TV election time
Dave Yadallee
So election it is. Wouldn't you know it.
Tory want re-elect, eh? Pah!!! After sabotage British television
culture and
after capping the media's clout, Best of luck. No right-winger,
especially
the cultural fascist would get my vote.
Also, beware of left-wingers being Trojans baring gifts.
A challenge. I would love to see Leaders Major, Kinnock, Ashdown and
whoever else in British politics debate each other in an open session
on the BBC, IBA networks and the Satellite networks, THEN we
will see who is capable of being PM (IMHO Ashdown)
Matthew Huntbach
> A challenge. I would love to see Leaders Major, Kinnock, Ashdown and
>whoever else in British politics debate each other in an open session
>on the BBC, IBA networks and the Satellite networks, THEN we
>will see who is capable of being PM (IMHO Ashdown)
I would be sorry to see this. It would be yet another step away
from Parliamentary democracy to a Presidential system. I wish
more emphasis were put on the local candidate for whom you
actually vote and less on the leader of the party in whose
interest that candidate is standing. If people actually voted
for individual candidates, MPs would be more likely to think
for themselves and listen to their electors rather than doing
what their leaders tell them to, and we would have much better
government. Everyone says this is what they'd like to see,
yet at election time all they talk about is voting "Major,
Kinnock, or Ashdown", which they can't actually do unless they
live in Huntingdon, Islwyn or Yeovil.
Matthew Huntbach
Richard Tobin
>will see who is capable of being PM (IMHO Ashdown)
Oh yes, the chap who repeatedly puts out the lie that if 40% vote
Labour, 40% vote Tory, and 20% vote Liberal then "the country has
voted for a coalition". If it happens, he'll claim that 60% have
voted for a Lib/Lab or Lib/Tory coalition.
I'd put a note on my ballot paper saying "not to be used for a
coalition" but they'd probably call it a spoilt ballot.
In my opinion Mr Ashdown is much the most dishonest of the party
leaders.
-- Richard
--
Richard Tobin,
AI Applications Institute, R.T...@ed.ac.uk
Edinburgh University.
Simon Granville
ceyboard.
>>will see who is capable of being PM (IMHO Ashdown)
>
>Oh yes, the chap who repeatedly puts out the lie that if 40% vote
>Labour, 40% vote Tory, and 20% vote Liberal then "the country has
>voted for a coalition". If it happens, he'll claim that 60% have
>voted for a Lib/Lab or Lib/Tory coalition.
>
>I'd put a note on my ballot paper saying "not to be used for a
>coalition" but they'd probably call it a spoilt ballot.
>
>In my opinion Mr Ashdown is much the most dishonest of the party
>leaders.
>
Speacing as someone actually involved with the election campaign (in Bath)
and showing scepticism for 'dirty liberals' comments I am afraid to say that
already the Lib/Dems have started their dirty trics campaign by springing a
petition on the local tories and telling the press that it was organized
beforehand which it wasn't.
On the point of the 40/40/20 distribution of votes I still can not
understand how it is 'fair' and 'democratic' for 20% (16 by NOP last night)
of people to decide who runs the country.
Just my 2p
--
Toodle pip,
Simon
N Patel
>>whoever else in British politics debate each other in an open session
>I would be sorry to see this. It would be yet another step away
>from Parliamentary democracy to a Presidential system.
>
>Matthew Huntbach
Well Kinnock and Ashdown challenged John Major to a live TV debate
in the HoC yesterday. Major declined this opportunity to the jibes
of being "frit"(?)from Kinnock(nice to see he has learned something
from Thatcher!).
Well I'm glad Major said no. Not because he'd get a good hiding but because
I remember seeing the Carter-Reagan live tv debate in 1980 and some
of the Bush-Dukakis debate in 1988. All we saw was 2 guys saying what they
wanted to say rather than answering the questions - as if we don't get
enough of this anyway. It's another chance for Leaders to prevaricate
(I think that is the right word!).
Cheers
Nitesh
Dave Shariff Yadallee
>
> I would be sorry to see this. It would be yet another step away
> from Parliamentary democracy to a Presidential system. I wish
> more emphasis were put on the local candidate for whom you
> actually vote and less on the leader of the party in whose
> interest that candidate is standing. If people actually voted
> for individual candidates, MPs would be more likely to think
> for themselves and listen to their electors rather than doing
> what their leaders tell them to, and we would have much better
> government. Everyone says this is what they'd like to see,
> yet at election time all they talk about is voting "Major,
> Kinnock, or Ashdown", which they can't actually do unless they
> live in Huntingdon, Islwyn or Yeovil.
>
> Matthew Huntbach
Matthew, so far I have agreed with you up till now. This is THE National
Election and the people of Britain should closely examine their politicians
clearly. Enough of this secrecy, and hiding-behind-the-skirts garbage.
Here, in Canada in the 1988 election, it was the televised leader's debate
that forced the Mulroney Tories to come with new strategies when then Liberal
Leader John Turner exposed how arrogant a leader he really is. NOTE: Canada
is a Commonwealth Country the is using the British-styled Parliamentary
Democratic system. I am willing to comment furthur on this, if need be.
SO MAtthew, my rebuttal of your above statement.
While I am here, I do note that the reporting, the coverage of the British
Election is an art of its own when it is done by the British Media. Could we
in the world at large, be kept up to date with manifestos, polls, the coverage
of the election is happening? And can we be kept up to date about the election
issues this time around, eh?
Dave Shariff Yadallee, soon Lord Yadallee of Redhill
yada...@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, user...@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca
Tim Sneath
to be heading towards the political side...
In article <1992Mar12.1...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> m...@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>From: uad...@dircon.co.uk (Dave Yadallee)
>> A challenge. I would love to see Leaders Major, Kinnock, Ashdown and
>>whoever else in British politics debate each other in an open session
>>on the BBC, IBA networks and the Satellite networks, THEN we
>>will see who is capable of being PM (IMHO Ashdown)
That's Ashdown and Kinnock's challenge actually, and John Major has no
interest in it. It's a shame - it would be better than the standard "On the
Record", "Walden" etc. which do interviews on the same old subjects with
the same old politicians :-)
>I would be sorry to see this. It would be yet another step away
>from Parliamentary democracy to a Presidential system. I wish
>more emphasis were put on the local candidate for whom you
>actually vote and less on the leader of the party in whose
>interest that candidate is standing. If people actually voted
>for individual candidates, MPs would be more likely to think
>for themselves and listen to their electors rather than doing
>what their leaders tell them to, and we would have much better
>government. Everyone says this is what they'd like to see,
>yet at election time all they talk about is voting "Major,
>Kinnock, or Ashdown", which they can't actually do unless they
>live in Huntingdon, Islwyn or Yeovil.
But this is one of the PR schemes. At present only those in marginal seats
actually choose who is in power. For example, being at University, I could
either register to vote in my home constituency of Huntingdon (John Major's
constituency), or I could register in Nottingham South. However, John Major
had a 27,000 majority in the last election, when he was a mere
whippersnapper (grin), and this time he looks certain to improve on that.
If I vote in the 13th most marginal seat of Nottingham South, where there
is a ?4000 majority, my vote makes far more difference. So unless you live
in a marginal constituency, your vote is wasted *whichever* way you vote.
This election could well be the last "first past the post" election. I hope
so.
Regards,
Tim :>
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
| "Woke up in my clothes again this morning..." - Sting |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| t...@uk.ac.nott.cs | |
| psy...@uk.ac.nott.ccc.unicorn | Jesus is Lord! |
| psy...@uk.ac.nott.ccc.vax | |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
Chris Cooke
From: uad...@dircon.co.uk (Dave Yadallee)
> A challenge. I would love to see Leaders Major, Kinnock, Ashdown and
>whoever else in British politics debate each other in an open session
>on the BBC, IBA networks and the Satellite networks, THEN we
>will see who is capable of being PM (IMHO Ashdown)
I would be sorry to see this. It would be yet another step away
from Parliamentary democracy to a Presidential system.
Kinnock & Ashdown challenged Major to a debate. Major said no, debates were
for losers. John Smith challenged Norman Lamont to a debate, and Norman said
yes, anytime. Someone hasn't consulted properly before opening their
mouth... :-)
--
-- Chris. c...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (on Janet, c...@uk.ac.ed.dcs)
The cabbages are coming now; the earth exhales.
Dave Shariff Yadallee
> In article <1992Mar12.1...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> m...@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew H
>
> From: uad...@dircon.co.uk (Dave Yadallee)
> > A challenge. I would love to see Leaders Major, Kinnock, Ashdown and
> >whoever else in British politics debate each other in an open session
> >on the BBC, IBA networks and the Satellite networks, THEN we
> >will see who is capable of being PM (IMHO Ashdown)
>
>
> Kinnock & Ashdown challenged Major to a debate. Major said no, debates were
> for losers. John Smith challenged Norman Lamont to a debate, and Norman said
> yes, anytime. Someone hasn't consulted properly before opening their
> mouth... :-)
> --
> -- Chris. c...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (on Janet, c...@uk.ac.ed.dcs)
>
> The cabbages are coming now; the earth exhales.
Chris, I concede your point, however I am rarely using mydircon account, and
have to depend on a 2-day delay on information.
Upon seeing the Major TV debate position, I can see that he is NOT serious
about this election. Debates are for losers indeed. When the Alberta Tory
Leader took that stand in the last Alberta, Canada Province election, he lost
his seat to a Liberal, a scenario which was not supoose to have happened.
Hopefully, so of these old boys, like Kinnock, Hattersley, Benn, Scargill,
Lamont, Howe and others face serious challenges even defeats this election
round.
As for the bath Liberal, he had better have a point if he is petitioning
against his opponent.
Iain McCord
>
> On the point of the 40/40/20 distribution of votes I still can not
> understand how it is 'fair' and 'democratic' for 20% (16 by NOP last night)
> of people to decide who runs the country.
overlap in the two parties manifesto. Perhaps this outlines a flaw in the
party system, the idea of a fixed menu. If local M.P.s gave an indication
of which parts of the manifesto they suported, and those that they didn't, we
could then judge how far the resultant government can push its mandate. The
idea of a party whip is contrary to democracy, as is that of open voting. If
the present government don't like trade unions being run on that system then
they can understand my dislike of parliament being run in that way.
> Simon
~~~~~/\~~~~~
Iain McCord ~~~~/()\~~~~ Mon Mar 16 16:01:23 WET 1992
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew Huntbach
>overlap in the two parties manifesto. Perhaps this outlines a flaw in the
>party system, the idea of a fixed menu. If local M.P.s gave an indication
>of which parts of the manifesto they suported, and those that they didn't, we
>could then judge how far the resultant government can push its mandate.
If this were to happen, the party would be torn to pieces by
the media as being "split" and "unable to make up its mind".
I am sickened by the way this election has degenerated into
a contest between the leaders, with local candidates assumed to
be just puppets who will obey the leaders without thinking. But
the fact is, this is what the people want: every opinion poll
show that "party unity" (i.e. slavish adoration of the leader)
is judged by the electorate to be about the most important
thing in a political party.
Matthew Huntbach
clem...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> On the point of the 40/40/20 distribution of votes I still can not
> understand how it is 'fair' and 'democratic' for 20% (16 by NOP last night)
> of people to decide who runs the country.
I think it has been calculated that it will take only a swing of 8
percent from Tory to Labour (compared to the result in 1987) to give Labour a
controlling majority under the present UK election system. So it is this *8*
percent of floating voters who are deciding who will run the country right now.
Is *that* fair?
What about all the voters in constituencies where there is not a
cat-in-hells chance that anyone other than the sitting MP will get in? They are
in effect completely disenfranchised under the present system. Is *that* fair?
When a government is elected in a first-past-the-post system by only
40 percent of people, and then proceeds to do as it damn-well pleases - which
is what 'strong government' is all about - then we don't even have majority
rule. Is that *fair and democratic*?
And it is no more *fair* for a majority to stamp all over the wishes of
the minority that it is for the minority to be in control! Good government is
not about control and imposition of beliefs - it should be about compromise,
and freedom. Whether or not you think the LibDems will improve the governemnt of
this country, I cannot see that the Tories or Labour will *ever* give up their
stranglehold voluntarially.
WEll, thats what I think anyhow :-)
Amanda Baker
(please send mail to a...@uk.ac.cam.ast-star)