Amber?
KeRgMaGiRl
Morgan Lewis
>
> KeRgMaGiRl:
> >
> > The guy who made Starship Troopers is doing Amber? Glod forbid!
>
>
Yes, Warner Brother is making a movie of Roger Zelazny's Nine Princes in
Amber. It's being worked on by Ed Neumeier (Starship Troopers), Mark
Canton (producer), Akiva Goldsman (writer for Batman Forever.)
(The above information comes from a fan site at www.roger-zelazny.com .
The official movie site is www.nineprincesinamber.com , but it only
redirects to WB's site at the moment, which is curiously devoid of
information.)
As can be understood, Zelazny fans are suffering from a mixture of
excitement and trepidation. Excitement, because if done right, it
should be very good. Trepidation because of the odds of the people
involved doing it right.
More info occasionally pops up on alt.books.roger-zelazny, a newsgroup
which, incidentally, is desperately in need of increased traffic.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Lewis m...@efn.org mle...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
mle...@cs.uoregon.edu http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~mlewis/
Nobody steals books but your friends. (Zelazny, Guns of Avalon)
Jens Ayton
>
> The guy who made Starship Troopers is doing Amber? Glod forbid!
Who? What? When? Where? Wibble?
--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/ PGP key: http://home4.swipnet.se/~w-49116/stuff/jens_ayton.pgp
Relieve hunger and guilt in one fell swoop: http://www.thehungersite.com
Paul Andinach
> Yes, Warner Brother is making a movie of Roger Zelazny's Nine
> Princes in Amber. It's being worked on by Ed Neumeier (Starship
> Troopers), Mark Canton (producer), Akiva Goldsman (writer for
> Batman Forever.)
Akiva Goldsman? My sympathies to anyone who's been hoping for a good
Amber movie...
Paul
--
The Pink Pedanther
Eric Jarvis
I'm still hoping...Starship Troopers was apparently no worse than
the original...in fact somebody suggested to me that it was an
extraordinary achievement to make the film without it seeming to
espouse fascism [1]
Batman Forever I've actually seen, and whilst I thought it was a
bit bland, I would have thought that was due to weaknesses in the
original concept of Batman and to most of the interesting stuff
that could be done with the character already having been staked
out by it's predeccesors
Amber is wonderful material for film...I doubt they'll tackle it
the way I would like [2] but I'm not expecting it to be totally
appalling
[1] a slur on Heinlein that is not actually in agreement with my
views...just damn close to them
[2] start with a real film noir look, not black and white but
washed out colours so it gives that impression...then add in more
and more colour as Corwin approaches Amber...use that throughout
to differentiate Amber and it's shadows
--
eric - afpianced to pia and Thom, afpdopted uncle to Mary
Messall, and afplirting with April
"if a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing to excess"
Livia Mitson
Eric Jarvis <er...@last.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm still hoping...Starship Troopers was apparently no worse than
>the original...in fact somebody suggested to me that it was an
>extraordinary achievement to make the film without it seeming to
>espouse fascism [1]
[...]
>[1] a slur on Heinlein that is not actually in agreement with my
>views...just damn close to them
I didn't see the film, but I gather it was a typical cardboard-characters
action film. How they got that out of the novel, which is basically
political philosophy overlaid onto a very thin coming-of-age plot I dunno.
I wouldn't have described the political philosophy espoused in the book as
fascist either; the book is very militaristic, but the military it was
describing struck me as more like the armies of the 19th century in many
ways (frex firmly split into two classes, and ne'er the twain shall meet)
than a fascist military.
It struck me as more of a "return to a Golden Age" book than a "fascist"
book.
Livia
--
Livia Mitson livia at wheelwright dot net http://www.wheelwright.net/livia/
"This law comes from a sustainable legislature. It can help to maintain
a fair and equitable world if used as part of properly managed society.
No citizens were harmed during the making of this statute." - sjk36@cam.
Quantum Moth
(li...@nospam.wheelwright.net) extended a delicate pseudopod and
wrote...
> In article <398D50CA...@last.dircon.co.uk>,
> Eric Jarvis <er...@last.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >I'm still hoping...Starship Troopers was apparently no worse than
> >the original...in fact somebody suggested to me that it was an
> >extraordinary achievement to make the film without it seeming to
> >espouse fascism [1]
>
> [...]
>
> >[1] a slur on Heinlein that is not actually in agreement with my
> >views...just damn close to them
>
> I didn't see the film, but I gather it was a typical cardboard-characters
> action film. How they got that out of the novel, which is basically
> political philosophy overlaid onto a very thin coming-of-age plot I dunno.
>
espoused therein (*g*, we're gonna split this thread dead centre, I
reckon), but it was... something a bit more than "a typical cardboard-
characters action film". Rather, it was one of Verhoeven's usual
satirical sci-fi movies (See RoboCop, Total Recall..) which managed to
sail way over the heads of most folk that watched it (I know that I saw
it with a bunch of people who came away saying it was simply a no-
brainer with giant bugs[1]). The problem seems to be that the message of
the characters and the message of the creators were easy to confuse as
it was played admirably straight by almost all concerned - only the
insert propoganda movies really winked directly at the audience.
Ah, whatever. It had levels. And massive bugs that farted fire at
spaceships.
[1]Which is cool, because, in a way, it was.
--
thom willis - sc...@mostly.com -Pikapika!(trans. afpianceed to Corinne!)
Protecting the world from devastation since... uh, February.
My vacuum cleaner.
It sucks.
Zayfod
book, or indeed much like it.
Ok so the baddies were still bugs and the names where the same, but other
than that it was mostly a new rather week story.
1) in the book the soldiers are in a mech. suite which would make it quite
easy for them to take out platoons of tanks,
in the film the soldiers are infantry carrying rather small guns.
2) in the book the soldiers are all male (as I remember), this isn't sexist,
it's because all the women in the army are pilots because they can take the
g's better.
in the film the army is mixed, probable because the directors didn't
want to offend anyone.
3) in the book individual soldiers in mech. suits where dropped (fired from
a dam great gun on board the ship) in pods which had chutes and break away
sections on, in the film the infantry come down in a shuttle.
Basically the film was a weak shadow of the book, or a different story all
together.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I don't suffer from insanity, I REVEL in it!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Quantum Moth" <sc...@mostly.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.13f8c0cc4...@news.lineone.net...
Jens Ayton
>
> I've read the book and seen the film, and the film wasn't a patch on the
> book, or indeed much like it.
> Ok so the baddies were still bugs and the names where the same, but other
> than that it was mostly a new rather week story.
<snip list of superficial differences>
All right, but the thing I remember most from the book is the politics;
to be a citizen one must have served in the military; the people one
talked to when applying to join the military were actively discouraging
(and I got the impression that this was encouaraged) etc. The whole book
was written such that this appearaed to be encouraged by the author; a
warning or his actual opinion on politics, one wonders? (This is very
different from, e.g., _the Star Beast_, but then, to what extent is _the
White Man's Burden_ reflected in _Riki-Tiki-Tavi_?)
Presumably none of this was reflected in the film?
KeRgMaGiRl
>book, or indeed much like it.
>Ok so the baddies were still bugs and the names where the same, but other
>than that it was mostly a new rather week story.
<<
certainly not
up to the book, and Dizzy Flores is still a woman, but it's definitely *the*
thing to watch at 7:30 in the morning when you can't muster the energy to
change the channel <g>. Naturally, even a trace of quality doomed the thing, so
now they just run reruns of the original six-week story arc.(it might not be
six-week. I'm not sure.)
-Elizabeth
Out of summer school and fe-e-e-ling FINE!
David Chapman
news:3991B141...@nettaxi.com...
> Zayfod:
> >
> > I've read the book and seen the film, and the film wasn't a patch on the
> > book, or indeed much like it.
> > Ok so the baddies were still bugs and the names where the same, but
other
> > than that it was mostly a new rather week story.
>
>
> All right, but the thing I remember most from the book is the politics;
> to be a citizen one must have served in the military; the people one
> talked to when applying to join the military were actively discouraging
> (and I got the impression that this was encouaraged) etc. The whole book
> was written such that this appearaed to be encouraged by the author; a
> warning or his actual opinion on politics, one wonders? (This is very
> different from, e.g., _the Star Beast_, but then, to what extent is _the
> White Man's Burden_ reflected in _Riki-Tiki-Tavi_?)
>
> Presumably none of this was reflected in the film?
As it happens, *all* of the above was in the film. Verhoeven's changes were
made in the name of keeping the budget sane. (The exception being the mixed
infantry, which was in the name of getting a mixed shower scene in, but that
just proves that Verhoeven a) never changes and b) is Dutch <grin>.)
--
I do wish you wouldn't keep on about how easier
life would be if we killed everyone who poses the
slightest inconvenience.
Daniel Goldsmith
shadows...
> "Jens Ayton" <jAyton_...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
> news:3991B141...@nettaxi.com...
> > Zayfod:
> > >
> > > I've read the book and seen the film, and the film wasn't a patch on the
> > > book, or indeed much like it.
> > > Ok so the baddies were still bugs and the names where the same, but
> other
> > > than that it was mostly a new rather week story.
> >
> > <snip list of superficial differences>
> >
> > All right, but the thing I remember most from the book is the politics;
> > to be a citizen one must have served in the military;
<snip politicals>
> > Presumably none of this was reflected in the film?
>
> As it happens, *all* of the above was in the film. Verhoeven's changes were
> made in the name of keeping the budget sane. (The exception being the mixed
> infantry, which was in the name of getting a mixed shower scene in, but that
> just proves that Verhoeven a) never changes and b) is Dutch <grin>.)
<movie geek>
Apparently most of the cast - being from places which have peculiar
sensibilities about their bodies - had problems with this scene, and
basically said to Verhoeven summat along the lines of 'If its no problem,
why don't you do it'. So Verhoeven and the crew stripped off as well thus
creating the perfect ambience for all the blushing women and men. I mean,
I've heard of method acting, but method *directing*.
</movie geek>
I don't really think Verhoeven's slight changes made all that much
difference to the book. I suppose I mean that I saw it twice - once sober
and in a small group, where I enjoyed the film in the same way as I had
the book. The second time slightly tipsy, not caring about the _message_
and with a larger group, I enjpyed it as some kind of super-western, but
I still got the sarcasm/satire, as did those I was with who had never
even heard of Heinlein.
Do you want to know MORE?
Daniel.
> --
> I do wish you wouldn't keep on about how easier
> life would be if we killed everyone who poses the
> slightest inconvenience.
>
>
>
--
"Happy the man, and happy he alone, he who can call today his own.
He who secure within can say, tomorrow do thy worst, for I have lived
today."
Julia Jones
<DanielG...@eircom.net> writes
>I don't really think Verhoeven's slight changes made all that much
>difference to the book.
Personally, I wouldn't call completely reversing the book's bit about a
trooper being able to back out of a drop right up until drop time a
*subtle* change.
--
Julia Jones
Redemption 01 - The Blakes 7/Babylon 5 convention
23-25 February 2001, Ashford International Hotel, Kent
http://www.smof.com/redemption/
Dragon Prince
"Julia Jones" <jajon...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oNdtazAI...@jajones.demon.co.uk...
> In article <MPG.13fc8865...@news.eircom.net>, Daniel
Goldsmith
> <DanielG...@eircom.net> writes
> >I don't really think Verhoeven's slight changes made all that much
> >difference to the book.
>
> Personally, I wouldn't call completely reversing the book's bit about
a
> trooper being able to back out of a drop right up until drop time a
> *subtle* change.
Was it even mentioned in the film? I cant recall it. and I actualy like
the film! <boggle>
if you realise that the book and film are not one and the same then its
ok the film is just a reasonably watchable scifi film thats piggybacking
on the name of a reasonably well known book. the inconsistancies are no
greater than other films of books. and yes you can spot where things
have been taken from the book and addapted to make for better film.
to use the origanal troupers get up would have IME doubled or possibly
trebbled the CGI budget. where as give them a few rifles and non powered
armour worked out cheaper. so that was probably a budget thing.
I dont think any book to film project would ever remain untouched, just
look at the comments her on afp re the Holywood project for various
diskworld books. and look at the cost of that original LOTR film that
was made, the second part never was produced, even though I enjoyed the
first part. I suspect that films of books will never be true to the
original in a 100% kind of manner, though I am happy to be proved wrong
Dragon Prince
--
If at first you dont succeed,put someone elese's initials on the
worksheet
<Tom Holt, Only human>
Julia Jones
ylor.clara.co.uk> writes
>Was it even mentioned in the film? I cant recall it. and I actualy like
>the film! <boggle>
>
>if you realise that the book and film are not one and the same then its
>ok the film is just a reasonably watchable scifi film thats piggybacking
>on the name of a reasonably well known book. the inconsistancies are no
>greater than other films of books. and yes you can spot where things
>have been taken from the book and addapted to make for better film.
I didn't see the film from start to finish (too busy recovering from
watching an eclipse, I think), but there was a scene somewhere in it
where someone is told that if he doesn't obey orders, the sergeant will
kill the guy himself. I also wasn't overly impressed by the Tagalog
speaker in the book being portrayed as an all-American boy.
If you want to take the piss out of a book, by all means do so, but
don't lie about what you're taking the piss out of. That annoyed me far
more than ditching the suits and various other changes that were
obviously a result of the conversion from text to film.
Meg Thornton
<jAyton_...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>Zayfod:
>>
>> I've read the book and seen the film, and the film wasn't a patch on the
>> book, or indeed much like it.
>> Ok so the baddies were still bugs and the names where the same, but other
>> than that it was mostly a new rather week story.
>
><snip list of superficial differences>
>
>All right, but the thing I remember most from the book is the politics;
>to be a citizen one must have served in the military; the people one
>talked to when applying to join the military were actively discouraging
>(and I got the impression that this was encouaraged) etc. The whole book
>was written such that this appearaed to be encouraged by the author; a
>warning or his actual opinion on politics, one wonders? (This is very
>different from, e.g., _the Star Beast_, but then, to what extent is _the
>White Man's Burden_ reflected in _Riki-Tiki-Tavi_?)
"Starship Troopers" is Heinlein's most overtly "political" book, being
written at a time when he wanted to make a political point to the
people of the US. As such, it presents what I'd consider a somewhat
highly coloured perspective of his political position, which was
always right of centre. The book was written in response to the US
deciding to sign a "no nuclear testing" treaty with the USSR, back in
the 1950's. So, yes, it *was* written as a warning.
(One thing to clear up is that in order to be a citizen, *active* (ie
combat-based) military service was not required. However, in order to
be an active citizen, one had to have completed a *term* (minimum 3
years) of military service. At the time when the main character signs
up, *there isn't a war happening*, so yes, there is a strong
*discouragement* toward joining up, simply because a peacetime army
*cannot* be permitted to become too large. One of the points which
Heinlein makes in the book, however, is that for every person in a
unit of MI (Mobile Infantry), there's probably another ten or twenty
in other units who may or may not be required to risk their precious
skins in battle. The war starts when the protagonist has just
finished basic training.)
Heinlein appears to have constantly had the opinion that "warm body"
voting rights starting at age 18 were a mistake. In several of his
books, he proposes variations on this system, from removing the age
limit entirely, to adding in intelligence, monetary, or, as in the
context of "Starship Troopers", service criterion. I have to admit, I
actally agree with him on that matter - my position is that voting is
a responsibility that every citizen has, and if you don't use it, you
should lose it.
>Presumably none of this was reflected in the film?
Nope. Not one bit of it.
Meg
--
This post contains original material copyright Meg Thornton 2000.
This message was originally posted in plain text. Any images,
hyperlinks or similar matter you see are not my doing, and are a
violation of international copyright law. mag...@megabitch.tm
T J Wilkinson
wrote:
> I have to admit, I
>actally agree with him on that matter - my position is that voting is
>a responsibility that every citizen has, and if you don't use it, you
>should lose it.
All very well when it comes to national elections. But trying to keep
up all the possible things you can vote for can become a bit
ridiculous. Last local body elections I got the form and realised
they were not only asking for my vote for the city council and mayor,
but for three different community boards, two of which I had never
heard of before, despite living in the area for two years and reading
the local papers fairly regularly. I'd only heard of one of the guys
standing for them and I didn't like said guy. Plus I had uni exams
coming up, a part-time job, was heading overseas after exams, and
doing my share of the housework, so I didn't have time to become an
informed voter.
And now they're setting up elected health boards again! How much of
the population has any idea who'd be any good at running a hospital,
or who 9/10ths of the jokers standing for the boards are? I certainly
don't.
People can get carried away with democracy.
BTW, Heinlein's idea about having to solve a quadratic equation before
you can vote was good. I can solve quadratic equations. :)
Tracy
--
tajw...@ihug.co.nz
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~tajwileb/
The right half of the brain controls the left half of the body.
This means that only left handed people are in their right mind.
Quantum Moth
(tracy.wilkinson@xtraDOTcoDOTnz) declared, somewhat boisterously...
>
>
> BTW, Heinlein's idea about having to solve a quadratic equation before
> you can vote was good. I can solve quadratic equations. :)
>
<looks at piece of scrap paper in front of him>
Would you have to solve it within a time limit? If you give me a few
minutes, I should be there.....
--
thom willis - sc...@mostly.com - madly in love with Corinne!
Protecting the world from devastation since... uh, February.
If you're going to be like that..
I'm not going to be like that. I *am* like that.
Eric Jarvis
>
> BTW, Heinlein's idea about having to solve a quadratic equation
> before you can vote was good. I can solve quadratic equations. :)
>
>
the problem with that...and most of the rest of Heinlein's
opinions on voting rights was that he wanted to specify that to
vote you should be exactly like Robert Heinlein...but he hadn't
got the guts to come right out and say it, or the nous to realise
that he didn't actually believe in democracy at all...since the
whole point of it is to get a consensus from a wide range of
people
I've read most of his books...a hell of a good writer...and a pig
ignorant self centred right wing chauvinist racist sexist bastard
I highly recommend reading his books...a lot of my early
political education came from picking his ideology apart
thing is...I'd also probably have really liked the guy if I'd
ever met him
--
eric - afpianced to pia and Thom, afpdopted uncle to Mary
Messall, afplirting with April
"progress is what happens when lazy people find ways to make
their jobs easier" - Heinlein?
Julia Jones
<er...@last.dircon.co.uk> writes
[re: Heinlein]
>I highly recommend reading his books...a lot of my early
>political education came from picking his ideology apart
Yes - even if you disagree with him, he has a knack of making you think
about *why* you disagree with him. It's very educational.
Mary Messall
> T J Wilkinson wrote:
> > BTW, Heinlein's idea about having to solve a quadratic equation
> > before you can vote was good. I can solve quadratic equations. :)
> opinions on voting rights was that he wanted to specify that to
> vote you should be exactly like Robert Heinlein...but he hadn't
> got the guts to come right out and say it, or the nous to realise
> that he didn't actually believe in democracy at all...since the
> whole point of it is to get a consensus from a wide range of
> people
> I've read most of his books...a hell of a good writer...and a pig
> ignorant self centred right wing chauvinist racist sexist bastard
AND a counter-culture icon, thanks to _Stranger_. I like that irony. AND
a native of my home-town, Kansas City. His cousin fixed my sewing
machine once. Isn't that great?
But I'm not sure he actually believed half the crap he homilized about
in his later books. (I prefer the juveniles, myself. _Have Spacesuit
Will Travel_ and the like.) I think he enjoyed being controversial for
its own sake. He's not even very consistent- sometimes the government is
very powerful, issuing child bearing licenses and mandatory military
service- but just as often, there isn't a government at all, just a lot
of sarcastic people making their own politics. Sometimes its "grok,
share water, free love" and others it's TANSTAAFL and "an armed society
is a polite society." He just liked to provoke people. As official
afpDevil's Advocate to Laurabelle, I have to say I'm rather fond of him
for it.
-Mary
--
-bombadil magazine-
It isn't easy being green.
http://www.bombadilmag.com
T J Wilkinson
<er...@last.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>T J Wilkinson wrote:
>>
>> BTW, Heinlein's idea about having to solve a quadratic equation
>> before you can vote was good. I can solve quadratic equations. :)
>the problem with that...and most of the rest of Heinlein's
>opinions on voting rights was that he wanted to specify that to
>vote you should be exactly like Robert Heinlein...but he hadn't
>got the guts to come right out and say it, or the nous to realise
>that he didn't actually believe in democracy at all...since the
>whole point of it is to get a consensus from a wide range of
>people
My smiley was at the bias of my statement and the bias I suspect in
Heinlein's suggestions for who should vote. But doesn't Heinlein
occasionally come right out and say he doesn't believe in democracy?
Various lines like "that unfortunate experiment" and "what this
country needs is a monarch" spring to mind[1]. His ideal seems to be
a dictatorship, bad dictators being shot. He never seemed to have
noticed that dictators that by any measure are bad (e.g. Stalin, Pol
Pot, Idi Amin) have clung to power for ages, enough time to kill
thousands or millions, while a number of rulers who appear to be no
worse than any other have been shot just because they really upset
some fanatic.
BTW, democracy doesn't get a consensus from a wide range of people. 4
million people can't agree on when to have lunch, let alone a more
substantial, detailed proposal. The majority, or the largest minority
wins. Personally I'm in favour of letting people get on with their
own lives, including stuffing them up, as much as possible, and then
turning to democracy only when necessary.
>I've read most of his books...a hell of a good writer...and a pig
>ignorant self centred right wing chauvinist racist sexist bastard
He always struck me as emotionally chauvinist, racist & sexist, but
intellectually (in his later books at least) not. As if he couldn't
get free of his upbringing.
E.g. there are a number of books in which women are engineers,
bringing up children as solo mums (Hazel Stone, in the background),
outwitting men in business deals, etc. Some of them also are showing
adhereing to professional ethics. Similarly, while he continually
favours North American heroes, he does have a number of characters
(good guys) who are referred to as not being white.
Of course his women characters seem cut from the same mould and
whatever the hero's skin colour, the internal operations are pretty
similar, which is why I say intellectually he's not sexist or racist,
but emotionally he never steps out from his childhood. But I'm
impressed by someone with the intellectual honesty to hold an opinion
their gut feeling disagrees with.
Tracy
[1] Horribly misquoted, of course.
Quantum Moth
(tracy.wilkinson@xtraDOTcoDOTnz) declared, somewhat boisterously...
<snip>
>
> BTW, democracy doesn't get a consensus from a wide range of people. 4
> million people can't agree on when to have lunch,
4 million? Tracy, *4* people can't agree on when to have lunch!
--
thom willis - sc...@mostly.com - madly in love with Corinne!
Protecting the world from devastation since... uh, February.
Lunch?
Tea?
Julia Jones
writes
[Heinlein]
>I think he enjoyed being controversial for
>its own sake.
I'm pretty damned certain he did - he more or less said so in one of his
essays, when he said something along the lines of his novels weren't
meant to be prescriptions on how to run the world, they were meant to
make people think about how the world was being run, see it from a
different point of view.
As for sexist - he has some pretty strong female characters. Hazel Stone
is one of my childhood heroes.
Leo Breebaart
Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> writes:
> I'm not sure [Heinlein] actually believed half the crap he homilized
> about in his later books. [...] He's not even very consistent- sometimes
> the government is very powerful, issuing child bearing licenses and
> mandatory military service- but just as often, there isn't a government
> at all, just a lot of sarcastic people making their own politics.
Had Heinlein only ever written about the same type of government and the
about same kind of society, using the same viewpoint, than that would have
made him a pretty boring writer indeed.
Personally, I think Heinlein was someone who often expressed his personal
beliefs in his writing, yes, but who also loved to play with people's
expectations, who liked to look at things from many different sides, and
who had no intention at all of limiting himself to writing the shallow
crypto-fascist propaganda that his detractors claimed was all he was
capable of.
That the moon society depicted in _The Cat Who Walks Through Walls_ is
basically the utopia from _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_ turned utterly
distopean is something I've always found fascinating (mind you, not much
else about _Cat_ was fascinating). I believe that "inconsistent" is totally
the wrong word to describe Heinlein's approach to story settings.
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
Eric Jarvis
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 19:04:29 +0100, Eric Jarvis
> <er...@last.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I've read most of his books...a hell of a good writer...and a pig
> >ignorant self centred right wing chauvinist racist sexist bastard
>
> He always struck me as emotionally chauvinist, racist & sexist, but
> intellectually (in his later books at least) not. As if he couldn't
> get free of his upbringing.
>
yep...in a nutshell exactly what I would have written had
a: I remembered his books well enough
b: been clever enough to see it
ho hum...I need to go back and re read them, I think you've nailed it
there...I think I've got a copy of Stranger somewhere
Tracy...I owe you a beer/chocolate/meal
--
eric -afpianced to pia and Thom, afpdopted uncle to
Mary Messall, afplirting with April
Liz Ashton
>distopean is something I've always found fascinating (mind you, not much
>else about _Cat_ was fascinating).
I like The Cat Who Walks Through Walls........... but my personal fav
is Time Enough for love..... and one other.... but I can't remember
the title...... it's about a a man who has his concisness (?) put into
a young woman's body... they share the body..... and then a third
person joins them in there...... can anyone else remember?
*hugs*
liz
-------------------------------------------------------------
AFP Code 2.0:AMu/ANL d* S+:+ a- u++p R+ F++ ?C M pp+
L+ I_ W_ c B CC00:+ PT++ Pu:61+ MT+ eV r+++ Z** END CODE
AFPianced to Kevin Hackett,Dooferlad and Mike Gavin
AFPbig sis to Ratty
Leo Breebaart
> I like The Cat Who Walks Through Walls........... but my personal fav is
> Time Enough for love..... and one other.... but I can't remember the
> title...... it's about a a man who [spoiler deleted] and then [other
> spoiler deleted] can anyone else remember?
That would be 1970's _I Will Fear No Evil_.
I have a certain fondness for that one myself, although in general it's
regarded as one of his most awkward novels, and I do see why: it's
basically his first draft, released unedited by his wife and publisher
during a time when Heinlein was hospitalised and so close to death he was
not able to make any decisions for himself.
As a result, _Evil_ is overlong, rambling, and unfocused. But to be honest
I don't see *that* much difference between it and the other books he wrote
after he had recovered (such as, oh, _Time Enough For Love_, no offense).
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
Morgan Lewis
>
> my position is that voting is
> a responsibility that every citizen has, and if you don't use it, you
> should lose it.
>
>
I disconcur. First, the "if you don't use it, you lose it" principle
doesn't apply very well to voting. If you have somebody who hasn't
voted in 12 years, and isn't going to vote this year, removing their
right to do so accomplishes nothing. And if you remove somebody's right
to vote and they decide they want to? Your reason for removing was that
they weren't using it, and now they would use it if they still had the
right. In that scenario, nothing beneficial has been accomplished, and
harm has been done (somebody who would've voted didn't.) "Use it or
lose it" voting rights are a flawed premise, in my opinion.
And there are legitimate reasons for not voting. Suppose that my local
county has an opening on the board of commissioners, and three people
are running. Suppose I think all three are incompetent and/or crooked,
and there aren't signficantly distinguishing factors. (This happens
quite a lot, really.) Should I vote on that election? No. I should
not, IMO (and when it comes to voting, there's only one opinion that
counts), say that I support Candidate X when I don't. I could vote for
a write-in candidate, but unless there's a large rally of support for
that person (which there almost never is), this is functionally the same
as not voting at all.
This applies to ballot measures as well; if I'm not sufficiently
informed to make a good decision on measure #33 1/3, I shouldn't make
one. And, when the ballot has a hundred measures on it (which is
becoming all too common), it's generally not possible to be fully
informed on each of them. (One thing that angers me is a recently
passed bill [in Oregon] which requires at least 51% of registered voters
to have voted on any tax-increasing measures for it to pass. Thus, even
if a majority of those who voted on it say "yes", if only 50% of voters
voted, it will fail. The reason this angers me is because it's
essentially putting "No" in the mouths of those who had chosen to keep
silent.)
Voting *is* a responsibility. It should be done most of the time. But
like any responsibility, you have to be responsible enough to know when
*not* to exercise it as well.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Lewis m...@efn.org mle...@cs.uoregon.edu
The Eclectic Quotes Page: http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~mlewis/
Richard Eney
>
>But I'm not sure he actually believed half the crap he homilized about
>in his later books. (I prefer the juveniles, myself. _Have Spacesuit
>its own sake. He's not even very consistent
<snip> > He just liked to provoke people.
By George, I think she's got it. :-)
I wish he really had written that book of inflammatory 'publish only after
I die' stuff instead of what got put together as Grumbles from the Grave.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
>_Evil_ is overlong, rambling, and unfocused. But to be honest
>I don't see *that* much difference between it and the other books he wrote
>after he had recovered (such as, oh, _Time Enough For Love_, no offense).
I forget - did TEFL come out before or after the surgery that cleared away
the obstructions in the arteries that feed the brain? He was a lot more
coherent as a speaker after that surgery.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
T J Wilkinson <tracy.w...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
<snip>
>but emotionally he never steps out from his childhood. But I'm
>impressed by someone with the intellectual honesty to hold an opinion
>their gut feeling disagrees with.
Darn, now I'm trying to remember who wrote that short story about an alien
child being put into a little backwoods school, and being supported by the
local sheriff, who is personally prejudiced but knows that the law of the
land supports equal education and upholds the law even though he
disagrees with it emotionally. (The kids handle it fine.)
=Tamar
"Children decide that when they are old enough - but we're hoping she'll
decide to be a girl." - roughly, from an author whose name I forget
darnit.
Eric Jarvis
vaguely reminiscent of a memory I associate with Ray Bradbury...but
which story and which collection I have no idea...he certainly tackled
something similar
--
eric -afpianced to pia and Thom, afpdopted uncle to
Mary Messall, afplirting with April
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Leo Breebaart
> >_Evil_ is overlong, rambling, and unfocused. But to be honest I don't
> >see *that* much difference between it and the other books he wrote after
> >he had recovered (such as, oh, _Time Enough For Love_, no offense).
>
> I forget - did TEFL come out before or after the surgery that cleared away
> the obstructions in the arteries that feed the brain? He was a lot more
> coherent as a speaker after that surgery.
Before. TEFL is from 1973, the carotid deblocking surgery did not happen
until 1977, according to the Heinlein FAQ at
<http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/rah_faq.htm>
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
Natalie Lintner
"Morgan Lewis" <m...@efn.org> wrote in message
news:3999B0E4...@efn.org...
<snip>
> And there are legitimate reasons for not voting. Suppose that my local
> county has an opening on the board of commissioners, and three people
> are running. Suppose I think all three are incompetent and/or crooked,
> and there aren't signficantly distinguishing factors. (This happens
> quite a lot, really.) Should I vote on that election? No. I should
> not, IMO (and when it comes to voting, there's only one opinion that
> counts), say that I support Candidate X when I don't. I could vote for
> a write-in candidate, but unless there's a large rally of support for
> that person (which there almost never is), this is functionally the same
> as not voting at all.
>
> This applies to ballot measures as well; if I'm not sufficiently
> informed to make a good decision on measure #33 1/3, I shouldn't make
> one.
I have both a question and several comments.
We in the US are woefully under-educated about the governmental systems of
other countries (and about our own system, for too many people.) I know the
basics about other National governments, but no specifics.
All of which prefaces my question: Do other countries have an annual
National Election day where all[1] issues and offices on the local, county,
state(or state equivalent,) and federal levels are up for the vote.
I ask that question because the answer may make my next statement irrelevant
to non-USers.
Actually commenting of the subject at hand... choosing not to vote.
It is quite rare that there is only ONE office to vote for.
Even if you can't stand the candidates for office X, Y and Z, you don't
want to loose the chance to vote for the rest of the alphabet. Even if you
think all the folks up for federal positions are yahoos, you can't forget
that there are very important state and local offices also on the table.
Also, a write-in vote is NOT the same as not voting at all. When you
write-in you send a CLEAR message that you are not satisfied with the
options. Okay, so maybe you are only sending that message to the person who
counts your vote, but when you stay away from the voting booth, you aren't
being heard at all.
Not being educated about a measure is not a good reason not to vote. It may
be a reason not to vote on that specific measure, but there are always other
issues and offices on the ballot. Besides, it is all citizens' duty to
educate themselves on the issues that are most important to them. You don't
have to know everything about all of the ballot issues, but to not make any
effort at all undermines the principles of democracy.
To paraphrase Senator Bill Bradley: If we don't make our voices heard,
someone else's will be.
Natalie Lintner
(Yes, I HAVE been watching the Dem. convention, why do you ask?)
1. Actually, not all issues come up then. There is also the spring
primary[2], but that's decided on a state by state basis.
2. Oh yeah, and if someone leaves office (and there isn't a replacement
outlined in some official document) then a special election is called. There
might be another exception I don't know about. I am not a US government
teacher.
Morgan Lewis
>
> "Morgan Lewis" <m...@efn.org> wrote in message
> news:3999B0E4...@efn.org...
> <snip>
> > And there are legitimate reasons for not voting.
[Major snippage, as I'm just clarifying a point]
>
> Actually commenting of the subject at hand... choosing not to vote.
> It is quite rare that there is only ONE office to vote for.
I think I was a tad bit unclear -- I was referring to just reasons not
to vote on individual items/offices, and not reasons to "not vote at
all." However, it's always theoretically possible that individual A may
have some reason for not voting on all of the issues; this is, I should
hope, extremely rare, but it's theoretically possible. (And of course,
there have been situations -- generally on on primaries, though -- where
there're just a few issues.)
> Also, a write-in vote is NOT the same as not voting at all. When you
> write-in you send a CLEAR message that you are not satisfied with the
> options.
Which is also the case when you don't vote on that particular office,
assuming you have voted on others.
Richard Bos
> I have both a question and several comments.
> We in the US are woefully under-educated about the governmental systems of
> other countries (and about our own system, for too many people.) I know the
> basics about other National governments, but no specifics.
> All of which prefaces my question: Do other countries have an annual
> National Election day where all[1] issues and offices on the local, county,
> state(or state equivalent,) and federal levels are up for the vote.
> I ask that question because the answer may make my next statement irrelevant
> to non-USers.
Thank heavens, no. Doesn't this make a mockery of the whole idea of two
independent houses? If you vote for upper and lower house
(Congress/Senate, Commons/Lords, whatever) at the same time, don't you
get two houses that are always almost identically made up? It's a much
better idea (IMO, of course) to have elections for different houses, and
different levels, at different times, so that the effect of voters
changing their minds is spread in time, and you're not locked into one
snapshot of public opinion for four (five, six) years; different parts
of the government can do a much better job of correcting and tempering
each other that way.
Richard
T J Wilkinson
<er...@last.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>T J Wilkinson wrote:
>Tracy...I owe you a beer/chocolate/meal
Chocolate please. Although it'll have to wait until I get over to
your part of the world.
Tracy
Natalie Lintner
"Richard Bos" <in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote in message
news:399ba294...@news.worldonline.nl...
> "Natalie Lintner" <gry...@fuse.net> wrote:
> >Do other countries have an annual
> > National Election day where all[1] issues and offices on the local,
county,
> > state(or state equivalent,) and federal levels are up for the vote.
> > I ask that question because the answer may make my next statement
irrelevant
> > to non-USers.
>
> Thank heavens, no. Doesn't this make a mockery of the whole idea of two
> independent houses? If you vote for upper and lower house
> (Congress/Senate, Commons/Lords, whatever) at the same time, don't you
> get two houses that are always almost identically made up? It's a much
> better idea (IMO, of course) to have elections for different houses, and
> different levels, at different times, so that the effect of voters
> changing their minds is spread in time, and you're not locked into one
> snapshot of public opinion for four (five, six) years; different parts
> of the government can do a much better job of correcting and tempering
> each other that way.
I think I may have not worded my question clearly. When I said "all issues
and offices" I should have said "all issues and offices that are open."
Because there are different term lengths for most every office, they are
staggered out over years (e.g. Repesenitives every two, Senators every six -
and your two senators are not up the same year either.)
Can I take it from your statement that you have elections for your different
levels of government on different days? If so how does that work out. I am
fascinated by governmental systems.
Natalie
Yes, I am a geek. And DARN proud of it!
Miq
>> >Do other countries have an annual
>> > National Election day where all[1] issues and offices on the local,
>county,
>> > state(or state equivalent,) and federal levels are up for the vote.
>> Thank heavens, no. Doesn't this make a mockery of the whole idea of two
>> independent houses? If you vote for upper and lower house
>> (Congress/Senate, Commons/Lords, whatever) at the same time, don't you
>> get two houses that are always almost identically made up?
Not at all. You probably would *if* the same parties dominated both
houses and *if* the seats in both houses were arranged according to a
similar pattern, but those are two big assumptions. If the two houses
have quite different spheres of competence, it's quite imaginable that
they might have entirely independent parties within each of them.
And if one house has, say, one seat per 100,000 voters, grouped by
geographical district, then the other might have one per variable-sized
group determined by (say) profession, or statehood - or eye colour for
that matter, why not?
And the decision you make for which party/candidate is going to do the
best job of representing your town is not *necessarily* the same as the
decision you'd come to for who'd do the best job of representing the
publishing profession.
The US system is quite ingenious from this POV: each state has a number
of Representatives (roughly one per x-thousand population), and two
Senators, regardless of population. The Senators are elected for six
year terms at different times; the Representatives are elected for two
year terms. So every two years, the entire House of Representatives and
one-third of the Senate is up for grabs. And then there's the
presidency, which is a whole separate tub of barnacles - strongly
dependent on the media images of the individual candidates, who are only
loosely tied to their nominal parties in the first place. It's not
unusual for a US voter to vote Republican for congress and Democrat for
president, or vice versa.
>Can I take it from your statement that you have elections for your different
>levels of government on different days? If so how does that work out.
Here in .uk we have parliamentary elections, local elections and
European elections, all quite independently of each other. They *can*
fall on the same day, but that's sheer coincidence. Though the whole
thing is simplified somewhat by the fact that nobody much cares about
the latter two.
There has been some excited talk about how the seats might be allocated
in the Upper House, if and when Mr Bleargh ever got around to finishing
his promised reform. He hasn't seen fit to let us know *his* thoughts,
since he no longer gives a damn' - he's quite happy to leave it as it is
and stuff it with his appointed cronies.
>I am
>fascinated by governmental systems.
Each to their own...
--
Miq
Deadlines looming? Teachers to impress? No time to read? Never fear!
The Discworld Homework Files: http://www.kew1.demon.co.uk/homework.html
imalone
<gry...@fuse.net> says...
>
> Not being educated about a measure is not a good reason not to vote. It may
> be a reason not to vote on that specific measure, but there are always other
> issues and offices on the ballot. Besides, it is all citizens' duty to
> educate themselves on the issues that are most important to them. You don't
> have to know everything about all of the ballot issues, but to not make any
> effort at all undermines the principles of democracy.
>
> To paraphrase Senator Bill Bradley: If we don't make our voices heard,
> someone else's will be.
>
I'm not entirely sure why I disagree with this, but I do, so my
attempt at justifying my position is going to be confused at best.
I do not believe it is someone's _duty_ to educate themselves on
the issues most important to them. It may be in their best interest,
but that does not amount to duty. I don't believe that to live my
life I should have to learn the intricacies of political systems.
What does government exist for? (I'll admit here to not having
studied arts subjects before I get into trouble over detail)
Whether it grew out of ways to control people (the idea behind
the fuedal system is older than that system itself, and amounts
to; if you can take it, it's yours), or out of cooperation for
the common good (this must have happened somewhere?), the
reason we are told we have government today [1] is to protect
the people of the country. Basically to enforce laws, though you
can add more to that if you're a socialist.
While people should have the right to have a say in how their
country is run, it should not be required of them that they do.
Politicians are there to represent _our_ interests, not their
own. Unfortunately, RL isn't like that. Pressure groups are
wonderful things, they give minorities a voice, the problem is,
with current forms of democracy often a popularity contest, the
majority does not have a voice to match.
Not sure if my point comes across, what I mean is you should be
able to get on with your life without having to do those heroic
Hollywood "one man/woman takes on the world" political careers.
I respect people like Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jnr, etc. but
there is a difference between a calling and a duty. Feel free to
bash this post into tiny little pieces.
[1] In the western world, and by politicians, it's one of those self-
sustaining things.
--
"You have viruses, but I have resistance, and I am alive, and you -
are dead" Ken MacLeod, The Star Fraction
Or, in other words I resent being told about duty. Even by merkins.
<g>
Eric Jarvis
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 20:09:20 +0100, Eric Jarvis
> <er...@last.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >T J Wilkinson wrote:
> >Tracy...I owe you a beer/chocolate/meal
>
> Chocolate please. Although it'll have to wait until I get over to
> your part of the world.
>
'taint necessarily so
Auckland I can get packages delivered to...got Kiwis upstairs [1]
[1] I've tried setting traps but they are even trickier than pigeons [2]
[2] actually 2 moved out recently and I don't really want to get rid of
the remaining one at all
Johnno
<gry...@fuse.net> wrote:
>
.
>> "Natalie Lintner" <gry...@fuse.net> wrote:
>> >Do other countries have an annual
>> > National Election day where all[1] issues and offices on the local,
>county,
>> > state(or state equivalent,) and federal levels are up for the vote.
>> > I ask that question because the answer may make my next statement
>irrelevant
>> > to non-USers.
>>
snip
>
>I think I may have not worded my question clearly. When I said "all issues
>and offices" I should have said "all issues and offices that are open."
>Because there are different term lengths for most every office, they are
>staggered out over years (e.g. Repesenitives every two, Senators every six -
>and your two senators are not up the same year either.)
>
>Can I take it from your statement that you have elections for your different
>levels of government on different days? If so how does that work out. I am
>fascinated by governmental systems.
>Natalie
>Yes, I am a geek. And DARN proud of it!
>
>
Yes we do:
1.Local government, ie.Local councillors, (decide local spending
priorities on things such as schools, roads, garbage collection) etc.
2.National government, ie members of parliament, (decide national
priorities and allocate budgets to local government and national
departments such as the NHS, responsible for foreign policy)
3. European goverment, ie members of the European parliament (decide
on European wide strategy and allocate regional structural funds, also
has European- wide court).
Britain does not have true separation of powers, in that one person,
the Lord Chancellor, is the highest legal officer and also a member of
the House of Lords and of the Cabinet, thus spanning executive,
legislature and judiciary. Bishops of the Curch of England, (as of
right, no elections) the Chief Rabbi and several senior Moslem clerics
sit in the House of Lords, so we are also somewhat of a theocracy. We
have also ceded a large amount of power to Europe, via the Maastricht
Treaty.
This is probably more than you wanted to know, but I hope it helps.
Sandraiana
Andrew Allan
>
<snip>
> >Can I take it from your statement that you have elections for your different
> >levels of government on different days? If so how does that work out.
>
> European elections, all quite independently of each other. They *can*
> fall on the same day, but that's sheer coincidence. Though the whole
> thing is simplified somewhat by the fact that nobody much cares about
> the latter two.
>
> There has been some excited talk about how the seats might be allocated
> in the Upper House, if and when Mr Bleargh ever got around to finishing
> his promised reform. He hasn't seen fit to let us know *his* thoughts,
> since he no longer gives a damn' - he's quite happy to leave it as it is
> and stuff it with his appointed cronies.
But insofar as politics can be amusing, you almost had to like the fact
that the New Tony's Cronies House of Lords voted against him on one of the
first controversial issues to come up for a vote! (regardless of whether
you agreed with the issue or not, I don't know much about it).
Andrew
Mary Messall
<snip>
> There has been some excited talk about how the seats might be allocated
> in the Upper House, if and when Mr Bleargh ever got around to finishing
> his promised reform. He hasn't seen fit to let us know *his* thoughts,
> since he no longer gives a damn' - he's quite happy to leave it as it is
> and stuff it with his appointed cronies.
Is there much reason to care, since I understand (from previous
discussion here) that the Lords serve only an advisory position now, and
can't actually veto anything? They may have influence, but that's not
quite the same as power (ask the First Lady.)
Merkin senators weren't directly elected until well into the twentieth
century, incidently. The consistution meant them to be chosen by the
"electoral college" who still nominally chose the president. I don't
think this, or the inherited seat in the House of Lords, is a bad idea,
really. Officials who must run for office have a lot more temptation to
be corrupt- it's impossible not to indebt yourself to *some* special
interests, to court more militant extremists, to solicit *huge* sums of
money, to be hypocritical trying to satisfy voters from both sides of an
issue, to become so mass market and commerialized as to have no soul of
your own left.
Besides, the biggest reason that people don't vote is because there are
just too many elected positions here. Everything from the school board,
to the state legislature, the sherriff and the judge. Sure, you should
know who the candidates for senate are, but how you possible to supposed
to keep track of the people running for "Republican precint person" (my
mother ran for that, and won. I still don't know what it is) and the
dozens of other obscure roles on any ballot? Some really should be
appointed.
Anthony Frost
Morgan Lewis <m...@efn.org> wrote:
> And there are legitimate reasons for not voting. Suppose that my local
> county has an opening on the board of commissioners, and three people
> are running. Suppose I think all three are incompetent and/or crooked,
> and there aren't signficantly distinguishing factors. (This happens
> quite a lot, really.) Should I vote on that election? No.
In the UK I would say turn up to vote anyway, then write "I consider all
three candidates to be incompetent and therefore vote for none of them"
all over the ballot paper. All spoiled ballot papers must be shown to
all the candidates [1], and included in the published figures for the
turn-out, so you've made the candidates aware of your opinion and shown
it isn't apathy which made you not vote.
Anthony
[1] Because technically if you've ticked a box instead of marking it
with an X that's a spoiled paper, but it is obvious which way you
intended to vote. If it is obvious, then a spoiled ballot may be counted
with the candidates agreement.
Eric Jarvis
>
> In the UK I would say turn up to vote anyway, then write "I consider all
> three candidates to be incompetent and therefore vote for none of them"
> all over the ballot paper. All spoiled ballot papers must be shown to
> all the candidates [1], and included in the published figures for the
> turn-out, so you've made the candidates aware of your opinion and shown
> it isn't apathy which made you not vote.
>
> Anthony
>
> [1] Because technically if you've ticked a box instead of marking it
> with an X that's a spoiled paper, but it is obvious which way you
> intended to vote. If it is obvious, then a spoiled ballot may be counted
> with the candidates agreement.
>
not actually true...decisions on spoilt ballot papers are made by the
candidates agents...often in a pretty cursory fashion...unless it is
something astoundingly witty there is no way the agent will even
remember what is written on it, let alone tell the candidate...remember,
by the time the count starts everyone closely involved with the election
has been running at 110% for 16 hours or so
effectively a spoilt paper is a spoilt paper, no more and no less...no
other message will get through
--
eric -afpianced to pia and Thom, afpdopted uncle to
Mary Messall, afplirting with April
"the alternative to seeing things in black and white
is to see them in full colour"
Brian Howlett
[snip]
> Yes we do: 1.Local government, ie.Local councillors, (decide local
> spending priorities on things such as schools, roads, garbage
> collection) etc.
>
> 2.National government, ie members of parliament, (decide national
> priorities and allocate budgets to local government and national
> departments such as the NHS, responsible for foreign policy)
>
> 3. European goverment, ie members of the European parliament (decide
> on European wide strategy and allocate regional structural funds, also
> has European- wide court).
>
[snip]
>
> This is probably more than you wanted to know, but I hope it helps.
>
In addition, in Scotland (and probably Wales) we have elections to our
own Parliament, so we have to elect local council members [1], MSPs [2],
MPs [3] and MEPs [4].
[1] "Local" being relative - my local council covers a geographical area
the size of Belgium.
[2] Members of the Scottish Parliament - currently being run by an
unholy alliance of "New" Labour and Lib-Dems. The ballot paper for the
only SP election to date was about a metre wide, due to the ridiculous
"PR" system used.
[3] Scottish MPs are now largely irrelevant in the great scheme of
things...
[4] I'm not entirely sure whether MEPs are entirely relevant either, as
no matter who I (might have) voted for, MEPs rarely seem to have
anything to do with the actual EU legislative process...
--
Brian Howlett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you the Prime Minister?" "No, but I've often been mistaken."
"What, for the Prime Minister?" "No. I've just often been mistaken..."
rru...@hotmail.com
mmes...@ups.edu wrote:
>
> Besides, the biggest reason that people don't vote is
> because there are just too many elected positions here.
8<snip>8
> keep
> track of the people running for "Republican precint person" (my
> mother ran for that, and won. I still don't know what it is)
Couldn't you ask her? <sef>
Ruthi
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Daniel Goldsmith
shadows...
> On 17 Aug 2000, Johnno (or possibly Sandraiana) had this to say:
>
> [snip]
> [2] Members of the Scottish Parliament - currently being run by an
> unholy alliance of "New" Labour and Lib-Dems. The ballot paper for the
> only SP election to date was about a metre wide, due to the ridiculous
> "PR" system used.
I have always meant to ask this, but never really got the chance:
What is the great problem most British people seem to have with PR
voting? The way some TV discussion programmes progress, you'd think it
was the first trumpet of the apocralypse. I have heard comments like the
two above - unholy alliance[1] and ridiculous 'PR' - so many times that
it has left me genuinely bewildered.
PR voting, IMHO, allows the greatest cross-section of public opinion
possible to be represented in an elected parliament. It secures the place
of minority representation and it keeps a check on democracy also. Yet
many UKian commentators seem to think it erodes democracy. The UK 'first-
past-the-post' nonsense theoretically allows a seat in parliament to be
be taken by an individual who has received just a tiny fraction of the
vote in an area (on the formula: victory votes = (population/candidates)+
1 vote.)
On the same topic, what's wrong with coalitions? This country has them,
and seems to do quite well, as do most Eurpen countries. It ensures that
no one party can make government their own. I accept that problems can
arise - cf the current Knesset - but the principle, IME, is sound.
> [3] Scottish MPs are now largely irrelevant in the great scheme of
> things...
So will the people of Scotland eventually tire of Tony Bleargh's sop,
that insult to their intelligence, and finally re-claim their place
amongst the nations of the world? Suffice to say I'm not holding my
breath.
> [4] I'm not entirely sure whether MEPs are entirely relevant either, as
> no matter who I (might have) voted for, MEPs rarely seem to have
> anything to do with the actual EU legislative process...
MEPs are currently irrelevant because of an 'unholy alliance' of the
Culture of Secrecy[2] governments in the EU who want all decisions to be
made behind closed doors. It is not seen as desirable that power should
devolve to the elected MEPs, it being far more preferable to keep it in
the hands of appointed commissioners or in the Council of Ministers.
Strangely enough, the one part of the EU hierarchy which attempts to
change this practicably is the other appointed body - Eurpen Court of
Justice - which keeps attempting to broaden the scope of the
Parliamentary provisions in the treaties against the wishes of the
various governments. Of course, each and every time that the ECJ has
managed to do so, the governments have had a summit and formulated new
treaties that have shifted the goalposts.
<2p>
Daniel.
[1] If you want a true unholy alliance, look at the one I grew up under -
Labour/Likud National government. Bore more resemblance to a nest of
vipers than a government.
[2] By this I mean the UK, French and Spanish governments. One who has
had the longest of experience of democracy and whose leaders seem to be
tired of it, one of whom seems to see government as something which was
interrupted briefly around the end of the 18th century and one who really
should know better.
--
Your Message could appear in this signature.
£150 per one-month period. £350/two months.
Get the message across to the widest and
most appreciative audience on the Internet.
Richard Bos
>
> "Richard Bos" <in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote in message
> news:399ba294...@news.worldonline.nl...
> > "Natalie Lintner" <gry...@fuse.net> wrote:
> > > Do other countries have an annual National Election day where all[1]
> > > issues and offices on the local, county,
> > > state(or state equivalent,) and federal levels are up for the vote.
> > > I ask that question because the answer may make my next statement
> > > irrelevant to non-USers.
> >
> > Thank heavens, no. Doesn't this make a mockery of the whole idea of two
> > independent houses? If you vote for upper and lower house
> > (Congress/Senate, Commons/Lords, whatever) at the same time, don't you
> > get two houses that are always almost identically made up? It's a much
> > better idea (IMO, of course) to have elections for different houses, and
> > different levels, at different times, so that the effect of voters
> > changing their minds is spread in time, and you're not locked into one
> > snapshot of public opinion for four (five, six) years; different parts
> > of the government can do a much better job of correcting and tempering
> > each other that way.
>
> I think I may have not worded my question clearly. When I said "all issues
> and offices" I should have said "all issues and offices that are open."
> Because there are different term lengths for most every office, they are
> staggered out over years (e.g. Repesenitives every two, Senators every six -
> and your two senators are not up the same year either.)
Myeah, in that case I get the idea. Something like, you're at the box
office today to vote for your senator, you might as well use the time to
vote for some completely unrelated issue - say, a local functionary like
a sherriff - as well? If you keep the major elections well spread out,
that'd work. And if you also make sure that all minor elections are on
the same days as the major ones, you spread those out, as well. All
you'd have to do then is make sure that the sherriff gets elected
simultaneously with, say, a senator, not with the major.
> Can I take it from your statement that you have elections for your different
> levels of government on different days? If so how does that work out. I am
> fascinated by governmental systems.
In different years, generally. Unless a government falls when we've just
had a province election, then you just can't avoid something like that.
Mind you, we have provincial elections on the same day in all provinces,
and ditto for local wotsits, so that makes it easier to spread them
about a bit; you don't have to plan for one province voting now and the
next province voting next May, and the national election clashing with
potentially twelve elections; there's just the four major ones.
Exception: things like water boards and such. But they're extremely
specialised, and tend not to interfere with party polyticks.
Richard
Richard Bos
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Natalie Lintner <gry...@fuse.net> wrote
> >
> >"Richard Bos" <in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote in message
> >> "Natalie Lintner" <gry...@fuse.net> wrote:
> >> >Do other countries have an annual
> >> > National Election day where all[1] issues and offices on the local,
> >county,
> >> > state(or state equivalent,) and federal levels are up for the vote.
> ..
> >> Thank heavens, no. Doesn't this make a mockery of the whole idea of two
> >> independent houses? If you vote for upper and lower house
> >> (Congress/Senate, Commons/Lords, whatever) at the same time, don't you
> >> get two houses that are always almost identically made up?
>
> Not at all. You probably would *if* the same parties dominated both
> houses and *if* the seats in both houses were arranged according to a
> similar pattern, but those are two big assumptions.
My point was that if you have elections for upper and lower house at the
same time, people tend to vote for the same parties in both, and you'll
get very similar arrangements automatically.
> And if one house has, say, one seat per 100,000 voters, grouped by
> geographical district, then the other might have one per variable-sized
> group determined by (say) profession, or statehood - or eye colour for
> that matter, why not?
>
> And the decision you make for which party/candidate is going to do the
> best job of representing your town is not *necessarily* the same as the
> decision you'd come to for who'd do the best job of representing the
> publishing profession.
I'm not sure the majority of voters think that logically. Judging by the
results of elections here and, according to the news, in the rest of the
world, most people tend to vote either for the same party all the time,
out of habit or firm convictions, or for whoever takes their fancy this
time; at least, in stable countries.
I realise not everybody votes this way; and I expect most afpers to
think a little more when voting; but I can't help thinking that afpers
aren't exactly a majority.
Richard
Meg Thornton
Bos) wrote:
>"Natalie Lintner" <gry...@fuse.net> wrote:
>
>> I have both a question and several comments.
>> We in the US are woefully under-educated about the governmental systems of
>> other countries (and about our own system, for too many people.) I know the
>> basics about other National governments, but no specifics.
>> All of which prefaces my question: Do other countries have an annual
>> National Election day where all[1] issues and offices on the local, county,
>> state(or state equivalent,) and federal levels are up for the vote.
>> I ask that question because the answer may make my next statement irrelevant
>> to non-USers.
>
>Thank heavens, no. Doesn't this make a mockery of the whole idea of two
>independent houses? If you vote for upper and lower house
>(Congress/Senate, Commons/Lords, whatever) at the same time, don't you
>get two houses that are always almost identically made up? It's a much
>better idea (IMO, of course) to have elections for different houses, and
>different levels, at different times, so that the effect of voters
>changing their minds is spread in time, and you're not locked into one
>snapshot of public opinion for four (five, six) years; different parts
>of the government can do a much better job of correcting and tempering
>each other that way.
>
Hmmm...
Talking from the Australian system, we have elections for the entire
of the House of Representatives (lower house) and half the Senate
(upper house) on the same day. Senators here are elected for 6 year
terms, with half being up for election every 3 years. The House of
Representatives has a 3 year term. Now, I can count on the fingers of
one hand the number of parliaments in my lifetime where the governing
party of the day had a majority in both the upper and lower houses.
Of course, it helps that the two houses are elected on different
systems. The Reps are on first-past-the-post counting (one
representative for each seat, seats allocated to an area containing a
certain amount of people). The Senate is counted on a system of
proportional representation (twelve senators for each state, two for
each territory, alternating halves out at each election). In both
houses, we have preferential voting, where you have to number boxes
for all candidates (the Senate has optional preferential, where you
can select one particular party, and have your preferences allocated
as they set out).
The only time that the entire parliament is out all at once is in the
case of a double dissolution, where government legislation passes the
House of Reps, and is rejected by the Senate twice. Then there's a
joint sitting, and if the bill *still* doesn't pass, then it's
everyone out, and off we go to a full re-election of the whole kit &
boodle. I think the last one of those was when Malcolm Fraser was PM,
so back about 20 years, at least.
It seems to work.
Meg
--
This post contains original material copyright Meg Thornton 2000.
This message was originally posted in plain text. Any images,
hyperlinks or similar matter you see are not my doing, and are a
violation of international copyright law. mag...@megabitch.tm
Anthony Frost
Eric Jarvis <er...@last.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> not actually true...decisions on spoilt ballot papers are made by the
> candidates agents...
The candidate is the one with the legal power of decision, they may
choose to exercise it through their agent. In the parliamentary counts
I've been involved with at least two of the candidates did the scrutiny
themselves.
> effectively a spoilt paper is a spoilt paper, no more and no less...no
> other message will get through
Except in the turnout figures...
Anthony
Jonathan Ellis
Daniel Goldsmith wrote in message ...
>It was a dark and stormy night when Brian Howlett said from the
>shadows...
>>
>> [snip]
>> [2] Members of the Scottish Parliament - currently being run by an
>> unholy alliance of "New" Labour and Lib-Dems. The ballot paper for the
>> only SP election to date was about a metre wide, due to the ridiculous
>> "PR" system used.
>
>What is the great problem most British people seem to have with PR
>voting? The way some TV discussion programmes progress, you'd think it
>was the first trumpet of the apocralypse. I have heard comments like the
>two above - unholy alliance[1] and ridiculous 'PR' - so many times that
>it has left me genuinely bewildered.
>
>PR voting, IMHO, allows the greatest cross-section of public opinion
>possible to be represented in an elected parliament. It secures the place
>of minority representation and it keeps a check on democracy also. Yet
>many UKian commentators seem to think it erodes democracy.
*officially* enshrine party politics as a culture, with all that entails -
people of no particular principle who vote as their leaders tell them to. Of
course, this is largely the way it works at the moment, but at least it is
currently unofficial - each MP is theoretically independent of party
allegiance, owing responsibility only to his/her constituent voters (both
those who voted for them and those who didn't), and the labels of
"Conservative", "Labour" and "Liberal Democrat" are merely conveniences to
indicate general sets of policies. And you can actually get "independent"
MPs, although there is only one at the moment. The moment you officially
have proportional representation by political parties, you eliminate all
chance of true independents standing or being elected, and you lose the
chance of ever getting even the kind of political maverick who would vote
against the party leader, if the membership of parties were regulated
nationally rather than regionally. And that loss of independent-minded
people (whether they ally themselves to a particular "party" or not), and
the consequent *official* recognition that politics was a culture for
powerful and secretive cliques who can choose who shall and shall not
represent each party, would make for a far worse situation than at present.
Another thing that would be lost is the "local" link, of having an MP that
specifically represents *your* area.
Having a majority government being able to be elected on a minority
vote (well, say 60% of the seats on 40% of the vote, to quote Thatcher and
Blair) seems to me to be a far lesser problem than the above. After all,
it's not as if the largest party in the polls doesn't almost invariably win
the biggest number of seats anyway...
Jonathan.
Brian Howlett
> It was a dark and stormy night when Brian Howlett said from the
> shadows...
>> On 17 Aug 2000, Johnno (or possibly Sandraiana) had this to say:
>>
>> [snip]
> <hack>
>> [2] Members of the Scottish Parliament - currently being run by an
>> unholy alliance of "New" Labour and Lib-Dems. The ballot paper for
>> the only SP election to date was about a metre wide, due to the
>> ridiculous "PR" system used.
>
> I have always meant to ask this, but never really got the chance: What
> is the great problem most British people seem to have with PR voting?
> The way some TV discussion programmes progress, you'd think it was
> the first trumpet of the apocralypse. I have heard comments like the
> two above - unholy alliance[1] and ridiculous 'PR' - so many times
> that it has left me genuinely bewildered.
I've no objection to PR per se; it's the implementation I object to. Far
too many MSPs were not elected, but were chosen from Party lists. My
objection to the "unholy alliance" currently in power in Edinburgh was
the unseemly haste with which the L-Ds abandoned so many of their
principles in their haste to grab on to an appearance of power.
>
> PR voting, IMHO, allows the greatest cross-section of public opinion
> possible to be represented in an elected parliament. It secures the
> place of minority representation and it keeps a check on democracy
> also. Yet many UKian commentators seem to think it erodes democracy.
> The UK 'first- past-the-post' nonsense theoretically allows a seat in
> parliament to be be taken by an individual who has received just a
> tiny fraction of the vote in an area (on the formula: victory votes =
> (population/candidates)+ 1 vote.)
There are various ways of implementing PR, as practised in several
different countries. I haven't studied the options, and so I can't say
which would be the best. However, the fact that we have a system where
people get seats in the Scottish parliament because of the number of
votes their party gets gets my back up; I don't want people representing
me unless _I_ have had the opportunity to vote for them.
> On the same topic, what's wrong with coalitions? This country has
> them, and seems to do quite well, as do most Eurpen countries. It
> ensures that no one party can make government their own. I accept
> that problems can arise - cf the current Knesset - but the principle,
> IME, is sound.
Again, I've no objections to coalitions, if there is give and take on
both sides.
[snip]
> So will the people of Scotland eventually tire of Tony Bleargh's sop,
> that insult to their intelligence, and finally re-claim their place
> amongst the nations of the world? Suffice to say I'm not holding my
> breath.
Neither am I. However, it will be interesting come the next UK general
election, to see how many Scottish Nationalist MPs are returned to
Westminster...
>
[snip]
> Strangely enough, the one part of the EU hierarchy which
> attempts to change this practicably is the other appointed body -
> Eurpen Court of Justice - which keeps attempting to broaden the scope
> of the Parliamentary provisions in the treaties against the wishes of
> the various governments. Of course, each and every time that the ECJ
> has managed to do so, the governments have had a summit and
> formulated new treaties that have shifted the goalposts.
>
[snip]
Democracy? Wossat then?
--
Brian Howlett
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I told the folks back home that I was coming to Auchtermuchty, they said
"Wear the fox hat"...
David M. Sueme
wrote:
>"Starship Troopers" is Heinlein's most overtly "political" book,
Yer mostly right, except that "Time Enough for Love" is Heinlein's
most overtly [anything] book - political, Oedipal (if my spell checker
fails to fix this, what can I say, it's Greek to me...) whatever -
Lazarus Long is RH's alter ego. All of Heinlein's thoughts are summed
up in the perspective of the man who outlived ignorance and
foolishness.
Dave
Suzi
Goldsmith (DanielG...@eircom.net) wibbled...
[Snip]
> I have always meant to ask this, but never really got the chance:
> What is the great problem most British people seem to have with PR
> voting?
[Snip]
It removes the "voting for a specific person for a specific job" - I
don't want someone imposed in my area who I didn't have a chance to vote
for or against.
It removes the potential for "independent" candidates to stand and get
elected, as PR _relies_ on "party politics".
How's that for starters?
Suzi
--
AFP Help? <afp-...@lspace.org> & LSpace Web http://www.lspace.org/
Online Guide at http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cap96/afpguide/afpguide.html
New to Usenet? go to http://psg.com/emily.html [.sig back home]
The Irrelevant page: http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~gidnsuzi/index.html
Bobby Cox
<gry...@fuse.net> jumped up and announced to the general posting
public:
>
>"Morgan Lewis" <m...@efn.org> wrote in message
>news:3999B0E4...@efn.org...
><snip>
>> And there are legitimate reasons for not voting. Suppose that my local
>> county has an opening on the board of commissioners, and three people
>> are running. Suppose I think all three are incompetent and/or crooked,
>> and there aren't signficantly distinguishing factors. (This happens
>> quite a lot, really.) Should I vote on that election? No. I should
>> not, IMO (and when it comes to voting, there's only one opinion that
>> counts), say that I support Candidate X when I don't. I could vote for
>> a write-in candidate, but unless there's a large rally of support for
>> that person (which there almost never is), this is functionally the same
>> as not voting at all.
>>
>> This applies to ballot measures as well; if I'm not sufficiently
>> informed to make a good decision on measure #33 1/3, I shouldn't make
>> one.
><snip>
>I have both a question and several comments.
>We in the US are woefully under-educated about the governmental systems of
>other countries (and about our own system, for too many people.) I know the
>basics about other National governments, but no specifics.
>All of which prefaces my question: Do other countries have an annual
>National Election day where all[1] issues and offices on the local, county,
>state(or state equivalent,) and federal levels are up for the vote.
>I ask that question because the answer may make my next statement irrelevant
>to non-USers.
In Australia, there are three seperate votes:
1) the local government vote: one ballot paper, on which we choose our
local council reps, and they choose the mayor from among themselves.
And that's all we vote on. If we don't like what the council's doing,
we vote 'em out next time around.
2) State government: two ballot papers, for the Legislative Assembly
(lower house) and the Legislative Council (upper house). Pretty much
the same as for the local government, except the Premier of the state
is the leader of the party with the most seats in the lower house. And
that *bloody* proportional voting thing for the upper house, which
allows all sorts of loonies onto that particular gravy train...
3) Commonwealth government: again, two ballot papers, House of
Representatives and Senate. Basically the same as the state process,
including the proportional voting thing for the Senate. *sigh* Next
time there's a state or federal election, I'm gonna make a note of
some of the names that appear on the upper house ballot sheet.
Honestly, you won't know whether to laugh or cry...
And then there's referendums, which are required for amendments to the
constitution (such as the Republic referendum), and for other reasons
which completely escape me right now.
But, that's all we vote on. Most of the time, the government just runs
(or crawls drunkenly along), knowing that if the voting public don't
approve, they're out of a job when the next election rolls around.
Okay, now here's a question for the US posters (actually fiarly
relevant, since there's an election coming up in the US): how do you
stand what is, in effect, a year-long election campaign? The longest
election campaign I can recall in Australia is five weeks. I suppose
long election campaigns are a drawback of fixed voting dates.
Oh, another question - how can it be called a majority when only half
of the voting population can be bothered to vote?
>Actually commenting of the subject at hand... choosing not to vote.
>It is quite rare that there is only ONE office to vote for.
>Even if you can't stand the candidates for office X, Y and Z, you don't
>want to loose the chance to vote for the rest of the alphabet. Even if you
>think all the folks up for federal positions are yahoos, you can't forget
>that there are very important state and local offices also on the table.
>Also, a write-in vote is NOT the same as not voting at all. When you
>write-in you send a CLEAR message that you are not satisfied with the
>options. Okay, so maybe you are only sending that message to the person who
>counts your vote, but when you stay away from the voting booth, you aren't
>being heard at all.
And to the person who stands looking over their shoulder to make sure
that they're counting right (aka scrutineer). Not exactly a fun job.
But there's a surprisingly small number of 'informal' votes (i.e.
incorrectly filled out ballot papers) - 10% or less, usually, which
means that 90% of the votes are counted.
>Not being educated about a measure is not a good reason not to vote. It may
>be a reason not to vote on that specific measure, but there are always other
>issues and offices on the ballot. Besides, it is all citizens' duty to
>educate themselves on the issues that are most important to them. You don't
>have to know everything about all of the ballot issues, but to not make any
>effort at all undermines the principles of democracy.
When something comes up for a vote in Australia, we get a flood of
informational stuff from the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) to
*make* us informed voters. Frex, before the Republic referendum,
everyone on the voting lists got a fairly large amount of stuff
decribing both cases in near-painful detail. We don't even have to
exert ourselves to find out - what a great country :)
Bobby Cox
"Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of Death,
I shall fear no evil...
For I am the evillest bastard in the entire valley!"
Eric Jarvis
>
> Daniel Goldsmith wrote in message ...
> >shadows...
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >> [2] Members of the Scottish Parliament - currently being run by an
> >> unholy alliance of "New" Labour and Lib-Dems. The ballot paper for the
> >> only SP election to date was about a metre wide, due to the ridiculous
> >> "PR" system used.
> >
> >What is the great problem most British people seem to have with PR
> >was the first trumpet of the apocralypse. I have heard comments like the
> >two above - unholy alliance[1] and ridiculous 'PR' - so many times that
> >it has left me genuinely bewildered.
> >
> >possible to be represented in an elected parliament. It secures the place
> >of minority representation and it keeps a check on democracy also. Yet
> >many UKian commentators seem to think it erodes democracy.
>
> *officially* enshrine party politics as a culture, with all that entails -
> people of no particular principle who vote as their leaders tell them to. Of
> course, this is largely the way it works at the moment, but at least it is
> currently unofficial - each MP is theoretically independent of party
> allegiance, owing responsibility only to his/her constituent voters (both
> those who voted for them and those who didn't), and the labels of
> "Conservative", "Labour" and "Liberal Democrat" are merely conveniences to
> indicate general sets of policies. And you can actually get "independent"
> MPs, although there is only one at the moment. The moment you officially
> have proportional representation by political parties, you eliminate all
> chance of true independents standing or being elected, and you lose the
> chance of ever getting even the kind of political maverick who would vote
> against the party leader, if the membership of parties were regulated
> nationally rather than regionally. And that loss of independent-minded
> people (whether they ally themselves to a particular "party" or not), and
> the consequent *official* recognition that politics was a culture for
> powerful and secretive cliques who can choose who shall and shall not
> represent each party, would make for a far worse situation than at present.
> Another thing that would be lost is the "local" link, of having an MP that
> specifically represents *your* area.
whilst I agree with every word as abstract ideals...and whilst every
word is entirely true AFAIK, and the principles being espoused are
laudable...and notwithstanding the articulacy with which the case is
made...
...it's bollocks because it's already happened long ago...the party
system became totally dominant when voters stopped going to public
meetings and settled for making up their minds who they would vote for
from the national news media
AFPers are a tremendously intelligent and educated bunch of people, who
have a higher than average interest in the world around them...exactly
the people who are most likely to have an informed idea of who they are
voting for...and I'll be stunned if 20 people here can post any
information about more than one or two of the candidates that stood last
time they voted for an MP
the only non-party votes for politicians these days (in the UK at least)
are for incumbents and celebrities....I don't think that is sufficient
reason to keep a first past the post system
I wish it wasn't so
--
eric -afpianced to pia and Thom, afpdopted uncle to
Mary Messall, afplirting with April
Daniel Goldsmith
Eric's)
It was a dark and stormy night when Eric Jarvis said from the shadows...
> Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> >
> > Daniel Goldsmith wrote in message ...
> > >It was a dark and stormy night when Brian Howlett said from the
> > >shadows...
> > >I have always meant to ask this, but never really got the chance:
> > >What is the great problem most British people seem to have with PR
> > >voting? The way some TV discussion programmes progress, you'd think it
> > >was the first trumpet of the apocralypse. I have heard comments like the
> > >two above - unholy alliance[1] and ridiculous 'PR' - so many times that
> > >it has left me genuinely bewildered.
> > >
> > >PR voting, IMHO, allows the greatest cross-section of public opinion
> > >possible to be represented in an elected parliament. It secures the place
> > >of minority representation and it keeps a check on democracy also. Yet
> > >many UKian commentators seem to think it erodes democracy.
> >
> > This is because it would, for the first time ever in this country,
> > *officially* enshrine party politics as a culture,
Party politics was enshrined in the UK by the Irish parties in the latter
part of the 19th Century. First O'Connell then Parnell instituted the
system now referred to as the 'Whip' - that a member would sit act and
vote according to the wishes of the party. O'Connell limited it to the
question of Irish Land Reform, Parnell extended it to all matters in
order to create a voting bloc which would have extensive powers. The
tactic was then adopted by the Unionist representatives in parliament to
the same effect, leading to it being adopted by the Conservatives and
then by all UK parties. The 'splendid democracy' phase of the commons
ended there and then.
<snip/hacketry>
> > And you can actually get "independent"
> > MPs, although there is only one at the moment. The moment you officially
> > have proportional representation by political parties, you eliminate all
> > chance of true independents standing or being elected,
I can't say that I see this this as a valid proposition. Look at the
figures - Uk has what, many hundred MPs, one of whom is an independent.
Ireland has 160-odd, of whom nine are independents.
> > and you lose the
> > chance of ever getting even the kind of political maverick who would vote
> > against the party leader, if the membership of parties were regulated
> > nationally rather than regionally. And that loss of independent-minded
> > people (whether they ally themselves to a particular "party" or not), and
> > the consequent *official* recognition that politics was a culture for
> > powerful and secretive cliques who can choose who shall and shall not
> > represent each party, would make for a far worse situation than at present.
As to the mavericks - where are they today? Tony Benn is about the only
one that springs to mind from the commons. Reading this over again,
methinks you may be talking about party-list PR. I agree that such a
system is cobblers, springing as it has direct from Bleargh and his spin-
doctors, but I'm speaking about representative Single transferable vote
PR - having a list of candidates of which you nominate in order of
preference, which allows both party affiliation and personal voting.
> > Another thing that would be lost is the "local" link, of having an MP that
> > specifically represents *your* area.
How does having several MP/TDs represent your area lessen the
effectiveness of their representation? I think that this point is the
crux of my failure to understand the general Uk abhorrence of PR. In STV
PR systems, a voting area elects several members - most of whom are party
animals, a few of whom are independents. They are basically elected in
accordance with the general voting in favour of their percentage support,
but not by anthing as crass as a list. In the manner in which these
things work out, your constituency is more than likely going to have at
least one representative in the government, a representation of your area
which is significantly lacking in the UK first-past system.
<snip>
> ...it's bollocks because it's already happened long ago...the party
> system became totally dominant when voters stopped going to public
> meetings and settled for making up their minds who they would vote for
> from the national news media
Well said that man.
> AFPers are a tremendously intelligent and educated bunch of people, who
> have a higher than average interest in the world around them
Aww, shucks. <blushes>
Well, thanks Jonathan, Eric and Suzi for entering into this. Methinks it
has given me some more insight to the Ukian predisposition.
Daniel.
--
"Happy the man, and happy he alone, he who can call today his own.
He who secure within can say, tomorrow do thy worst, for I have lived
today."
goblin
<snip>
many hundreds... 659 at the last count... according to the house of
commons web page.
That's all I'm going to say on the subject though.. as 3 years of
Government and Political Studies at A-level made me very jaded, very
young...
--
goblin
AFPianced to Andrew
goblin
<snippage>
<political rant>
I did say I wasn't going to say anything but..... IIRC there has not
been a government in at least the last 60 years that was ever voted for
by more than 1/2 the population.. I think the highest was 46% of the
turnout.. so a lot less than 1/2 the population (feel free to correct
me, it was several years ago I studied this) . So I agree PR is
definately the way to go.
I shall refrain from steaming on about how democratic our country is, or
whether we are citizens or subjects and various other minor whinges I have.
At the end of the day I do truly believe that the UK is a great place to
live and that we may not have the perfect system of government but at
least I can write a post that says so.
_And_ I like Gordon Brown.
</political rant>
Richard Bos
> Daniel Goldsmith wrote in message ...
> >possible to be represented in an elected parliament. It secures the place
> >of minority representation and it keeps a check on democracy also. Yet
> >many UKian commentators seem to think it erodes democracy.
>
> This is because it would, for the first time ever in this country,
> people of no particular principle who vote as their leaders tell them to. Of
> course, this is largely the way it works at the moment, but at least it is
> currently unofficial - each MP is theoretically independent of party
> allegiance, owing responsibility only to his/her constituent voters (both
> those who voted for them and those who didn't), and the labels of
> "Conservative", "Labour" and "Liberal Democrat" are merely conveniences to
> indicate general sets of policies.
Well, at least PR isn't dishonest about all this. ISTM that, what with
party whips and such, the DR system works just like the PR system, only
divided into blocks. In both systems - AFAICT from the news here and on
the BBC - you get party members who, in the vast majority of cases, toe
the party line, or, very rarely, vote against it and create a nice bit
of hubbub and intra-party antipathy.
Whether you prefer to call the members independent is irrelevant when
they actually aren't. Most people now in parliament - any parliament -
wouldn't be there if it weren't for the party. If they decided to run a
campaign on their own, the party would be pretty quick to find a
replacement candidate, and to out-campaign the maverick so badly he'd
see little Tweety birds doing circles round his head. And they know it,
so for the most part, they do as they're told in either system.
> And you can actually get "independent"
> MPs, although there is only one at the moment. The moment you officially
> have proportional representation by political parties, you eliminate all
> chance of true independents standing or being elected,
OTOH, you also lose the chance of a complete jackass getting elected
because the two other official party candidates are even worse idiots -
you're not forced to choose between the handful of candidates that
happen to stand for your town.
Besides, you do get semi-independent candidates: if you can convince
enough people to sign for you, you can start your own party. Granted,
it's not _quite_ as easy as standing as a one-town candidate, but then I
don't think it should be. If you intend to help govern the country, you
need a bit of practice and determination.
> and you lose the
> chance of ever getting even the kind of political maverick who would vote
> against the party leader, if the membership of parties were regulated
> nationally rather than regionally.
Not in the Netherlands you don't. Of course mavericks are rare, but
then, they are so everywhere.
> And that loss of independent-minded
> people (whether they ally themselves to a particular "party" or not), and
> the consequent *official* recognition that politics was a culture for
> powerful and secretive cliques who can choose who shall and shall not
> represent each party, would make for a far worse situation than at present.
Come over here and try it. It works quite well in practice.
> Another thing that would be lost is the "local" link, of having an MP that
> specifically represents *your* area.
Hm. I wouldn't trust my local politicians as far as I could spit a
ten-tonne truck. At least the guys in the national parliament are
capably corrupt. Local government here is incapable, which means that
even if they try their best, they often fuck up worse than national
government would even if they tried.
> Having a majority government being able to be elected on a minority
> vote (well, say 60% of the seats on 40% of the vote, to quote Thatcher and
> Blair) seems to me to be a far lesser problem than the above. After all,
> it's not as if the largest party in the polls doesn't almost invariably win
> the biggest number of seats anyway...
The biggest problem with that is that under a DR system, you've almost
always got, to all intents and purposes, a two-party state. It wouldn't
be nearly such a problem if someone got 30% of the seats on 20% of the
vote, because they still wouldn't have the absolute majority against the
vote. In a two-party state, however, you immediately have the over-
represented party as the sole ruling party.
IMO, PR is the only realistic way to solve this - it allows smaller
parties in the house, and it keeps the larger parties down to realistic
proportions, so you rarely have a one-party majority; it also keeps the
government more moderated, because parties _have_ to cooperate.
Richard
Mary Messall
<snip>
> ...it's bollocks because it's already happened long ago...the party
> system became totally dominant when voters stopped going to public
> meetings and settled for making up their minds who they would vote for
> from the national news media
I've managed to convince myself that democracy has very little to do
with putting "the people's choice" in power (as you say, the people have
no clue who they want) and everything to do with effecting a smooth
transfer of power. We can throw the bastards out every few years without
a bloody revolution and a scramble for the throne. For this to work, all
you really need are two *distinct* parties (it worries me when they move
too close together - their striving against each other is what protects
us from the worst excesses of each) so that there's always an "other
guy" to replace the current ones with.
Proportional representation worries me a little because I don't like the
idea of "coalitions" (they shouldn't be cooperating!) and because in
many countries it seems to lead to a single "major" party with which the
other minor parties fall in line.
But then, I'm a big fan of checks and balances...
Richard Bos
> In article <MPG.1407194fb...@news.eircom.net>, Daniel
> Goldsmith (DanielG...@eircom.net) wibbled...
>
> [Snip]
> > I have always meant to ask this, but never really got the chance:
> > What is the great problem most British people seem to have with PR
> > voting?
> [Snip]
>
> It removes the "voting for a specific person for a specific job" - I
> don't want someone imposed in my area who I didn't have a chance to vote
> for or against.
Under proper PR, you don't get someone imposed in your area at all. You
just get members of parliament. And you don't get ignorant jokers who
only got voted in because they're the local funny man.
> It removes the potential for "independent" candidates to stand and get
> elected, as PR _relies_ on "party politics".
So, in effect, does the district system. Why else is the prime minister
in the UK always either Labour or Tory? And why else is the president of
the US always either Democrat or Republic? Independents don't get a
realistic chance anyway. You have to have wossname from Texas's kind of
money to even enter the race as an independent. To actually finish it,
you need the kind of industry financing only the major parties get.
Richard
Gid Holyoake
decided to share with us..
Snippetry..
> So, in effect, does the district system. Why else is the prime minister
> in the UK always either Labour or Tory?
Actually, that's a relatively recent phenomenon[1].. the Labour party are
a relative newcomer to British parliament, but anyway, it's an outcome of
the FPTP system.. where there is a party with a simple majority in
government, they get to choose their prime-minister, who is usually
(though not necessarily) also the leader of the party..
> And why else is the president of
> the US always either Democrat or Republic? Independents don't get a
> realistic chance anyway. You have to have wossname from Texas's kind of
> money to even enter the race as an independent. To actually finish it,
> you need the kind of industry financing only the major parties get.
In the UK parliament it is relatively easy to stand as an independent,
though these days you need a minimum of 5,000UKP as a deposit rather than
the 500UKP that was required in my younger days.. just because the only
parties that get any decent press-coverage in the UK parliament are the
Tories, Labour and the Lib-Dems, don't forget all the other parties who
are free to vote either with or against the government as they see fit..
Plaid Cymru, The SNP, the DUP, The UUP, the PUP etc.. oh.. and Martin
Bell of course! :-)
Gid
--
The Most Noble and Exalted Peculiar , Harem Master to Veiled Concubines
Guardian of the Sacred !!!!!'s , Defender of the Temple of AFPdoration
ISTP http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~gidnsuzi/ for The Irrelevant Page! MJBC
I just got lost in thought.. It was unfamiliar territory..
Jonathan Ellis
Richard Bos wrote in message <39a10d4...@news.worldonline.nl>...
being an independent candidate who didn't stand for a party. The fact that
there is currently only one doesn't mean that we should abolish the chance
of it ever happening again.
Jonathan.
Richard Bos
> Eric Jarvis wrote:
> <snip>
> > ...it's bollocks because it's already happened long ago...the party
> > system became totally dominant when voters stopped going to public
> > meetings and settled for making up their minds who they would vote for
> > from the national news media
> <snip>
>
> I've managed to convince myself that democracy has very little to do
> with putting "the people's choice" in power (as you say, the people have
> no clue who they want) and everything to do with effecting a smooth
> transfer of power.
Oh, yes. That's obvious from the way people vote if from nothing else.
> We can throw the bastards out every few years without
> a bloody revolution and a scramble for the throne. For this to work, all
> you really need are two *distinct* parties (it worries me when they move
> too close together - their striving against each other is what protects
> us from the worst excesses of each) so that there's always an "other
> guy" to replace the current ones with.
Much more than two. If you have only two, either they start being
indistinguishable for all real purposes, or they get on eachother's
hackles, making effective government harder. Or both. OTOH, if you have
three or four largish parties and a couple of smaller ones, you can
always find someone you're not _too_ different from, but sufficiently
different to stop you from being one party.
> Proportional representation worries me a little because I don't like the
> idea of "coalitions" (they shouldn't be cooperating!) and because in
> many countries it seems to lead to a single "major" party with which the
> other minor parties fall in line.
On the contrary, they _should_ be cooperating. Cooperation takes the
extremism out of them. If the more-left-wing party has to give in a bit
to the more-right-wing one, and vice versa, and both have to be careful
not to be _too_ easy on the other side because there's always an
even-more-their-side party, you get a nice balance between left and
right, instead of having overly right government one year and overly
left government the next.
Richard
David Chapman
news:MPG.140a8bfd8...@news.dircon.co.uk...
> AFPers are a tremendously intelligent and educated bunch of people,
who
> have a higher than average interest in the world around them...exactly
> the people who are most likely to have an informed idea of who they
are
> voting for...and I'll be stunned if 20 people here can post any
> information about more than one or two of the candidates that stood
last
> time they voted for an MP
Candidates for Aberdeen South in the last general election:
Labour: Anne Begg, also known as "that stupid bitch in the wheelchair".
IIRC, she lost the use of her legs in an accident. Probably Britain's
least competent MP, she has demonstrated time and again that she is
utterly unqualified to be MP of Aberdeen South.
When a retarded child was killed in a road accident at a blind corner
near my house, everyone put in a petition to have the roads slowed down.
In a desperate attempt to prove that the old saw "crippled in body =
crippled in mind" is actually true, Miss Begg - who, being disabled,
does not drive - studied the situation and had speed bumps installed on
every road in the area. Except the one with the high speed blind corner
where the accident occurred.
Just to add insult to injury, she has never lived within 30 miles of her
constituency.
Liberal Democrat: Nicol Stephen. Married, thirty-something with two
kids (IIRC). Former MP for Kincardine and Deeside, who was a surprise
winner as K&D was a safe Conservative seat at the time. The former
incumbent for many years, whose name I have sadly forgotten, was one of
the few really good Tory MPs, and his passing is what caused the
by-election.
Mr Stephen won his seat only a few weeks before the general election
that confirmed John Major as PM and proceeded to lose it to George
Kynoch, thus giving him the still-standing record of "shortest period
served as an MP".
Conservative: George Robertson. Unusually in this day and age, he's a
strict Conservative. A staunch campaigner against excessive gay rights,
have-one-kill-one abortion laws and many other things that would
degenerate society (IHHO): I know this, because he spoke in several
formal debates for Aberdeen University Debater during my tenure there.
Former MP for Aberdeen South, he lost his seat in the gerrymandering of
the last election that shifted half of Kincardine and Deeside into
Aberdeen South, thus turning the latter into a three-way marginal.
You'll have to forgive me for not knowing anything about the SNP,
Independence, Scottish Socialist or Green candidates, but since none of
them got a 5% share of the vote I don't think anyone else does either.
Right; one down, 19 to go...
--
Will you two stop arguing and start thinking
about where we can find some cement?
Eric Jarvis
>
> Well, I for one would like there to be at least the *chance* of there
> being an independent candidate who didn't stand for a party. The fact that
> there is currently only one doesn't mean that we should abolish the chance
> of it ever happening again.
>
> Jonathan.
>
having been the election agent both for a party and an independent
candidate in a General Election and the London Mayoral election...there
is a very good reason why serious independent candidates are rare...it's
because the bulk of people in the UK treat politics as something that
happens on TV
TV is a national medium...regional reporting of politics is poor and
there is no attempt to do any serious analysis of politics on a local
basis...furthermore the broadcasters have a code of conduct that is set
up for a two party structure and which can barely cope with dealing with
three parties let alone independent candidates
--
eric -afpianced to pia and Thom, afpdopted uncle to
Mary Messall, afplirting with April
"when all is said and done, there is a lot more
said than done"
Jan Mazurek
> Proportional representation worries me a little because I don't like the
> idea of "coalitions" (they shouldn't be cooperating!) and because in
> many countries it seems to lead to a single "major" party with which the
> other minor parties fall in line.
You should come to Poland... Those clowns we've got in our parliament would
cause even Lord Vetinari to ROTFL. Despite that we've got the proportional
system of election (but it concerns only electing the members of Sejm -
the Lower - and the more important - Chamber of the Polish parliament;
there's also Senat - The Upper Chamber, but it hasn't got much to say...
which is the case in nearly all [1] the democratic countries which have a
bicameral parliament ), the country is
currently being ruled by one party, which *hasn't even got the majority* in
the Sejm. But all the ministers are from this party and somehow it makes
them believe they can do whatever stupid they can think of. And now, with
the presidential election approaching, you
simply have to switch on the TV, watch the news, eat popcorn and laugh. And
then cry after realizing that those fools actually *rule* the country. And I
really used to like those guys...:-(
[1] I'd really like to know an example of a country where the Upper Chamber
is more important. The US maybe? I'm not sure. Could someone please
elucidate me?
--
Jan, Fratello da Vetinari and a mumbling jellyfish
Omnes mimi in speluncam cum scorpionibus immisi erunt.
Now the world is gone I'm just one
Oh God, help me
Suzi
(er...@last.dircon.co.uk) wibbled...
[Snip]
> the only non-party votes for politicians these days (in the UK at least)
> are for incumbents and celebrities....I don't think that is sufficient
> reason to keep a first past the post system
Not so - certainly in the village we moved away from the incumbent local
representative is an independent who managed to get voted in because he
lived and worked in the local community, spent time with them, and
really cared about it. This is lost in party politics. I would rather
have a system that allows as many of these in dependants into local
councils, and parliament, as is humanly possible.
Suzi
Suzi
(goblin@*deepend*.co.uk) wibbled...
[Snip]
> _And_ I like Gordon Brown.
Well, I suppose somebody somewhere has to
Suzi
Mary Messall
<snip>
> Okay, now here's a question for the US posters (actually fiarly
> relevant, since there's an election coming up in the US): how do you
> stand what is, in effect, a year-long election campaign? The longest
> election campaign I can recall in Australia is five weeks. I suppose
> long election campaigns are a drawback of fixed voting dates.
They make it into entertainment. Spectacle, conflict, impassioned
speeches... There's a reason pundits refer to it as "The horse race."
The Republican convention this year took that to the lowest peak (if you
see what I mean) that it's been in my lifetime. Balloons and confetti
and every movement choreographed in the most elaborate dance... Scandals
are outed, sarcasm is slung in the newspapers, the whole thing can be
pretty addictive, actually. Political junkies draw out the season longer
every time...
> Oh, another question - how can it be called a majority when only half
> of the voting population can be bothered to vote?
Technically it's just a plurality. Even if it was the kind of strict
majority required elsewhere, that could still be less than half the
population- all you need is a majority of voters. Not bothering to vote
says "The status quo is fine with me, and I don't see any threat to it"
which is perfectly true in most cases. In eight years they'll be gone
anyway, however bad they are, and if that doesn't fix it, well, then
maybe some of the people who didn't care before will form their own
action committees. In the meantime, if people really don't care, I'd
rather they stay home than pick the candidate with better teeth.
goblin
>
> In article <8nr8f7$fj2$1...@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net>, goblin
> (goblin@*deepend*.co.uk) wibbled...
>
> [Snip]
>
>
> Suzi
ach, now, I can't help but feel a Scot[1] is probably a great person to
be looking after the pennies[2].
[1] Stereotype, me? Well, I'm half Cornish and half Irish and live in
Sarf London.. so there's plenty to stereotype me with ;)
[2] Hmm, yep I do have better reasons for thinking he's a decent
chancellor. Honest
Gid Holyoake
Snippetry..
> [2] Hmm, yep I do have better reasons for thinking he's a decent
> chancellor. Honest
Gordon Brown?.. decent?..
*boggle*
This must be some strange usage of the word "decent" of which I was
previously unaware..
Gid
--
The Most Noble and Exalted Peculiar , Harem Master to Veiled Concubines
Guardian of the Sacred !!!!!'s , Defender of the Temple of AFPdoration
ISTP http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~gidnsuzi/ for The Irrelevant Page! MJBC
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried..
Melody
Gid Holyoake <G...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.140c73911...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk...
> In article <8ntc4o$kt7$1...@newsreaderm1.core.theplanet.net>, goblin
> generously decided to share with us..
>
> Snippetry..
>
> > [2] Hmm, yep I do have better reasons for thinking he's a decent
> > chancellor. Honest
>
> Gordon Brown?.. decent?..
>
> *boggle*
>
> This must be some strange usage of the word "decent" of which I was
> previously unaware..
Obviously , Gid , giving goblins value for decent as slightly different from
yours and mine ;o)
Melody
--
Trying to decide what to have as a new sig
goblin
ho hum.... I suppose trying to deliberatly evoke rule #4 of Usenet
wouldn't be effective in killing this discussion? I do hate a political
argument... and honestly wish I'd never mentioned the subject.
<fx: puts down opinion and backs away slowly>
chocolate?
pint of hobgoblin?
err... 'scuse me I think my coat's over by the door.
Melody
goblin <goblin@*deepend*.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8ntu20$tla$1...@newsreaderm1.core.theplanet.net...
> Melody wrote:
> >
> > Gid Holyoake <G...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.140c73911...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk...
> > > In article <8ntc4o$kt7$1...@newsreaderm1.core.theplanet.net>, goblin
> > > generously decided to share with us..
> ho hum.... I suppose trying to deliberatly evoke rule #4 of Usenet
> wouldn't be effective in killing this discussion? I do hate a political
> argument... and honestly wish I'd never mentioned the subject.
>
> <fx: puts down opinion and backs away slowly>
>
> chocolate?
> pint of hobgoblin?
Awww.. *hugs* goblin ...t'was only a jest on my part ;o) Anyway , you are
looking at someone who could see the good side to Maggie ..so who am I to
say owt?
<fx:takes choccy and runs>
Richard Bos
> Bobby Cox wrote:
> <snip>
> > Okay, now here's a question for the US posters (actually fiarly
> > relevant, since there's an election coming up in the US): how do you
> > stand what is, in effect, a year-long election campaign? The longest
> > election campaign I can recall in Australia is five weeks. I suppose
> > long election campaigns are a drawback of fixed voting dates.
>
> They make it into entertainment. Spectacle, conflict, impassioned
> speeches... There's a reason pundits refer to it as "The horse race."
There should be another reason: incompetent, stumbling candidates
shouldn't get elected, they should be shot.
> In eight years they'll be gone
> anyway, however bad they are, and if that doesn't fix it, well, then
> maybe some of the people who didn't care before will form their own
> action committees. In the meantime, if people really don't care, I'd
> rather they stay home than pick the candidate with better teeth.
Indeed. You'd wish "they" would think about it, but if they can't be
bothered (and sometimes I almost agree with "them"), their votes aren't
a big loss, either.
Richard
Richard Bos
> In article <39a1379f...@news.worldonline.nl>, Richard Bos generously
> decided to share with us..
>
> > So, in effect, does the district system. Why else is the prime minister
> > in the UK always either Labour or Tory?
>
> Actually, that's a relatively recent phenomenon[1].. the Labour party are
> a relative newcomer to British parliament, but anyway, it's an outcome of
> the FPTP system.. where there is a party with a simple majority in
> government, they get to choose their prime-minister, who is usually
> (though not necessarily) also the leader of the party..
Yup... and one of the main advantages of PR is that FPTP is nigh
impossible, because nobody ever makes the post, and so two or more
parties _have_ to choose a candidate who is acceptable to all; and
usually have ministers of more than one party as well.
> > And why else is the president of
> > the US always either Democrat or Republic? Independents don't get a
> > realistic chance anyway. You have to have wossname from Texas's kind of
> > money to even enter the race as an independent. To actually finish it,
> > you need the kind of industry financing only the major parties get.
>
> In the UK parliament it is relatively easy to stand as an independent,
> though these days you need a minimum of 5,000UKP as a deposit rather than
> the 500UKP that was required in my younger days..
And what independent can afford not to have a day job ('cause you can't,
you have to campaign) and also deposit 5000 pounds? A reasonably wealthy
independent, that's who. I certainly couldn't afford 5000 UKP if it
weren't for my job, and I certainly haven't got the time to stand for
office.
Can you say "timocracy"? I'm sure you can. Of course, that's what we're
having anyway, since the rich guys fund the parties, but why make it
compulsory?
> just because the only
> parties that get any decent press-coverage in the UK parliament are the
> Tories, Labour and the Lib-Dems, don't forget all the other parties who
> are free to vote either with or against the government as they see fit..
> Plaid Cymru, The SNP, the DUP, The UUP, the PUP etc.. oh.. and Martin
> Bell of course! :-)
Myeah. But if one party already has an absolute majority, they can vote
for whatever they want, they're not getting any. If the ruling party has
even close to a majority (and they're likely to in DR), they only need
to sway one or two of the others to get what they want. Under PR,
they're likely to have more realistic numbers of seats, and have to
cooperate more.
Richard
goblin
>
> goblin <goblin@*deepend*.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8ntu20$tla$1...@newsreaderm1.core.theplanet.net...
> > Melody wrote:
> > >
> > > Gid Holyoake <G...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.140c73911...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk...
> > > > In article <8ntc4o$kt7$1...@newsreaderm1.core.theplanet.net>, goblin
> > wouldn't be effective in killing this discussion? I do hate a political
> > argument... and honestly wish I'd never mentioned the subject.
> >
> > <fx: puts down opinion and backs away slowly>
> >
> > chocolate?
> > pint of hobgoblin?
>
> Awww.. *hugs* goblin ...t'was only a jest on my part ;o) Anyway , you are
> looking at someone who could see the good side to Maggie ..so who am I to
> say owt?
>
> <fx:takes choccy and runs>
>
> Melody
>
> --
> Trying to decide what to have as a new sig
Oh, the good side of Maggie? Was it her left?
<fx: looks at empty hand>
d*mn[1], hoped she was going to take the beer
[1] a difficult linguistic feat, learned from Carrot
Daniel Goldsmith
> G...@netcomuk.co.uk (Gid Holyoake) wrote:
>
> > In article <39a1379f...@news.worldonline.nl>, Richard Bos generously
> >
> > > the US always either Democrat or Republic? Independents don't get a
> > > realistic chance anyway. You have to have wossname from Texas's kind of
> > > money to even enter the race as an independent. To actually finish it,
> > > you need the kind of industry financing only the major parties get.
> >
> > In the UK parliament it is relatively easy to stand as an independent,
> > though these days you need a minimum of 5,000UKP as a deposit rather than
> > the 500UKP that was required in my younger days..
>
> And what independent can afford not to have a day job ('cause you can't,
> you have to campaign) and also deposit 5000 pounds? A reasonably wealthy
> independent, that's who. I certainly couldn't afford 5000 UKP if it
> weren't for my job, and I certainly haven't got the time to stand for
> office.
Over here they decided that this whole funding thing was a perversion of
democracy, so they set up a public electoral fund. Theory being that
everyone gets funded from the fund and all private donations of IR£500+
had to be declared afertwards. Of course, they then went and set the
funding levels according to representation in the current Dail, and
raised the deposit to £5,000 and, according to some politicos of my ken,
the number of sub-£500 donations sextupled. Ah, democracy at work.
</aside>
> Can you say "timocracy"? I'm sure you can. Of course, that's what we're
> having anyway, since the rich guys fund the parties, but why make it
> compulsory?
>
> > just because the only
> > parties that get any decent press-coverage in the UK parliament are the
> > Tories, Labour and the Lib-Dems, don't forget all the other parties who
> > are free to vote either with or against the government as they see fit..
> > Plaid Cymru, The SNP, the DUP, The UUP, the PUP etc.. oh.. and Martin
> > Bell of course! :-)
Isn't it true though that these parties (and lets not forget the
Socialist Liberal Democratic Party and 'Ourselves Alone'[1]) are products
of purely local situations. Each one has their representation not due to
the perfections of the system but rather due to polarised and polarising
local affairs; having very little to do with the system. According to
those I know, the last time one of these little parties ended up with a
balance of power the result was nearly chaotic in one particular
respect.[2]
> Myeah. But if one party already has an absolute majority, they can vote
> for whatever they want, they're not getting any. If the ruling party has
> even close to a majority (and they're likely to in DR), they only need
> to sway one or two of the others to get what they want. Under PR,
> they're likely to have more realistic numbers of seats, and have to
> cooperate more.
I know this runs contrary to what I said earlier in the thread, but I
have been paying attention and.... I'm not so sure that having the little
parties/independents works all that well. I mean, apart from the example
cited above/in footnotes, it has very recently been brought to my
attention that the heroic independents in the Irish Dail are far from my
earlier perceptions - chancers and shysters the lot of them in fact.
These people seem to basically hold the government here to ransom on a
whim - topics like electrical cable routing, television services, routing
of roads and the like are being decided in these peoples' heads, not by a
normal consutative process. When a topic such as abortion (and no I'm not
opening the topic to debate, just referring to an example) is decided by
a political naif rather than by consultative investigation[3] - there is
something deeply wrong.
Daniel del volte face.
[1] Sinn Fein - political wing of the IRA. Don't take their seats in
UKian parliament for some strange reason (sarcasm)
[2] ATMS - the UUP held John Major's govt. over a barrel on some Norn Irn
affairs, which many Irish people blame for the collapse of the 1994 IRA
ceasefire.
[3] There is an independent from Wicklow (I think) who was basically
elected on an anti-abortion-and-get-us-a-few-million-quid-and-a-hospital-
and-a-few-new-roads-and-a-coupla-pounds-fer-yersself-and-whatever-he's-
having platform. She is one of the independents the govt depends on for
survival and has already said she doesn't give a damn what the govts.
consultation process suggests(at a cost of c.IR£9m) that the state
should do on the matter of abortion as she's not having any of it no how
not ever. Just a complete denial of democracy IMHO, but then I'm a bitter
old geezer from a different culture[4]
[4] Unfortunately not the Culture - I'd be summoning the closest GSV and
getting off this rock if that were the case.[5]
[5] Yes, I have rediscovered Iain M Banks - s'got me all political and
wistful. Anyone for a game of Azad? Winner takes all? Anyone? Right
sorry, me displacement drone is over there next to the fur coat.
--
Your Message could appear in this signature.
£150 per one-month period. £350/two months.
Get the message across to the widest and
most appreciative audience on the Internet.
Miq
>> the US always either Democrat or Republic? Independents don't get a
>> realistic chance anyway. You have to have wossname from Texas's kind of
>> money to even enter the race as an independent. To actually finish it,
>> you need the kind of industry financing only the major parties get.
Which is itself a Hot Topic in the USA, as you may know. Campaign
finance reform is one of those perennial subjects that candidates pick
up, usually early in their running in an effort to get people to support
them... then drop like hot wossnames the minute the big bucks start
rolling in...
>In the UK parliament it is relatively easy to stand as an independent,
>though these days you need a minimum of 5,000UKP as a deposit rather than
>the 500UKP that was required in my younger days..
5K? Ouch. I hadn't realised it'd gone that high. Outrageous.
>just because the only
>parties that get any decent press-coverage in the UK parliament are the
>Tories, Labour and the Lib-Dems, don't forget all the other parties who
>are free to vote either with or against the government as they see fit..
>Plaid Cymru, The SNP, the DUP, The UUP, the PUP etc.. oh.. and Martin
>Bell of course! :-)
It's better than that, though, because both the major parties also house
their share of Independents. Something like 20% of each main party is
made up of people who *know* they're never going to hold high office in
the party, so they've got nothing to lose by voting against the party
line: the whips have no effective control over them. In effect, I think
those few people do more to safeguard our real interests than all the
nominally "independent" parties. (This is why it's such a big deal when
a central party authority forces a candidate on a constituency party, as
Labour has taken to doing recently.)
--
Miq
Deadlines looming? Teachers to impress? No time to read? Never fear!
The Discworld Homework Files: http://www.kew1.demon.co.uk/homework.html
Miq
>I've managed to convince myself that democracy has very little to do
>with putting "the people's choice" in power (as you say, the people have
>no clue who they want) and everything to do with effecting a smooth
>transfer of power.
I see it as important less for the effect it has on actual voting and
appointment, more for the effect it has on politicians *while* they are
in power.
Look at Mr Putin's current problems. On holiday in the Crimea, he
declined to return to Moscow when an emergency came up. This may or may
not have been sensible from the point of view of helping the rescue
operation, but politically it made him look callous. It also showed
that Russia's top politicians haven't really absorbed the implications
of democracy yet.
Democracy means that, for every decision you make, every law or move you
oppose or support, you've got to keep at least one eye on your voters.
How is this going to look to them? How are they going to react? What
is the TV news going to say about you?
This is a sharp contrast to the bureaucracy of the former Soviet system,
where you just had to maintain good relations with a few powerful
people, and the common citizens could go screw themselves. *That's* the
mindset that Mr Putin is still working in - he didn't try to interfere
because it was *someone else's job* to do it - and it's costing him.
(Note: I'm not saying that he was right or wrong to do what he did - but
I do think that *any* of our Western leaders would have made a big show
of rushing back from holiday to 'take charge' of the crisis, even if
they couldn't actually *do* anything.)
--
Miq
New to afp/abp? check http://www.lspace.org/
Still stuck? Mail the Clue Fairies at afp-...@lspace.org
afp welcome message: http://www.lspace.org/fandom/afp/welcome.html
Gid Holyoake
share with us..
> Completely off-topic to a totally off-topic thread anyway, are there any other
> people around who are loony enough to associate the term "starship trooper"
> with the quite divine noise of early Yes?
Yup.. probably plenty of us.. Close to the edge anyone?..
Gid
--
The Most Noble and Exalted Peculiar , Harem Master to Veiled Concubines
Guardian of the Sacred !!!!!'s , Defender of the Temple of AFPdoration
ISTP http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~gidnsuzi/ for The Irrelevant Page! MJBC
Where do kings keep their armies?.. up their sleevies!..
Eric Jarvis
>
>
> > [2] Hmm, yep I do have better reasons for thinking he's a decent
> > chancellor. Honest
>
> Gordon Brown?.. decent?..
>
> *boggle*
>
> This must be some strange usage of the word "decent" of which I was
> previously unaware..
>
>
>
yep...it's the word "decent" used in a context where Leon Brittain and
Nigel Lawson were described as competent
--
eric -afpianced to pia and Thom, afpdopted uncle to
Mary Messall, afplirting with April
"I got in touch with my inner child, he told me to
grow up"
Jean S and/or Jeff C
wrote:
>In article <8nv2dt$1m...@edrn.newsguy.com>, Sherilyn generously decided to
>share with us..
>
>> Completely off-topic to a totally off-topic thread anyway, are there any other
>> people around who are loony enough to associate the term "starship trooper"
>> with the quite divine noise of early Yes?
>
>Yup.. probably plenty of us.. Close to the edge anyone?..
I kept waiting to hear it all throughout the movie. Probably one more
reason why it disappointed me : )
--
Jeff C
Leo Breebaart
> Completely off-topic to a totally off-topic thread anyway, are there any
> other people around who are loony enough to associate the term "starship
> trooper" with the quite divine noise of early Yes?
No. This is afp. We're much loonier than that. We associate the term
"starship trooper" with the quite divine noise of early Sarah Brightman.
I lost my heart to a starship trooper
Flashing light in hyper space
Fighting for the Federation
Hand in hand we'll conquer space
They don't write 'em like that anymore, you know.
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
none
> In article <8nv2dt$1m...@edrn.newsguy.com>, Sherilyn generously decided to
> share with us..
> > Completely off-topic to a totally off-topic thread anyway, are there any other
> > people around who are loony enough to associate the term "starship trooper"
> > with the quite divine noise of early Yes?
>
> Yup.. probably plenty of us.. Close to the edge anyone?..
...sailing into destiny, Closer to the edge, I said closer to the edge,
yeah!
Oh, right. Stand and fight we do consider ... Casting giant shadows off
vast penetrating force, a...
ht
Eric Jarvis
> Gid Holyoake wrote:
> > In article <8nv2dt$1m...@edrn.newsguy.com>, Sherilyn generously decided to
> > share with us..
> > > Completely off-topic to a totally off-topic thread anyway, are there any other
> > > people around who are loony enough to associate the term "starship trooper"
> > > with the quite divine noise of early Yes?
> >
> > Yup.. probably plenty of us.. Close to the edge anyone?..
>
> yeah!
>
>
>
>
> Oh, right. Stand and fight we do consider ... Casting giant shadows off
> vast penetrating force, a...
>
> ht
>
they don't write lyrics like that anymore
mainly because drugs are so expensive
actually that isn't quite true...I know somebody who does write lyrics
like that, but usually everyone laughs at them so they don't get music
attached to them
--
eric -afpianced to pia and Thom, afpdopted uncle to
Mary Messall, afplirting with April
"the alternative to seeing things in black and white
is to see them in full colour"
Kincaid
Bobby Cox <smeg...@ix.net.au> wrote:
> time there's a state or federal election, I'm gonna make a note of
> some of the names that appear on the upper house ballot sheet.
> Honestly, you won't know whether to laugh or cry...
I don't get this. If the Senate is elected proportionally, why are there
names of candidates on the ballot?
Or is this just a list of who the partie will put into the Senate,
depending on the number of allocated seats?
TTFN, Kincaid
Luke Goaman-Dodson
> ach, now, I can't help but feel a Scot[1] is probably a great person to
> be looking after the pennies[2].
>
> [1] Stereotype, me? Well, I'm half Cornish and half Irish and live in
> Sarf London.. so there's plenty to stereotype me with ;)
> chancellor. Honest
New Labour? New Bollocks more like.
--
Belzub
Martyn Clapham
<5...@sherilyn.org.uk> writes
>In article <8o1fno$6bu$1...@falcon.pds.twi.tudelft.nl>, l...@lspace.org says...
>>
>>Sherilyn <5...@sherilyn.org.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Completely off-topic to a totally off-topic thread anyway, are there any
>>> other people around who are loony enough to associate the term "starship
>>> trooper" with the quite divine noise of early Yes?
>>
>>"starship trooper" with the quite divine noise of early Sarah Brightman.
>>
>> I lost my heart to a starship trooper
>> Flashing light in hyper space
>> Fighting for the Federation
>> Hand in hand we'll conquer space
>>
>>They don't write 'em like that anymore, you know.
>>
>
One of you buggers probably re-programmed him! :-)
Mart - back from a week away sending up whooshy things!
--
Everything you wanted to know about afp, but were afraid to ask, is at
http://www.lspace.org/
My own website is http://www.mclapham.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Having fun on afp since 1996 Afpurity = 49% old test, 37% new test.
Sherilyn
Martyn Clapham <mar...@mclapham.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8o40bs$28...@edrn.newsguy.com>, Sherilyn
> <5...@sherilyn.org.uk> writes
> >In article <8o1fno$6bu$1...@falcon.pds.twi.tudelft.nl>, l...@lspace.org
says...
> >>
> >>Sherilyn <5...@sherilyn.org.uk> writes:
> >>
> >>> Completely off-topic to a totally off-topic thread anyway, are
there any
> >>> other people around who are loony enough to associate the term
"starship
> >>> trooper" with the quite divine noise of early Yes?
> >>
> >>No. This is afp. We're much loonier than that. We associate the term
> >>"starship trooper" with the quite divine noise of early Sarah
Brightman.
> >>
> >> I lost my heart to a starship trooper
> >> Flashing light in hyper space
> >> Fighting for the Federation
> >> Hand in hand we'll conquer space
> >>
> >>They don't write 'em like that anymore, you know.
> >>
> >So whatever became of her automatic lover?
> >
> One of you buggers probably re-programmed him! :-)
So you left an automatic grrrl alone with a mere _macheen_?
>
> Mart - back from a week away sending up whooshy things!
Sounds good! Hope it's as good as Madonna's Cherish video looks.
"Romeo and Juliet never felt this way I bet
So don't underestimate my poin-a-view!"
<shudders>
[I like this stuff?
Yep!
Mamma Mia!
]
--
Email handle is time-encoded to foil spammers.
Use recent handles only. Filter on domain name only.
http://www.sherilyn.org.uk/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David M. Sueme
>Completely off-topic to a totally off-topic thread anyway, are there any other
>people around who are loony enough to associate the term "starship trooper"
>with the quite divine noise of early Yes?
No me. They don't make gods that can slip below my sonar.
Dave
goblin
each to their own, sausage, each to their own :)
Eric Jarvis
> Luke Goaman-Dodson wrote:
> >
> > New Labour? New Bollocks more like.
>
>
nonononono
to each a sausage according to their need
oh sorry...that was Real Labour wasn't it? :(
--
eric -afpianced to pia and Thom, afpdopted uncle to
Mary Messall, afplirting with April
"if a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing to excess"
goblin
ROFL
here are my sausage policies [1]..
Tough on sausages, tough on the causes of sausages
Back to sausages
and of course:
New labour, new sausage[2]
and at dinner time:
sausages.. mmmm... sausages, what? policy? bugger off, I'm eating.
[1] you may notice that 2 of them contradict each other a bit. This is
a political manifesto, so no surprises there then ;)
[2] does anyone else think that the word sausage starts to look wrong
the more you type/read it. No? Oh.