER ETHOS

How many party politicians does it take to re-arrange a deckchair?

Wstminster is in all-party talks on that, so I can't respond.

THE 'GOOD NAME' OF WESTMINSTER PARTY POLITICS IS IN DANGER!

Douglas Alexander to Andrew Lansley (Daily Politics): "This is the kind of thing that gets politics a bad name". (Cue laughter.)

For the avoidance of doubt: POLITICS is the art of self deception wrapped in the craft of deceiving others for their own good.

Got that Douggy?

Im disgusted by the fact that sex offenders will be able to appeal 15 years after they are convicted to have their names erased from the register, because it damages their human rights. What about the rights of the victims? They have to live with it for the rest of their lives. If this isn't a prime reason for getting Britain out of the EU, then I don't know what is.

and another thing:
someone wrote yesterday (this Morning)

"What I find particularly troubling about the Mead item is the total lack of an alternative voice to his views"

What would that alternative voice sound like?

Lets carry on as before perhaps. Lets carry on spending on welfare without a thought for any long term consequence. Doing nothing means many are still sitting about recieving a lifestyle funded by someone else. Its already at generation discription point.

I'm puzzled (and many of you would agree that I'm puzzled no doubt) Not once did this discusion, regarding welfare reform, did they trot out anthing about the sick or infirm; their benefits etc. I can't help but think that whenever the word 'welfare reform' or Thatcher gets a mention, people wake up from a prescription drug slumber and go into knee jerk mode.


"Todays report well be looking if reducing costs can be made by increasing efficiency at the local swimming baths"

.."oh Doris the hate filled Torys wanna shut down the local swimming pool...where will we take our little Johnny if that gets shut? ..its all due to the Tory cuts, the nasty folk that they are...Before you know it they'll have those euthanasia clinics in the high street to get rid of us old folk...I've always hated that Thatcher and I dont like her son David much either..5 sugers Mary and don't be shy with the milk"



Personally, I blame Labour..well if everyone else can have a knee jerk..so can I.

Do you think a national health doctor would have anything for this condition; knee jerkosis. If he has, well, he'll have to give me another drug to counter the effects of the first drug -because thats how it works with prescription drugs. And then I'll need to spend time at hospital for tests to see what damage the second prescribed drug that i took has done to my liver and kidneys. The Doctors would send me home with more drugs which would cause something from my lower parts to drop down some and then I'd get blurry vision. Then I'd be sucked into the pharmacutical drug induced haze of never having good health ever again...all thanks to the National health service...their slogan should be: your ill health is our cash cow..and if your well, we'll make you ill...thats how it works folks. Some advice, if you wanna stay healthy...keep away from Doctors and their prescription pads.

Don't get me started!

GO CONFIGURE

We live ape-imperative lives in a feudal structure with medieval law and archaic beliefs, in times of anonymous aggregation of millions. The centre cannot hold.

As homosexuals prepare to marry in church, and acceptance of their 'pre-configured' proclivities is the norm, are we not bound by our humanity, to investigate the roots of other sexual anomaly?

All those on the Sex Offender Register should be brain-scanned for definitive structures - or lack of. I am off to Ladbrokes to wager paedophiles, animal molesters etc, ARE NO MORE WORTHY OF CENSURE than the aforementioned happy couple. Never mind 'nature red in tooth and claw' She is truly evil when it comes to cock-eyed sexual drive!

Needless to say, the courts can't cope with this, and media just like edgy conflict, so WISDOM will be the last thing to prevail.

TOO LATE KEV - AND NOW YOU GOT ME STARTED TOO (#4)

Are you across this:

Only cataclysm will sort it now.

While we were being led oon a false fox chase taking hundreds of hours of parliamentary time little Boy Blair (and the other members of the gang of three) were quietly giving away our gold and privatising the family silver and stitching us into the EU that is now deciding our laws and flooding us with "EU citizens" from all over the world.

Do you remember a process of consultation about little matters like the Nice Treaty and Maastricht?

What difference would AV have made to any of that?

Sorry about cumsily expressed and typed point 7 I think it must be the beginnings of a dose of Duffitis of the Hands!

I'm sorry I thought this was a 主播大秀 blog not a forum solely for the rantings of three very sad but typically inadequate semi-literate right wing merchant bankers who hate everyone especially themselves.

LOST AND FOUND (#9)

Not this thread bilodave. The chaps you describe (so well) are on the thread above.

PS You left out 'anal'.

Considering the way the 主播大秀 was lead by the American news agenda around the BP .... sorry BRITISH Petroleum, fall out i would of thought AMERICAN Chevron would be in the news for the next few weeks continuously ... but ho hum the yanks don't seem interested in that story ... what do all you 主播大秀 people do all day?

9 You rant away as much as you like biliousdave...that`s a good start but you are a bit thin on ideas and thick on ad hominem sarcasm.It`s a shame you well paid "left wing" (ho ho!) 主播大秀 mandarins haven`t got anything better to do before Fox News opens up each day.

NN Tonight 鈥淲e will be debating the issue with both big name supporters and critics of the system in front of a live studio audience and be getting a feel for what the British public feels about AV through a poll we commissioned.鈥�
Call me Mr Cynic, but could we know how the AV poll contributors, the debaters and the live studio audience were 鈥榮elected鈥�? I ask because some of us still remember the 主播大秀 Question Time 鈥榮titch-up鈥� when the BNP was treated to a 鈥榮elected鈥� panel and a 鈥榮elected鈥� audience.

The NN poll - informs us that:-
65% think the system of electing MPs needs a major overhaul;
63% said a referendum on changing the system is a waste of time and money;
41% support the UK adopting the Alternative Vote in place of first-past-the-post; and
41% said they oppose the move to AV.

One wonders whether NN will ever consult their loyal viewer/bloggers; probably never, but here are my comments anyway:

1.The apparent conflict between the first and last percentages above indicates that a substantial would prefer straight Proportional Representation (PR). Not stated?
2. My objection to AV is that all second preferences count for nought, except in cases where no candidate gets 50%, then 2nd choices are given Equal Weight to 1st choices? Not fair?

3. I support the views expressed in
鈥淭here is absolutely no problem with MPs getting elected with over 50% support 鈥� that鈥檚 democracy, and that鈥檚 why AV doesn鈥檛 alter that. But it also means that there are 430 MPs who, like Phil Woolas, were elected with less than 50% of the vote. The vast majority of our MPs can鈥檛 even claim to have majority support from their own constituents. First Past The Post is designed for two party systems, where one candidate will always have a majority. Britain is no longer a two party system, and
those 430 MPs elected with minority support demonstrate this perfectly. It鈥檚 time for an upgrade!鈥� Agree -Surely we cannot allow the Woolas syndrome to continue?
4. 鈥淭hose polled were asked whether having coalition governments elected more frequently would be good for Britain, 38% agreed. However, 51% disagreed.鈥� The dislike of coalitions is probably influenced by the dire circumstances that the present alliance inherited.
5. I don鈥檛 buy into the argument that to hold a referendum on this issue is a waste of time/money, nor the Peers demand that 40% of public need to take part for it to be recognised. We (those of the GBP who have a concern)need to establish our right to be heard over the Whips and Toffs.

Again I stress the significance of 鈥榃E AS A SOCIETY鈥� as opposed to the obsession with the Rights of Individuals, often producing an undesirable result for the majority.

No. 12

Tu quoque!!

HAVE A SPANNER (#13)

See your post, IDG2, and raise you a 'CERTIFICATE OF VOTING COMPETENCE'.

Never mind the numbers - feel the competence. If the whole population is juvenile and dumb, as I suspect, NONE SHOULD VOTE. Indeed, dumb voters invite MPs into dishonourable behaviour (perish the thought) and return THE MOST DEVIOUS AND SCURRILOUS to Westminster. (Woolas Syndrome?)

Nuff sed.

All 3 main parties are identical to each other really. NHS shake up, public spending cuts, Welfare reform, housing benefit cuts, higher student fees...all in the Labour manifesto. We travel down the same road, we just go that bit faster under the Tories.

How do 3 parties that are basically the same contrive some cosmetic differences in order to fool the average voter that they have some kind of choice at an election?
Well they introduce AV which makes hung parliaments more likely, then they stand up and promise all sorts of things safe in the knowledge that as soon as the votes are counted and the doors to No 10 are bolted for another 5 years it can all be binned under the excuse of 'coalition compromise'.
Add AV to fixed term parliaments and state funding of political parties and hey presto you have a political elite disconnected from those they are supposed to represent, the electorate have been effectively sidelined leaving the way open for the lobbyists, bankers and big business to wield all the influence.

SPEEDING UP THE RESPONSE

Yesterday, I suggested you re-deploy the musack splicer from NewsyNighty video footage duty.

Today, the musack backing to interminable Radio 4 trails, reached suicide pitch, so can you re-assign that wretched enhancer too?

Ta muchly.

VENAL WESTMINSTER + DUMB VOTERS = DEMOCRATIC CIVILISATION (#16)

Apparently.

But if you get animated in polite (dumb voter) company, you are treated like Henny Penny.

We are stitched up, but there is something absent in the 'temperate psyche, so we shall not see the like of Tunisia or Egypt in England's GM green, unpleasant land.

Has Merve got his P or K yet?

We have a Latin Scholar on the boards today lads.

Bilodave wrote:

"semi-literate right wing merchant bankers"

I have to take that as a compliment. When I consider what i normally get called.
Semi illiterate: tis true. Still have no idea what to do with me semi colon.


Right wing. Also true

Merchant banker (slang I hope) I may be married but i still have an imagination for when I found meself (that should be 'myself'..I know dave , I know) in a strange hotel with cable. All my bodily functions and desires are working fine...though i do find vitamin E400 is helpful...yes all true bilodave

When all else fails bilodave eh...I expected better from a Latin scholar.

I heard there was a spotting of a Guardian reader the other day, he was seen paying for it at some newsagent before disappearing into the mist..I think the sighting was in Brighton..or was it Blackpool? not sure about the location. It was treated much the same as discovering a previously unknown tribe in the Amazon. Made headline news In The Daily Mail did this. I don't know why there was so much fuss about this so-called Guardian reader sighting because there's loads of them clogging up our councils, town halls and state funded bureaucracies.

Bilodave. Please forgive my state educated (Belfast and Manchester) working class grammer. You can get your red pen out now.

the lords don't like democracy. which is why they invent arbitrary conditions.

It would appear that AV is a ploy to keep the eco-fascist influence over any future governments by attempting to ensure that the Limp-Dumps share power just like in the current coalition ?

I want some coffee. Milk and two sugars please.

I HAVE BEEN WATCHING NICK CLEGG'S PAINT DRY AT PMQs (21)

Yo Bro! Nick is like a neater version of Brown, whom I also watched decaying, as Blair ascended unto Heaven.

Nick sits there like a spare bridegroom at a gay wedding. His inanimation could almost be the root of the word 'inane'!

If Westminster ever catches sight of itself, it will die - either of shame, laughing or, probably, BOTH!

AV is a fairplay system of voting and the only people objecting are the Tory bloke who is whining against it because he knows damn well that it would reflect the TRUE feelings of the voters rather than the antiquated FPTP system

Surely a referendum about this asks for a yes or no vote (with no other options!). With respect this is exactly as we have already (and in my opinion should stay so) I want to vote for one thing, not a variation of possible alternatives. Please ask Mr Paxman to air this point live tonight.

how uplifting it was to hear Jeremy Paxman correct Douglas Alexander for using the very lazy and populist "less" when speaking of number of MP's rather than "fewer"...next stop correct usage of "decimating"!

The FPTP system was invented by the British and imported around the world. It works, so why bother changing it. After watching the studio debate, even the panel agreed (by both FPTP and AV voting) that AV is a waste of time and money. Note how Douglas Alexander failed to give a figure for the cost when pressed by Jeremy, even though he denied it would cost 拢250million! Also, the only countries with the AV system, as pointed out by Jeremy, are Australia, Fiji (which is dropping it!) and one other country. Says it all really.

AM I REALLY POSTING THIS AGAIN?

Unless it is acknowledged that MOST VOTES GO TO ROSETTES (regardless of which ninny is underneath) and then whips drive the rosetted ninny through the lobbies (generally knowing nothing of the debate) the true situation goes unaddressed.

To be pedantic but relevant: each party-box should divide into two, to indicate if the vote is for ROSETTE or NINNY. Mix that with preferences, and the unworkable idiocy of party politics emerges into the light.

'One COMPETENT voter one vote' for one CONSTITUENCY MP with no DIVIDED LOYALTY. No (honourable) man can serve two masters.

SPOILPARTYGAMES

AV:
I'm non the wiser. You should have had a Latin Scholar on to help explain it.

Theme tune could have done with some bass..fretless.

Paddy and Johnny.
A good double act. Can you book them again please.
(I still can't get me head around the fact John Prescot is a Lord)

Well, there's hope for us all then I suppose.

Just watched the "debate". One point that was never brought up during it was that AV also affords the opportunity to express your utter displeasure with a particular parties policies.

THE LUNACY OF PARTY POLITICS IS MULTIPLIED IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT (#28)

When a local Council debates (say) more trees for the vandals to snap off, and then VOTES PRECISELY BY PARTY AFFILIATION, the public is ill served. Councillors don't call themselves 'honourable' - just as well. Ponder what kind of mentality behaves in such a craven manner. Are these ciphers what we want?

I don't hesitate to point out again: We are mocked by this crass DE MOCK CRASS Y.

SPOILPARTYGAMES

"..... how uplifting it was to hear Jeremy Paxman correct Douglas Alexander for using the very lazy and populist "less" when speaking of number of MP's rather than "fewer"...next stop correct usage of "decimating"!..."

About the only uplifting thing about the whole programme then.

Can't for the life of me figure out why they (NN Production team) ever consider these kind of guest heavy single handers. They never ever ever work.

This was poor in the extreme. Can't say any one person responsible - just a mess.

And, (stand back and waits to be shot down in flames) I can't understand why any members of the public think they are going to do anything other than make themselves look and sound at best out of their depth, at worst stupid, by agreeing to appear in such a set up. How does that bode for competency in voting?

Over to you Barriesingleton. #15 - pass that Petition.

14 Tu Che Geuvara!

WEARY - FEELING SMALL (#32)

Oh hell, BYT, I was fine till you kindly wrote in accord. Then the total futility of it all hit home. Sort of pointed up by Kev's comment: "Good Lord its Prezza!" And they couldn't even hire a FUNNY comedian.

You are so right BYT - the NewsyNighty 'team' (are they still called a 'team', going forward? - probably 'combo' or co-lab) went right off the edgy edge, when they got the Owl Man in. Utterly predictable that Jeremy would ultimately 'cut' him; but with the gratuitous swipe at Obfuscator Jock, '主播大秀 balance' was maintained. Bravo!

What a farago of a programme! I switched off when the french reporter appeared to give us the "European view". On the trailer last night we were promised Nigel Farage. I hope he pulled out when he saw what a shambles it would be, or maybe he was deselected so that John Prescott could provide "balance". The programme started by analysing the results of previous general elections under AV. The methodology was not explained, but was almost certainly based on the redistribution of votes cast under first-past-the-post, when supporters of minor parties cast their vote tactically for a party they did not really support. As such it was worse than useless - and the "debate" that followed was in the same vein.

16 Muggwhump...if we had a real 主播大秀 with balls and journalists willing to risk taking the piss like Spitting Image and Private Eye we could bring the whole putrid crumbling crooked edifice of joke democracy down in weeks.
But these gutless nancy apologists and apparatchiks are too busy crawling to American culture and global capitalism.

I cannot understand how anybody who believes in democracy can tolerate an electoral system in which the makeup of the elected chamber does not reflect how the people have voted. For the last thirty years or more we have had governments elected with large majorities based on around 43% of the vote or less.

It may be inconvenient for our politicians if the electorate fail to give one party more than 50% of the vote, but that is democracy. Neither Margaret Thatcher nor Tony Blair commanded the support of the majority of those who voted, yet both of them presided over governments with large majorities.

The current FTTP system is anything but democratic. In 1951, Mr. Attlee's Labour party received more votes than Mr. Churchill's Tories, but the latter won a majority of seats. Neither party won more than 50% of the vote. In 1992, John Major won a very narrow majority on a similar share of the vote that Tony Blair achieved in 2005, yet Blair won a comfortable majority of seats.

The only argument offered by supporters of FTTP is that it provides "strong government". But that strong government is not based on how the majority voted. It is government based on the largest minority vote and with large majorities enables that government to do as it pleases even though the majority of those voting did not support it at the polls.

The Conservative and Labour opponents of any change to the system argue that abandoning FTTP will make the Liberal Democrats the "kingmakers" and result in their remaining perpetually in office as part of a coalition. That ignores the possibility, indeed probability, that voting patterns would change under a different system. There would no longer be a need for electors to vote tactically as each elector could vote for ihs party of choice in the first instance knowing that his or her vote was not wasted. The German equivalent of the Lib Dems, (the FDP), contrary to what is peddled by some Labour and Tory politicians, have only recently returned to being part of the German government after many years in opposition.

If FTTP is so democratic, why do the Labour and Tory parties not use that system when electing a new leader? The answer is obvious. If David Cameron had won election as Tory leader on, say, 44% of the vote, he could not claim to have the support of the majority of his party and his authority over his party would be much diminished.

The AV system is not proportional and as such would not result in a House of Commons reflecting how the nation had in fact voted, but at least it would ensure that all MPs would be returned having won 50% or more of the votes cast in their constituencies.

Jeremy Paxman seemed to ridicule the system on the basis that only Papua New Guinea and Australia used it and that Fiji is thinking of abandoning it. More to the point is how many of the advanced democracies use FPTP? Canada and the US come to mind. In the latter, President Bush received fewer votes than his opponent in the 2000 US election, but was elected. If some third world country had elected a leader who had received fewer votes than his opponent, the US, (and indeed the UK), would have been quick to condemn such a result as a negation of democracy.

In Canada, some years ago the governing Tory party was reduced to just two seats in the Canadian House of Commons following an election even though they came second in terms of votes cast.

The fact is that the FPTP system disenfranchises large sections of the country......those who live in constituencies with "safe" seats as the result is decided by around 150,000 electors who happen to live in marginal constituencies.

At a local level the same applies and there are some councils where one party holds all the seats on a minority vote. That is hardly democracy.

AV is not proportional and therefore will not result in a House of Commons reflecting how the nation voted. On the other hand, it will at least ensure that MPs are returned by 50% plus of those who vote. So I am still considering how to vote in the referendum. My concern is that should FTTP be retained, we shall not be offered an opportunity to move to a truly democratic system for at least another generation.

The "debate" was one of the most incoherent and badly moderated I have ever seen. Paxman should be sacked.

There was no real structure ie the main points for and against were not developed, considered and rebutted each in turn. Paxman frequently interjected and redirected discussion without considering the previous point.

Irrelevant assumptions seemed to hold sway eg AV would lead to hung parliaments. There is no evidence for this. Crick's introductory explanation was also pathetic - which may explain why some of the audience didn't appear to understand the system. Nonsense such as the idea of some votes counting twice would have been shown up if a simple simulation had been attempted.

All in all. A complete shambles. Newsnight should have a serious rethink. No wonder political debate in the UK is so poor.

@Mistress76UK

The FTTP system is used by only a handful of countries arouind the world. Indeed, in every former British territory, we insisted on a proportional system in independence. Most of the former British territories that are democracies do not use FPTP.

When the new German state was established after the war, Britain was responsible for the introduction there of a proportional system, not FPTP.

FPTP may "work" as you put it, but it is far from truly democratic.

COGENCY PERSONIFIED (#37)

A pleasure to read Mr Harrison.

I am not surprised you are undecided. Just as in General Elections, we are not offered an abstention box, this referendum is YES/NO. Putting my usual objections to party politics (on which all this is based) aside, I am concerned that the devious forces of Westminster are 'using up' the only say the people are allowed, to keep out PR or what have you. (I recall the referendum on Lisbon that became conveniently 'superseded'.)

I suspect I shall not vote, and if a low turnout is recorded, it will be used to achieve some Machiavellian end. 'Twas ever thus and ever will be, it seems.

AV sounds like it would put the politicians in charge of choosing what manifesto commitments they want to honour, once they have been elected.

Personally I would prefer -

to choose a party candidate for a constituency . This way voters will have a wider selection from which to choose from, eliminating the "safe constituency seat".

Limit the in the House of Commons to only matters concerning manifesto commitments, for which they were elected to enact. The rest of a MPs time should be spent holding the executive to account on behalf of their constituents.

Constituents should be able to trigger a by-election and change their MP mid parliament, for no other reason than they have lost their constituents trust.

Reform the party funding laws in such away that it democratizes party funding. ie. No state funding , No big donations from rich people or collectives (Unions). Just lots of small donations from individual voters.

I feel these changes would give more political control to the people than AV or PR ever would.

So I will be voting No to AV as I consider it a piffling poor offer at best and at worse a politico stitch up.

'Michael Crick will be providing an explainer of how AV works'

Never heard the term 'explainer' used in this form before. Is it like an explanation of a person with added interpretation of events?

Mind you, it is hard to resolve so many descriptions these days...

'....politicians John Prescott, Paddy Ashdown, Tom Harris and Jo Swinson, broadcaster Greg Dyke, and comedian Simon Munnery.'

I must look up my definitions again, especially big name-wise vs. current and with relevance.

'And we've been getting a feel for what the British public feels about AV through a poll we commissioned'

Along with feeling part of that 'we' when applied to 'us'.

tues:

AV in the UK will tend towards supporting the existing parties.

Prescott was awesome.


the Tories have been in "coalition" Govt for most of the last century - with the Ulster Unionist Party, and now the Liberals.

i would have loved to see the same debate with the option of PR as well. Will there be a series of such debates?


douglas alexander: VOTE COUNTING MACHINES!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??


拢250m??? We could buy Ireland's failed experiment in this area:

/news/uk-northern-ireland-11483357

"The government was advised the 7,000 machines could be open to manipulation. "

cheap, AND perfect for the 3-Party-Coalition-Party-at-our-expense needs!


"A little more European" - "A little more Scottish, or Scandinavian" perhaps. The Scots, god Bless their little socks, not only have full transparency for MPs expenses, but also manage to use PR in some of their elections. Some French people ought to recall that the UKs democracy is older and creaking because - because it IS old!! And we don't need lessons from Gallic smugness when at least we in the UK don't usually end up with such fools in power that we had to guillotine them. Granted, we may have slipped recently. But not only are we not looking to our snail-eating neighbours for inspiration, we have enough in-house expertise to balls it up for ourselves, thank you very much.



was that stage-director a new member of the team, or one of the reasons why NN has been so consistently excellent. Nice to occasionally see the other faces behind the cameras. :)


in future AV debates it would be nice to hear people who are actually *supporting FPTP*, instead of just opposing the choice of AV...!!


removing from 'offenders list' - how long should 16yrs that had sex with their 15yr old partners stay on this 'sex offence' register? How long should Ewan McGregor's character in 'Train-Spotting' stay on this register after what happened to him? Our UK Court, in full agreement with our European equals, have ordered that different offences rate different punishments. This is hardly ground-breaking stuff, is it? People with serious offences should obviously stay on. But demonising is just Tabloid scare-scaremongering by other means. All this 'media-storm-in-a-tea-cup-debate' really does is try to whip up Public hysteria against an easy target, partly probably so we will stop bullying the poor little suffering Bankers, whilst also hitting out yet again at "Yoorup", and International Human Rights standards.

if the case was your 16yr old daughter, caught having consensual (though illegal) sex with her 15 year old boyfriend, would you not be thanking this UK & EU Court legal ruling? That would allow her to appeal having to carry this label for the rest of her life? That after 16 years, society could forgive her this terrible crime, and allow her to live a normal life?

it is the UK that has lost its head, and it seems its heart, during the post 9/11 years when every week there had to be a new fear for us to worry about.

now it is "activist judges" forcing the UK to live up to minimal Human Rights! What will these Courts next horrific ruling be, that Parliament has to be fully transparent? Or that there should be a limit on ownership of mass media? Or that Govts *shouldn't* start illegal wars, or torture people?

or perhaps legal Rights to employment practices, or Rights to housing, and basic services and benefits for UK citizens?

why would this Tory Govt, apart from taking people's minds off the bankers, trying to create public hysteria, and aiming for the neo-imbecile vote, have deliberately created TWO public fights with the Courts, apparent insanity, especially when it would cost so much when they finally lose?

i think some of the senior Tories intend to try to withdraw the UK from the wider Europe. Along with the insanity of following the US "no work no benefits", which may well be against EU human rights, and really pretty much every policy this coalition has put forward is a miserable, ideology driven corporate pork-barrel that is only intended to increase the misery of the British.

it is a shame the edl seem to hold in such regard the notion that it is English-moslems that it needs to "defend" us from, when for sheer, hands-down intentional destruction of normal people's lives, and the terror of facing an unknown future, our political class are in a league of their own with no competition.

osama bin laden versus george osborne?

bin laden could only dream of causing this much devastation and destruction to the UK.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

All the discussion about what AV may or may not deliver is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that each and every voter can express their true intention. Whatever the outcome in terms of seats, knowing the true level of support for each party without the distortion of tactical voting has got to be better than what we have now.

WAS I DREAMING?

At the end of a R2 news bulletin this am (6 or 7) I swear I heard mention of Mr Cameron commissioning Tracey Emin to provide a Neon Installation for number 10.

Can't seem to find any news online.

If there is any substance to this I have two questions.

1. Who is paying for it?
2. Where (if anywhere) will Miss Emin be paying her tax for this 'nice little earner'?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

'THE NEO-IMBECILE VOTE' - YES!! (GOING FORWARD) (#43)

Desist Mork! I was reading your thoughts with focus and concentration, till I got to 'NEO-IMBECILE VOTE'. Priceless.

Now I can go back and read the rest.

THE SUN IS GIRDING ITS 'LOINS' YET STILL WE RATE MAN'S PUNY INPUT (#47)

We live in interesting times, and man's arrogance is barely matched by the sun's omnipotence.

Frying tonight?



You will soon be able to make a cup of tea by taking a metal kettle into te middle of a field. That'll do nicely.

DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT

I have followed Chilcot closely. The key man was never called.

Can anyone link me to proof of an IDS three-line-whip when he granted Tony his War?

52

i think all inquiries should be on net.

pretty hard for chilcott to create a believable fudge given everyone has seen the bulk of the evidence themselves?

the FO comes across mainly as a sinister cabal of dissembling neocons, tony comes a cross as deluded who thinks belief is in the same category as knowledge, the military is mostly gung ho lets have a war, the civil service as 'its not me gov' and that no one had a plan, evidence or anything else that could constitute a reasonable threshold for going to war.

basically the Blair threshold for going to war is 'i think he's up to something but not sure what'. War by suspicion.
The neocon threshold for going to war is 'it will morally improve the public'. for them evidence of a threat is irrelevant.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

A DEMOCRATIC ANSWER THAT SPOILS PARTY GAMES ....AND TESTS WHOSE SIDE THE 主播大秀 IS REALLY ON!!!

"Our" state propoganda and bread and circuses machine could allow us to test out a new entirly media based form of democratic party.

All we need to do is advertise the idea that at every election people can spoil their papers in a clear and unambiguous way which I have heard called "none of the above".No need for candidates or rosettes!

Now until recently (and before the internet got going) the political mafia would have put a stop to this working affectively by denying the idea the oxygen of publicity ....but just imagine a few election night counts where the majority of votes were spoiled?

In fact what if the "party" did organise in the way Sinn Fein did ....but just didn`t bother to put up candidates at all.

43 M-H When Just When has That Barmaid been Awesome

or did you mean he's an Awsome Joke

Thanks Messrs Harrison #37 and Michaelson#38. I was one of 20 in the studio audience last night and correctly anticipated that the entertainment format - including various film clips - would not allow much room for a meaningful, serious debate ; this all the more as the opponents - egged on, it must be said, by JP - focussed on attacking AV rather than defending FPTP. If one must ridicule PNG and Fiji as being the only countries, alongside Australia , currently using AV, I was hoping to point out that aside from Ex-British Empire countries (incl. U.S. and Canada) the only other FPTP counries are Azerbaijan,Ethiopia, Eritrea and ... wait for it.....Yemen !!
As a reluctant ("miserable compromise) , but clear supporter of AV I was disappointed that the audience selection seemed in casual pre-broadcast chats and in the debate itself to be much less balanced i.e. strongly "no" than flagship news programmes such as Questiontime. This came through in the rather useless audience "vote" for George Eustace when , by any objective standard, at least two of the Yes panel were more articulate. As to the distinctly unfunny comedian - sorry, NN producers - lead balloon....

DougLess Alexander more smellie flipflop with more wrong cheese

did I mention Verookakaka

54 SSOHF serious sense of humour failure, no funny bone

or an elemeant of Truth and Tarring The Blog Dog with the same brush

Thanks for Revealing so much

LEAD BALLOON (#57)

A pertinent post sherwood. Sadly, the lead balloon is inflated with 主播大秀 complacency, tied to a string of irrelevancies, as they frolic with, feet of clay, in the Land of Makebelieve.

Still - mustn't grumble.

Who is The Big Cheese, Numero Uno, The Cheef, The Big Hoss, The Main Personage, Teachers Pet, Top Brown Noser etc etc

who is The 2 post or not 2 post Postie

Names and Facaes

SPOIL BARRIE`S GAMES SPOIL YOUR VOTES

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Why did you remove my comment? I didn't say anything rude or inciting.

JP鈥檚 assertion last night that the only countries using AV are Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji is no doubt correct, although I believe that this is not really the whole story.
A quick look in Wikipedia (a starting point, if not always 100% accurate) under 鈥淪ingle transferrable vote鈥� (the name used for the system in Australia) lists Ireland, Malta, Northern Ireland, Scotland, India, Australia, New Zealand, US (for a few City elections) and Iceland as using the system.
Looking in Wikipedia under 鈥淚nstant runoff voting鈥� starts 鈥淚nstant runoff voting (IRV) or the alternative vote (AV)鈥� and lists all of the above plus even more adopters.
I realise that the systems used in these countries are subtly different in implementation to that proposed for adoption in Westminster elections, but I believe that to mention only Australia, PNG and Fiji is a lean towards the status quo.

PRIMARIES - AV - PR - EQUAL CONSTITUENCIES - 50% WOE-MEN

While parties pre select all but a couple of candidates, and candidates subsume self and constituents beneath 'the party' (who dump the manifesto at will) representation will be minimal and democracy a lie.

VIVC #65 / ALL - Rather than Wikipedia, have a good look at the Electoral Network site : aceproject.org; it has an awesome amount of detail on electoral systems around the world......

I have to agree with fraser (comment 38)
This edition of Newsnight was shocking. The debate seemed poorly organised, with comments that were embarrassingly out of place by a so called comedian on the 'against AV' panel. Even the graphics didn't fit the screen behind Paxman!!
Poor show 主播大秀. Don't try to copy 10 O'Clock Live - leave that to Ch4. They can do it well!