Elected Dictatorships: A question for Mr Pratchett.
Hoofer
We appear to have elected Labour again in Great Britain.
I'm sure there's something funny about that. Any ideas?
Torak
Oh, bugger. Not again! I would have thought people would have seen what
happened last time...
> I'm sure there's something funny about that. Any ideas?
How about we develop the Blair Conspiracy Theory?
Mike Knell
Yeah, my idea is that frankly, this thrash would probably be extremely
tedious, devour the group entirely, metamorphose into some other
vampire thread or another (probably about the Euro) at some point, and
generally have people reaching for their killfiles in droves.
I'm as political an animal as any, but AFP is a relatively politics-free
zone at the moment. Most of us are probably all politicked out after
staying up for half of last night watching Peter Snow waving his arms
around and running up and down stairs. And besides, large swathes of
this group are from outside the UK and therefore less interested in
the complexities of the UK electoral system than those who are UK voters.
So, yeah, I'm sure there's something absolutely hilarious about it, but
my tired, addled brain can't think of precisely what right now.
Mike "I love elections, really, but in here..." K.
Paul Brown
> "Hoofer" <DELET...@ollyb.co.uk> wrote:
>>New to the group, so here's my first post...
>>
>>We appear to have elected Labour again in Great Britain.
>>
>>I'm sure there's something funny about that. Any ideas?
> Yeah, my idea is that frankly, this thrash would probably be extremely
> tedious, devour the group entirely, metamorphose into some other
> vampire thread or another (probably about the Euro) at some point, and
> generally have people reaching for their killfiles in droves.
Let me be the first to say "Harumph, harumph"
> I'm as political an animal as any, but AFP is a relatively politics-free
> zone at the moment. Most of us are probably all politicked out after
> staying up for half of last night watching Peter Snow waving his arms
> around and running up and down stairs. And besides, large swathes of
> this group are from outside the UK and therefore less interested in
> the complexities of the UK electoral system than those who are UK voters.
Not possible. I am actively disinterested in it, to the extent that
I have been threatening party activists with violence when they
come to the door espousing their values. I am just glad that it's
going to be another five years before it happens again.
> So, yeah, I'm sure there's something absolutely hilarious about it, but
> my tired, addled brain can't think of precisely what right now.
There's a requirement somewhere for a system of voting where one party
can't hold more than 50% - 1 seats and as such all government has to
be performed by consensus. Never happen, but it's a nice idea.
The funny part about elections: Our system of election is broken.
The only way to fix it is to get the people who would be disadvantaged
by a change to change it. This is a screwed concept.
Ah well
Council elections next anybody?
Paul
--
Being a geek is a state of mind
Being paid to be a geek is a state of utopia
- p...@geekstuff.co.uk
hippo
Mike Knell <user...@vanitydomain.org> wrote in message
news:9fqp5n$s7b$1...@lugh.tuatha.org...
<snip>
> I'm as political an animal as any, but AFP is a relatively politics-free
> zone at the moment. Most of us are probably all politicked out after
> staying up for half of last night watching Peter Snow waving his arms
> around and running up and down stairs. And besides, large swathes of
> this group are from outside the UK and therefore less interested in
> the complexities of the UK electoral system than those who are UK voters.
>
> So, yeah, I'm sure there's something absolutely hilarious about it, but
> my tired, addled brain can't think of precisely what right now.
>
> Mike "I love elections, really, but in here..." K.
>
staying up until the local dawn.
Mr Snow is an institution and supplied most of the excitement in
a relatively undramatic results presentation. I thought one pundits
comment on an "immobile landslide" was very apt.
I would like to thank all those that continued to intelligently discuss the
unfolding situation on the #afp irc channel into the early hours. It helped
to keep me awake :)
For me at least, this was the first internet election in a very real sense.
and I, for a while, will continue to map uk afpers and #afpers to their
respective constituencies. (aren't I sad)
I'm surprised that afp with its capacity for reasoned discussion of anything
and everything has hardly mentioned the event.
Two things that I find very disturbing, that I *will* comment on :
the turnout, (referred to earlier in the thread) was abysmal
Personally, I can appreciate the argument for compulsory participation
that other world democracies have long since adopted.
Also, the huge vote for the extreme right wing British National Party
a group whose position is completely unpalatable to me.
hippo (Mark "the current affairs addict" Datko)
--
Margaret
> I'm surprised that afp with its capacity for reasoned discussion of anything
> and everything has hardly mentioned the event.
I wonder why that is? Apathy? Resignation?
It used to be the case--there seemed to be a sea-change
about 40 yrs ago--that folk felt strongly about
elections. Were they deluded (i.e., they thought it
mattered, then, but now they know better)? Has
something changed meanwhile (e.g., it really did matter
then, but now is a sham controlled by class interests;
it really did matter then but now doesn't because
everyone is so incomparably better-off)?
Why is politics such a contact sport in other
countries? In some places life itself hangs in the
balance, but is that always why?
Margaret
Suzi
no_...@all.thanks wibbled...
> "hippo" <ma...@datko.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > I'm surprised that afp with its capacity for reasoned discussion of anything
> > and everything has hardly mentioned the event.
>
> I wonder why that is? Apathy? Resignation?
>
> countries? In some places life itself hangs in the
> balance, but is that always why?
I think you may have hit the nail on the head... it doesn't really
matter too much which of the major parties in the UK gets into power as
they're not really all that different (especially not as the civil
service who keep things ticking along in the backrooms don't change).
It's not as though if one of the main parties gets into power we're
going to be on the verge of a civil war within weeks or anything. In the
UK it does seem to be very much a case of "it doesn't matter who you
vote for, the government gets in". This is probably only a problem in
countries with long-standing well-established democracies where it isn't
compulsory to vote, or in places where there are vast differences
between the parties (such as there _used_ to be in the UK).
Suzi
Sherilyn
Paul Brown <p...@read.the.sig.coz.this.address.is.invalid> wrote:
[...]
>
>The funny part about elections: Our system of election is broken.
>The only way to fix it is to get the people who would be disadvantaged
>by a change to change it. This is a screwed concept.
The idea is that if the machine is _that_ broken somebody will get
outside and fix it (usually in a rather messy and costly manner).
Well, I echo the sentiment that this isn't the right place to
get into a post mortem on the election; the uk.politics hierarchy
would be more appropriate. If anybody cares what I think, start
a discussion there and email me.
[...]
--
Sherilyn
Margaret
> I think you may have hit the nail on the head... it doesn't really
> matter too much which of the major parties in the UK gets into power as
> they're not really all that different (especially not as the civil
> service who keep things ticking along in the backrooms don't change).
> It's not as though if one of the main parties gets into power we're
> going to be on the verge of a civil war within weeks or anything. In the
> UK it does seem to be very much a case of "it doesn't matter who you
> vote for, the government gets in". This is probably only a problem in
> countries with long-standing well-established democracies where it isn't
> compulsory to vote, or in places where there are vast differences
> between the parties (such as there _used_ to be in the UK.
So are we all doomed, then? Slow erosion to
telly-numbed serfdom, sort of thing?
Will the UK end up like a smaller and shabbier US? No
higher edu except if you can pay, no healthcare except
if you can pay, all infrastructure services run for
private profit, no social safety net? It certainly
looks like it from here!
There was once a real difference between political
parties -- we can see its footprints in history. Where
did those differences go? What stopped people from
caring?
Are we really, as it looks, well on our way back to
feudalism?
Margaret
Lord Lucan
"Margaret" <no_...@all.thanks> scrawled in fluorescent crayon
news:r3m2it4cbigkgcbsp...@4ax.com...
Thank the Gods for compulsory voting here in Oz or else we'd have voter turn
outs even lower than the US and UK.
Lord Lucan
Hail, Hail, The Eyeball Kid
Suzi
no_...@all.thanks wibbled...
[snip]
> So are we all doomed, then? Slow erosion to
> telly-numbed serfdom, sort of thing?
1984 here we come (even if it's a little late) you mean?
> Will the UK end up like a smaller and shabbier US? No
> higher edu except if you can pay,
Already becoming the case... who wants to leave Uni owing thousands of
pounds?
> no healthcare except if you can pay,
Not the case (yet), and some things are better done by the NHS than
private (and vice versa of course).
> all infrastructure services run for private profit,
Gone that way already... Water, Electricity, Gas, Rail Network... all
now shareholder owned :-(
> no social safety net? It certainly
> looks like it from here!
>
> There was once a real difference between political
> parties -- we can see its footprints in history. Where
> did those differences go? What stopped people from
> caring?
What happened was (I think) that the parties started to care more about
being elected than to care about their principles. This is how you end
up with the two main parties being ever so slightly one side or the
other of the centre, giving very little to choose beyond who you
distrust least... hence voter apathy.
> Are we really, as it looks, well on our way back to
> feudalism?
Oh, there's still a choice... just not much of one <g>
Suzi
Cyclops
ptr...@youbastard.co.uk (Suzi) writes:
>I think you may have hit the nail on the head... it doesn't really
>matter too much which of the major parties in the UK gets into power as
>they're not really all that different (especially not as the civil
>service who keep things ticking along in the backrooms don't change).
>It's not as though if one of the main parties gets into power we're
>going to be on the verge of a civil war within weeks or anything. In the
>UK it does seem to be very much a case of "it doesn't matter who you
>vote for, the government gets in". This is probably only a problem in
>countries with long-standing well-established democracies where it isn't
>compulsory to vote, or in places where there are vast differences
>between the parties (such as there _used_ to be in the UK).
The problem is that the Labour party found itself unelectable until it ditched
Clause 4, which led to it becoming far more like the Conservatives. Even
without Clause 4, though the rail system is now privatised and run for its
share holders the Govt. is paying more towards it now than when it was a public
(dare I say it?) service!
As for the Civil Service, the Govt. still takes the lead as far as policies go.
All the Civil Servants do is put the policies into writing and practice and
give advice which can be, and often is, ignored. It is the similarity between
the Tories and Labour that is the problem.
This all harks back to the beginning of the last century when the two major
parties were the Conservatives and Liberals. They, too, were very similar to
the point that unionists within the Liberal party felt no qualms about crossing
the floor to the Tory benches over Irish question (hence the party becoming the
Conservative & Unionist Party). Unfortunately, if enough Conservatives defect
to Labour and the Tories go the way of the Liberals, I can't see there being a
strong (and different) enough third party to become a genuine opponent to give
them a run for their money.
BTW, even the Monster Raving Loony Party doesn't seem to be keeping its feet on
the ground any more... their shadow cabinet includes a Minister for the
Abolition of Gravity!
--
Cyclops
phil AT cyclops DOT force9 DOT co DOT uk
Please don't e-mail me at the AOL account I am posting from
I have "all e-mail blocked" set on it.
Andrew Brydon
>
>"Margaret" <no_...@all.thanks> scrawled in fluorescent crayon
>news:r3m2it4cbigkgcbsp...@4ax.com...
>> ptr...@youbastard.co.uk (Suzi) wrote:
>>
>
>Thank the Gods for compulsory voting here in Oz or else we'd have voter turn
>outs even lower than the US and UK.
>
disagreeing more strongly with the results)?
--
Andrew Brydon
It's only obscene if you can't join in!
Andrew Brydon
lid> wrote
>
[snip UK election stuff]
>Not possible. I am actively disinterested in it, to the extent that
>I have been threatening party activists with violence when they
>come to the door espousing their values. I am just glad that it's
>going to be another five years before it happens again.
>
candidates and supporters are hereby banned from this property, and any
subsequent such persons will be treated as malicious trespassers."
--
Andrew Brydon
You'd have to be mad to be sane!
Quantum Moth
>
> Gone that way already... Water, Electricity, Gas, Rail Network... all
> now shareholder owned :-(
>
electric company, Marylebone Station, King's Cross...
Why *do* people keep handing me my coat?!
--
thom willis - sc...@mostly.com - Corinne's Worse Half
**movie- http://afpmovie.orcon.net.nz**
when i'm not with you i lose my mind...
...give me a sign!
Stevie D
> New to the group, so here's my first post...
Welcome!
> We appear to have elected Labour again in Great Britain.
>
> I'm sure there's something funny about that. Any ideas?
Not so much funny as utterly depressing.
Most depressing of all is that with 1.5x the number of votes cast as the
Tories they have three times as many seats, and 2.5x the number of votes
as the Lib Dems they have eight times as many seats - it's totally
unrepresentative of the votes cast and means that Tony BLiar can push
through any legislation he chooses to.
--
Cordon Bleu songbook, featuring The Nutcracker Suite
Stevie D
> Most of us are probably all politicked out after staying up for
> half of last night watching Peter Snow waving his arms
> around and running up and down stairs.
Is it just me or do other people think he should be a horse-racing
commentator as well?
Stevie D
> Two things that I find very disturbing, that I *will* comment on :
> the turnout, (referred to earlier in the thread) was abysmal
> Personally, I can appreciate the argument for compulsory participation
> that other world democracies have long since adopted.
If there is an official option to abstain then yes, I fully agree with
that. At least that way they have to make a decision; IMO they would be
much more likely to vote for someone rather than for no-one at all.
> Also, the huge vote for the extreme right wing British National
> Party a group whose position is completely unpalatable to me.
But, AFAICR, only a significant vote in Oldham. A month ago, and in a
couple of months time, they wouldn't have got more than a couple of % of
the vote.
Stevie D
> I wonder why that is? Apathy? Resignation?
Both.
> It used to be the case--there seemed to be a sea-change
> about 40 yrs ago--that folk felt strongly about
> elections. Were they deluded (i.e., they thought it
> mattered, then, but now they know better)?
Before 1996 [1], there were two very different main parties; whether the
Tories or Labour were elected would have had a significant impact on
most peoples' lives.
The same is no longer true. New Labour <spit> and the Tories have such
similar broadly policies now that most people wouldn't notice the
difference from one day to the next.
The country is doing reasonably well, somehow. People aren't desperately
unhappy, so they aren't adamant about voting out the government - and
the Tories have run a diabolical election campaign and focussed on all
the wrong things; on the other hand they aren't generally that impressed
with Labour so they aren't overly keen about voting them back in.
There's also a strong sense of inevitability about it. With a majority
of more seats than the Tories held, as we approached the election, and
the country in a reasonable state, everyone would have been very
surprised if Labour hadn't held on by a significant margin. As,
historically, it is Labour voters who are most apathetic (generally and
historically speaking, they account for the most of the poor and
disaffected in society) and least likely to bother to vote, it is not at
all surprising that there was such a low turnout: they knew they would
get the result they would probably prefer without having to shift their
lazy arses, so they didn't.
[1] Whenever it was that Tony BLiar made a sham of the Labour party.
Some time around the mid '90s anyway.
Stevie D
> There was once a real difference between political
> parties -- we can see its footprints in history. Where
> did those differences go? What stopped people from
> caring?
We stopped caring when Tony BLiar - at precisely the time when Old
Labour would have won the next election - ditched all of the party's
principles and jumped on the conservative bandwagon. The economy is
buoyant at the moment, so people are not necessarily feeling the pinch
as much as they have done at times gone by.
It is not surprising - but very telling - that the only party to make
significant gains this time were the Liberal Democrats, the most
left-wing of the three main parties. The others could learn a lot from
this!
Aquarion
>
(election 2001)
You missed some words out there, Mr Hippo Sir.
>Mr Snow is
Possibly someone who should be put in
> an institution and supplied
a swingometer so he may live out his days with
>most of the excitement
of the general election ever day,
>in a relatively
safe way that would cause no problems to small children or the older
generation.
Yours in total sincerity,
Aquarion
--
Web: www.aquarionics.com EZine: www.TerraIncognita.org.uk
Gameslist: http://www.aquarionics.com/gameslist/
"He's not a millionaire at all, just a dockside rat. Though you'd
never guess, when he wears his glove and socks and bowler hat."
MP
<anti...@evildeath.madasafish.com> wrote, on Sat, 9 Jun 2001 15:41:09
+0100, that:
>"Cyclops" <jancy...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010609083448...@nso-fm.aol.com...
>
>> BTW, even the Monster Raving Loony Party doesn't seem to be keeping its feet on
>> the ground any more... their shadow cabinet includes a Minister for the
>> Abolition of Gravity!
>
>Query: has there been a schism in the MRLP? There seems to be a rival organisation
>called the Rock and Roll Loony Party doing the rounds, and they're almost as big as
>the MRLP.
I would imagine they are a new group with the same sort of idealogy -
as, one would hope, are the Fancy Dress Party and the Jam Wrestling
Party.
>Bonus points: name the one constituency where the MRLP and R&RLP both fielded
>a candidate.
Hastings and Rye - it appears to have split the loony vote...
>Extra bonus points: name the constituency(ies) which had a Church of the Militant Elvis
>candidate.
Brentwood and Ongar - and that one too!
Incidentally, Kensington and Chelsea managed to produce 100 votes for
the Jam Wrestling Party candidate, and in Sedgefield, the R&R Loony
didn't have the fewest votes. This may be considered worrying, apart
from the fact that it was rather amusing watching Blair and
Christopher "Screw" Driver being in the same room...
MP
--
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted,
then used against you.
David Jensen
Stevie D <stev...@e-garfield.com> wrote in
<3B2253C0...@e-garfield.com>:
Whatever happened to Labour's promise for electoral reform (proportional
representation instead of first past the post). I do recall loud noises
about it a dozen years ago. Funny how the memory goes when they get
elected.
David Jensen
I haven't been keeping up. How did they slide from the center-left past
Labour?
T J Wilkinson
>Two things that I find very disturbing, that I *will* comment on :
>the turnout, (referred to earlier in the thread) was abysmal
>Personally, I can appreciate the argument for compulsory participation
>that other world democracies have long since adopted.
I've never understood why countries do this. If people don't care
enough to vote, what does making them vote do for anything? It won't
make them pay more attention to politics or care more about who gets
in. If there's a secret ballot you can always effectively not vote by
stuffing up the ballet paper, e.g. by ticking every candidates' name.
And even if people who are made to vote do actually do so what does
someone picking names at random or voting for the same person their
family has always supported do for democracy?
And if you're completely ignorant on a topic, isn't it rather silly to
vote? Last local elections in Christchurch I got the voting papers to
discover that apart from the mayor and the council I was expected to
vote for three different community board things, none of whose
*existance* I had ever heard of before, let alone knowing anything
about any of the candidates listed. And this was despite regularly
reading the local newspapers. Since this was a time when I was
sitting exams at uni, preparing to go overseas for a while, doing a
part-time job and my share of the housework, my flatmates being
similarly buried with exams, is it terrible that I skipped voting on a
matter that I knew nothing about? Would it have been better for me to
pick a candidate at random?
Tracy
--
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~tajwileb/
"People who have tried it, tell me that a clear conscience makes you very
happy and contented; but a full stomach does the business quite as well,
and is cheaper, and more easily obtained." - J. K. Jerome
Meg Thornton
<bur...@melb.globaldial.bom> wrote:
>Thank the Gods for compulsory voting here in Oz or else we'd have voter turn
>outs even lower than the US and UK.
>
Once again, I shall just correct a rather common error: the bit that's
compulsory *isn't the actual voting* - Australia has secret ballots,
and it is therefore *illegal* for the Australian Electoral Commission
to find out whether you've filled in your ballot (much less filled it
in correctly) before putting it into the box. What is actually
*compulsory*, and the bit you can be fined for not doing, is turning
up to *receive* your ballot papers. Once you've actually received the
papers, it's up to you what you do with them. I'm sure you wouldn't
actually get arrested for eating them. Most people choose to vote.
Meg
--
//// (No, I'm a bloody echidna!)
_.///// Meg Thornton (mag...@megabitch.tm)
~\_///// Pardo's Postulate: anything you like is either
illegal, immoral, or fattening.
Cyclops
<stev...@e-garfield.com> writes:
>Before 1996 [1], there were two very different main parties; whether the
>Tories or Labour were elected would have had a significant impact on
>most peoples' lives.
>
<Snip>
>
>[1] Whenever it was that Tony BLiar made a sham of the Labour party.
> Some time around the mid '90s anyway.
>
You can't blame it all on Blair. There have been attempts to do this since the
1950s (Gaitskell tried to get rid of Clause 4 following the 1959 election).
It's only really since the Militant Tendency report which led to the formation
of the SDP that the left wing of the party has fallen away. I suppose if you
scare enough people off by over-exaggerating the threat of one wing of the
party, they will vote for the other wing or another party altogether.
Cyclops
<anti...@evildeath.madasafish.com> writes:
>Query: has there been a schism in the MRLP? There seems to be a rival
>organisation
>called the Rock and Roll Loony Party doing the rounds, and they're almost as
>big as
>the MRLP.
I thought happened ages ago and then some of them allied with each other and
agreed not to split the loony vote in any constituency.
Being a loony's obviously serious stuff!
Cyclops
<da...@dajensen-family.com> writes:
>>It is not surprising - but very telling - that the only party to make
>>significant gains this time were the Liberal Democrats, the most
>>left-wing of the three main parties. The others could learn a lot from
>>this!
>
>I haven't been keeping up. How did they slide from the center-left past
>Labour?
The Lib Dems didn't slide past Labour, the Labour Party became New Labour and
slid past the Lib Dems. Let's face it, if Hugh Gaitskell had been successful in
trying to update the face of the Labour Party we might never have had any Lib
Dems as such because the SDP was a reaction against the threat of Militant
Tendency taking over the Labour Party and making it more left wing. It appears
that the official reaction has led to borrowing Tory policies just to get to
No.10 because Tony Blair and his advisors are well aware of the power of greed.
Any tax hikes they have brought in tend to be hidden away where you might not
notice (e.g. the extension of NIC charges on employers from company cars to
most other benefits in kind).
Supermouse
<ptr...@youbastard.co.uk> writes
>Gone that way already... Water, Electricity, Gas, Rail Network... all
>now shareholder owned :-(
I feel I've benefited by the privatisation of the utilities, but the
rail network is a mess. As far as I can tell, it's exactly the same sort
of shambles that led to rail being nationalised in the first place.
Cordially,
--
Supermouse
Miq
>On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:25:20 +0100, "hippo" <ma...@datko.org.uk> wrote:
>>Personally, I can appreciate the argument for compulsory participation
>>that other world democracies have long since adopted.
>
>I've never understood why countries do this. If people don't care
>enough to vote, what does making them vote do for anything? It won't
>make them pay more attention to politics or care more about who gets
>in. If there's a secret ballot you can always effectively not vote by
>stuffing up the ballet paper, e.g. by ticking every candidates' name.
I did that on Thursday. Well, I didn't *tick* every candidate's name,
but I did give them all little marks that, I hope, made it clear that I
wasn't voting for them.
I wanted to make it quite clear that I wasn't abstaining out of apathy.
I do care, enough to despise all three main UK parties as they stand
today. If it were possible to vote against people, I'd have done that.
But personally, I think voting reform is a red herring. What matters is
not really how we elect people, but what sort of people we elect - and
I've seen nothing to suggest that any higher proportion of 'good' people
would get into parliament on any other system of voting than do now.
The one thing I'd like to change would be to remove all reference to
parties from the ballot paper. You're supposed to be voting for a
*person*, not a party - you should at least know their name.
--
Miq
ppint.
mag...@megabitch.org.uk "Meg Thornton" kindly corrected:
> "Lord Lucan" <bur...@melb.globaldial.bom> wrote:
>
>>Thank the Gods for compulsory voting here in Oz or else we'd have
>>voter turn outs even lower than the US and UK.
>>
>Once again, I shall just correct a rather common error: the bit that's
>compulsory *isn't the actual voting* - Australia has secret ballots,
>and it is therefore *illegal* for the Australian Electoral Commission
>to find out whether you've filled in your ballot (much less filled it
>in correctly) before putting it into the box. What is actually
>*compulsory*, and the bit you can be fined for not doing, is turning
>up to *receive* your ballot papers. Once you've actually received the
>papers, it's up to you what you do with them. I'm sure you wouldn't
>actually get arrested for eating them.
- but are xxxxian ballots printed in vegetable dye inks,
and upon rice-paper ?
>Most people choose to vote.
>
(- see above)
- do you have any figures for percentages of spoiled and
"donkey vote" ballots since collecting your ballot papers
was made compulsory ?
i don't think that, with the new labour, elective dictator-
ship-introduced, gb-wide entitlement to register to vote
postally (which, oddly, benefits the two main rivals more
than labour [a]), a legal requirement to attend your poll-
ing station and collect your ballot paper could now be a
practical proposition; but perhaps being given a voucher,
that may be redeemed at any pub or off-licence for a pint
or two of beer (or litre bottle of cider or wine, or fruit
juice) at any time, from the start of the day of the elect-
ion (always a thursday, like official publication dates),
through onto the end of the weekend following, _with_ your
ballot paper, just *might* start reversing the trend of
falling electorate turn-outs...?
- and no, i am suggesting this in all seriousness.
- but i think the main reasons for the low turn-out this
time around are fairly easy to identify; for the national
government of the uk & ni [b], there simply wasn't a half-
way credible alternative to labour; and labour, though
they've demonstrated they can complete the job of getting
the economy running prudently and sensibly smoothly, have
yet to show that they can invest effectively in the parts
of our society's supporting structures, that the tories
did their - possibly unintended - best to comprehensively
wreck.
- war, "acts of god" and the like aside, labour now have
eight to ten years[c] to demonstrate that they can invest
effectively in education, health, the public transport
system and, imnsho, the data communications system in the
uk - all of which the tory governments of the eighties &
the nineties very badly damaged, and in all of which they
(& in some cases, the labour and tory governments of the
seventies) massively under-invested; and to do so without
either adding interminable layers of additional paperwork
- *or* risking simply giving vast amounts of public - tax-
payers' - money to the already wealthy, mostly institut-
ional, post-tory-privatisation give-aways owners of some
of these.
- for example, i think it would be colossally stupid to
attempt to renationalise the whole of the railway system;
but it would be quite reasonable, to require railtrack to
issue shares to the government in exchange for the public
investment that it cannot survive without - and pro rata
with the prevailing stock-market valuation of railtrack.
this will rapidly result in effective public control of
the company, via government-nominated directors who would
be able to ensure that safety considerations were not ig-
nored, in favour of maximising profits to be distributed
as dividends; yet it would remain a public quoted company
hiring (and firing) in the professional market, and one
whose shares the government might eventually wholly or
partly sell off.
- but each of the "public infrastructure" areas needs its
own solution to be found, not the imposition of any (left
or right) doctrinaire political principle.
- love, ppint.
[the address from which this was posted bounces e-mail;
use the reply-to e-address, if you wish to e-mail me.]
[a] - in scotland & wales, they are main parties, but i
dunno whether it benefits the snats & the pc more, or not.
(doesn't apply in ni, presumably for fear of vote-rigging.)
[b] - not necessarily true for the governments of nations
that constitute the uk of gb & ni, but scotland & wales
have their own elections (though the welsh assembly does
not govern). [devolution being another change brought by
the elective dictatorship of new labour...]
[c] - whoever hague's successor turns out to be, the hill
his irrelevant right-wing tory party's left them to climb
is a mountain greater than has been climbed in any one uk
election, sfaiaa; and the entrails're not auspicious...
--
"Originally it was a typo. Now it's a way of life."
- ben, #afp 22:35(ish) 5/2/99 (2/5/99 for merkins)
Peter Ellis
> The one thing I'd like to change would be to remove all reference to
> parties from the ballot paper. You're supposed to be voting for a
> *person*, not a party - you should at least know their name.
>
Excuse me while I change my name by deed poll to Tony Blair and stand as
an independent in Sedgefield...
Peter
Holly
""ppint."" <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
<snip>
> - do you have any figures for percentages of spoiled and
> "donkey vote" ballots since collecting your ballot papers
> was made compulsory ?
My grandparents were scrutineers (spelling?) in a VERY safe Liberal
seat here at the last federal vote. This is a very conservative area
of mainly families and older people so you would expect a low donkey
vote. The donkey vote was about 10% of the vote for that electorate.
So it is not very much really, though in areas where civil
disobedience is more popular this is probably higher.
As for eating your ballot or throwing in away I have never seen anyone
actually do that. With the amount of paper shoved at you on your way
into the polling stations you could have a 3 course meal.
Desert anyone? :)
Holly.
Paul Brown
They didn't. Labour moved to center right past Conservative.
Paul
--
Being a geek is a state of mind
Being paid to be a geek is a state of utopia
- p...@geekstuff.co.uk
Paul Brown
Indeed.
Abolishing party politics altogether would be an option. At the moment
a party leader can "whip" his members into line for a particular vote.
The result is that you MP is representing the party rather than his
constituents, with very few exceptions who usually end up being expelled.
Outlaw parties. All candidates are independants and free to form alliances
as they please. In this manner no individual has total sway over voting
as at present, you will still get alliances of individuals with broadly
the same political leanings doing the jobs.
Get parliament to elect a cabinet from its members once parliament
has reformed and also have them elect a prime minister. This way
you have absolute representation from the ground up, people who their
peers think would be *good* at any particular job doing that job
and no cronyism as the structure wouldn't permit it.
It would also mean that you would have an MP who would be more or less
directly answerable to his constituents as opposed to the party.
This would also require absolutely minimal reform to elections, with there
being 2 additional ballots held in the house to form a government.
The problem is that the only way to get this to happen would be for
one of the parties in power to commit suicide in effect, by passing
legislation outlawing itself.
Nice idea, but probably won't happen.
Paul Brown
They brought it in. That's precisely how MSPs are elected. They didn't
say anything about introducing it in Westminster, only introducing it
for parliamentary elections. Scotland has a parliament, and PR, so
they've done it.
Spin is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
Nanny Ogg
<DELET...@ollyb.co.uk> writes:
>We appear to have elected Labour again in Great Britain.
>
>I'm sure there's something funny about that. Any ideas?
Y'know, the more I think about it, the more the oxymoron in the title is
bugging me.
We live in a society where every competent adult is allowed (and even
encouraged) to cast their vote as to who they want to represent them in
government. Where the government is elected on the basis of said votes, not on
the basis of threats or brute force. Where everyone knows that the whole
process will be repeated in five years or less, and hence the political parties
can never completely allow themselves to lose track of what the people want
from their government.
Of course it's not perfect. No system is perfect. But we have rights that,
however much we take them for granted, would be unthinkable privileges in an
actual dictatorship. Rights that people, around the world, have literally died
in attempts to achieve.
If you don't like the current government, fair enough. I'm not so sure I like
them either (which should not necessarily be interpreted as meaning that I
consider them worse than any of the available alternatives). If you think
there are flaws in the current voting system - again, fair enough. I, for one,
would be more than interested to listen to any thoughtful critiques or
constructive suggestions as to possible improvements, and would probably learn
quite a bit from such a post.
But the system we have is not a dictatorship. And, IMO, describing it as such
just because you don't like the method/the result, simply trivialises the evils
of genuine dictatorship and the problems of those who have to endure such a
system. It strikes me as being, at the very least, tasteless.
<looks down and wonders how soapbox got there>
Sarah
--
`If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you'll be
taller than everyone else.' Kipling and _I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue_
`Unfortunately Real Life lacks a decent tourist information service' Adrian
Morgan
Margaret
>...
> But the system we have is not a dictatorship. And, IMO, describing it as such
> just because you don't like the method/the result, simply trivialises the evils
> of genuine dictatorship and the problems of those who have to endure such a
> system. It strikes me as being, at the very least, tasteless.
Perhaps you're using a special definition of
dictatorship, Sarah? I've never seen a definition of
dictatorship that includes nastiness as a requirement.
All that seems to be required is that they rule without
reference to popular will. Whence the notion of
'benevolent dictatorship'.
I believe the Athenian office of 'tyrannos' (or
whatever translates to 'tyrant') was one whose
incumbent, once elected, was not accountable to anyone
til his term expired. Time-limited dictatorship, in
fact. Sounds familiar in effect if not law, doesn't
it?
Margaret
Margaret
> > So are we all doomed, then? Slow erosion to
> > telly-numbed serfdom, sort of thing?
>
> 1984 here we come (even if it's a little late) you mean?
Bugger. That is 1984, isn't it. I never even thought
of that -- the book made my skin crawl, so I've always
tried not to think about it. Probably a mistake.
How lovely for us.
Mary Messall
More Fahrenheit 451, I'd say. That's the one with the tele-walls, and
digest-digests...
-Mary
Miq
valid> wrote
>Outlaw parties. All candidates are independants and free to form alliances
>as they please. In this manner no individual has total sway over voting
>as at present, you will still get alliances of individuals with broadly
>the same political leanings doing the jobs.
This seems like a nice idea, but in practice it (a) can't work and (b)
isn't nearly as good an idea as it seems at first glance...
Parties are not something imposed on the political system - they form
naturally within it. People who tend to agree on many things will get
together and agree to support one another even when they don't fully
agree, to increase their chances of promoting each policy. "If you vote
for my idea on banging up immigrants, I'll vote for yours on police
powers to stop and search without grounds."
And then you have a party - if they're illegal, the only difference is
that it will be called a 'faction' or a 'group' or something. The same
thing happens in one-party systems, and within established parties (see
under 'Militant Tendency' and 'Bruges Group').
--
Miq
Margaret
> More Fahrenheit 451, I'd say. That's the one with the tele-walls, and
> digest-digests...
You might well be right...I read F451 about the same
number of years ago (>>lots) as 1984 (and AF), but I
remember it less well. Do i want to read it again?
I just watched again Robocop. It wasn't made all that
long ago, and certainly had awfully cheesy special
effects. But as far as a scarily-accurate portrayal of
the direction we seem to be heading sociopolitically
....oy!
Margaret
Margaret
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Paul Brown <p...@read.the.sig.coz.this.address.is.in
> valid> wrote
> >Outlaw parties. All candidates are independants and free to form alliances
> >as they please. In this manner no individual has total sway over voting
> >as at present, you will still get alliances of individuals with broadly
> >the same political leanings doing the jobs.
>
> This seems like a nice idea, but in practice it (a) can't work and (b)
> isn't nearly as good an idea as it seems at first glance...
>...
A more useful idea, I think, would be to outlaw the
rules that favor entrenchment. Select for ministerial
posts, committee chairs/memberships, etc. randomly from
all those members who express interest. And make it
increasingly difficult to be returned to office, so as
to counteract the effects of voter inertia and the many
advantages incumbents can arrogate to themselves at our
expense.
Can't be worse than the current system.
Margaret
Paul Brown
And that's fine and dandy. That is government by consensus and as it
should be.
What it is not is government by coercion which is what the party whip
system amounts to. Voting against the whip leaves you liable for
retribution which can take many forms.
Without a *formal* party system this retribution cannot exist in such
a formalised setting. You can still get tit for tat "I won't vote
for your motions" but no large scale coercion.
Voting with your conscience in line with your politics is fine. Voting
a particular way because there is disproportionate pressure being
brought to bear is not.
I am not arguing against grouping individuals with common beliefs, that
would be dumb and quite spectacularly counterproductive. I am arguing
against the whip system.
Vote for the person rather than the party.
With no party machine there is no equivalent of a manifesto to lie
about. What there is is a lot of individuals who choose among
themselves the people who are best suited to do a particular job.
Theoretically the result should be a cabinet formed from diverse
belief systems working for the good of the country rather than the
good of the party.
This is of course all hopelessly idealistic as no political party
is going to bring around the demise of its own powerbase voluntarily
and there is *no way* for the public to request a change like this.
Government is completely unaccountable on a per issue basis, with
the results being things like the fuel protests last year when the
public feel strongly on a particular issue.
Elections do not equate to accountability. They are to all intents
and purposes a beauty contest (with a strange definition of beauty)
involving very broad belief systems.
For my next "It'll never happen" wiseacre idea: Make breaching
manifesto promises fall under the trades description legislation.
I am not talking about failure to perform any given promise, I will
allow that there are always reasons why a particular thing may be
unachievable. However when a party who is duly elected actually
goes 180 degrees out of their manifesto promises then they should
be as liable as I would be if I claimed that if you send me a pound
I'll make sure that you make 100,000 pounds in a week.
Why should they be exempt? May even make for more truth in politics.
Paul
Completely hacked off with politics and believing that genuinely
benevolent dictatorship would be a wonderful, if somewhat
unquantifiable thing.
Politicians - they're all lying self serving bastards, to a man.
Eric Jarvis
>
> The Lib Dems didn't slide past Labour, the Labour Party became New Labour and
> slid past the Lib Dems. Let's face it, if Hugh Gaitskell had been successful in
> trying to update the face of the Labour Party we might never have had any Lib
> Dems as such because the SDP was a reaction against the threat of Militant
> Tendency taking over the Labour Party and making it more left wing. It appears
> that the official reaction has led to borrowing Tory policies just to get to
> No.10 because Tony Blair and his advisors are well aware of the power of greed.
> Any tax hikes they have brought in tend to be hidden away where you might not
> notice (e.g. the extension of NIC charges on employers from company cars to
> most other benefits in kind).
>
just a few "everyone knows this" myths to correct here
Militant were a fairly small grouping that had a strong influence in
Liverpool and one or two London branches...they never had a cat in
hells chance of taking over the Labour Party
the "gang of four" left at a time when their own personal positions
within the party were under threat from a fairly broad alliance of
left wing "factions"...basically everyone in the party except the
right wing...the Labour Party reacted to it's perceived failure
under Callaghan by being more sympathetic to the arguments of those
in the party that opposed him...a move to the left...Militant
weren't particularly part of that
I can only speak for what happened in the areas I was active in at
the time (I moved branches during this period)...but a large
proportion of the people who jumped ship and joined the SDP in
London did so because they couldn't or wouldn't accept the moves
towards equality of opportunity that were being proposed at the
time...all things that are now standard practise
then two groups started fighting to take the party back from the
broad left...the LCC and the Blairites...both used extremely
aggressive tactics...smearing anyone they didn't consider to be
sound as being in league with Militant and offering people plum jobs
in the party if they would join the caucus and toe the line [1]
in most places the LCC started the process and were shortly
thereafter swamped by the Blairites...I'd guess that most LCC people
are now effectively tied to Blair, it certainly looks like the two
factions have merged
once they had the party machine under control they began rooting out
anyone who had any influence and wasn't "one of us"...so anyone else
has had the choice of either toeing the Blairite line or leaving the
party
the Labour party did not move to the right...the labour party was
not modernised...it was taken over by a set of activists who know
how to organise a political machine and very little else...it's very
effective...it's likely to lead to moderately OK government in many
ways since they have very little ideological baggage [2]...it's
better than any of the currently viable alternatives...it's also
damn scary when you see it in action up close and personal
[1] I was offered several by both these factions before they
realised I wasn't going to join either...they then started attacking
me as being part of a hard left group trying to infiltrate the party
[2] which is why they thought I was likely to join them...I'm just
not a joiner and I rather like the idea of democracy and I don't
much trust a mix of lawyers, estate agents and full time politicians
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
"money can't buy you love, but sometimes dinner
is much more important"
Andy Davison
<jFnrs5AI...@ntlworld.com>, Supermouse <Super...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>I feel I've benefited by the privatisation of the utilities, but the
>rail network is a mess. As far as I can tell, it's exactly the same sort
>of shambles that led to rail being nationalised in the first place.
It's worse. In the far distant past, a railway company ran a line, the
trains, the stations, depots etc. Then they were nationalised and
British Rail ran the lot. Now you get the track company Railtrack
which is responsible for the track and stations. The train operating
companies run the trains. Depots and train maintenance are sometimes
run by the train manufacturing companies (especially on lines with new
trains which are leased to the TOCs rather than owned by them). Here
is a great scenario. If a train in the depot is not fit for service it
costs the maintenance company a Ł10,000 'fine' or refund to the TOC
against the cost of the maintenance contract. If a train develops a
fault on the line it only costs a Ł1,000 'fine'. Drivers will then be
under pressure from the maintenance staff not to report faults until
the train is out of the depot and the official train preparation
sequence is being cut down to the barest minimum in order that fewer
faults are discovered in the depot. Safety is compromised.
Scenario B. A section of the track develops a fault. Someone has to
pay for the repairs. A speed restriction is put in place. The TOCs
then 'fine' the track company for lost time. The track company now
says the fault on the track was caused by poor maintenance of the
trains and 'fines' the manitenance company. The maintenance company
says the fault on the train was caused by the driver and 'fines' the
TOC. All three spend all their time passing the buck and deciding who
will foot the bill for the track repairs. Because nobody is prepared
to use their budget to get the work done it doesn't get done and
another Hatfield happens.
David Jensen
Paul Brown <p...@read.the.sig.coz.this.address.is.invalid> wrote in
<ti77rrh...@corp.supernews.com>:
>Abolishing party politics altogether would be an option. At the moment
>a party leader can "whip" his members into line for a particular vote.
>The result is that you MP is representing the party rather than his
>constituents, with very few exceptions who usually end up being expelled.
>
>Outlaw parties. All candidates are independants and free to form alliances
>as they please. In this manner no individual has total sway over voting
>as at present, you will still get alliances of individuals with broadly
>the same political leanings doing the jobs.
You've just (re)invented American politics. It has some advantages and
some disadvantages over the strong party system. The worst is that it
makes money very important and the big donors have more sway with many
Senators and Representatives than the parties do.
>Get parliament to elect a cabinet from its members once parliament
>has reformed and also have them elect a prime minister. This way
>you have absolute representation from the ground up, people who their
>peers think would be *good* at any particular job doing that job
>and no cronyism as the structure wouldn't permit it.
Similar to what happens in the US for leadership of the houses, today.
You will be trading _cronyism_ for _logrolling_ and _quid pro quo_ (and
still not get rid of the cronyism).
>It would also mean that you would have an MP who would be more or less
>directly answerable to his constituents as opposed to the party.
We do that here in the US, too. People who care about good government
are trying to figure out how to make these representatives less
parochial.
>This would also require absolutely minimal reform to elections, with there
>being 2 additional ballots held in the house to form a government.
>
>The problem is that the only way to get this to happen would be for
>one of the parties in power to commit suicide in effect, by passing
>legislation outlawing itself.
Just outlaw party whips and replace slating with primary elections.
Meg Thornton
<and...@isbjorn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Once upon a time, Lord Lucan <bur...@melb.globaldial.bom> wrote
>>
>>"Margaret" <no_...@all.thanks> scrawled in fluorescent crayon
>>news:r3m2it4cbigkgcbsp...@4ax.com...
>>> ptr...@youbastard.co.uk (Suzi) wrote:
>>>
>[snip UK election stuff]
>>
>>Thank the Gods for compulsory voting here in Oz or else we'd have voter turn
>>outs even lower than the US and UK.
>>
>Woo - so what is the punishment for not voting (apart from potentially
>disagreeing more strongly with the results)?
You get fined if you don't have your name ticked off the electoral
roll as having received the ballot papers. Given that we have secret
ballots, we quite literally *cannot* get punished for not voting.
Just to answer a few of the more common misconceptions about
"compulsory voting":
1) Nobody forces us to vote. Nobody stands behind us and makes sure
that we fill in our paper correctly. We are legally allowed to put a
blank ballot into the ballot box - it's called an "invalid vote", and
as such it doesn't count for anything.
2) The only "punishment" is a fine, of approximately $50[1]. However,
if you can show just cause for not voting (eg religious convictions),
you can be waived the fine.
[1] I haven't checked this - it may be more.
3) Given that voting is a democratic responsibility anyway (yes, it
*is*, it's the other side of our democratic rights), the question has
to be asked - is turning out to a polling place, taking approximately
1 hour maximum to cast a vote every 3 - 5 years, really all that
onerous a responsibility?
4) Something that a lot of governments could learn from .au - we have
our elections on *Saturdays*, and thus avoid the problem, for most
people, of having to find the time to vote.
5) We also have preferential voting - which means that if you vote for
one of the minor party, you haven't "wasted your vote". Instead, your
preferences count - actually, if you vote for a minor party, your
preferences count even more... and can count up to three or four
times, depending on the narrowness of the margin.
6) One of the standard comments is that people want a "none of the
above" box if they have to comply with compulsory voting legislation.
My own question is "why"? If you disapprove of all of the candidates,
then surely the answer is to get involved in politics yourself, and
take charge of selecting a candidate who meets your rigorous
standards? All that a box marked "none of the above" does is gives
the politically apathetic a chance to publicly wave this apathy at
those people who *do* bother to give a damn. Apathy breeds apathy -
the low turnout in the UK elections means that less than half of the
population has actually given Mr Blair a mandate. Do you think that
they're *really* going to bother checking to see what the rest of the
population thinks, though?
Quite frankly, *anyone* who complains in this newsgroup, over the next
five years, about the viscitudes of the Blair Labor government had
better be able to assert that they voted against them (and be able to
prove this with appropriate records) or at least that they actually
voted in this particular election. Otherwise, the answer they're
going to get from me is going to be constant: "hush yer whingin! You
haven't earned it!". If you haven't taken the responsibility to
actually have your say in the election of your government, you *don't*
have the right to complain about it, in my view.
Meg Thornton
("ppint.") wrote:
>- hi; in afparticle, <1s56itsmujm6e5mks...@4ax.com>,
> mag...@megabitch.org.uk "Meg Thornton" kindly corrected:
>> "Lord Lucan" <bur...@melb.globaldial.bom> wrote:
>>
>>>Thank the Gods for compulsory voting here in Oz or else we'd have
>>>voter turn outs even lower than the US and UK.
>>>
>>Once again, I shall just correct a rather common error: the bit that's
>>compulsory *isn't the actual voting* - Australia has secret ballots,
>>and it is therefore *illegal* for the Australian Electoral Commission
>>to find out whether you've filled in your ballot (much less filled it
>>in correctly) before putting it into the box. What is actually
>>*compulsory*, and the bit you can be fined for not doing, is turning
>>up to *receive* your ballot papers. Once you've actually received the
>>papers, it's up to you what you do with them. I'm sure you wouldn't
>>actually get arrested for eating them.
>
> - but are xxxxian ballots printed in vegetable dye inks,
> and upon rice-paper ?
>
>>Most people choose to vote.
>>
> (- see above)
>
> - do you have any figures for percentages of spoiled and
> "donkey vote" ballots since collecting your ballot papers
> was made compulsory ?
Yup. That's published with the results from each election. It's
worth noting that the figure generally hovers around the 10% mark in
most electorates - in other words, it pretty much corresponds to the
illiteracy levels.
Check out http://www.aec.gov.au for more details - there's results
there for past elections.
<snip>
> - but i think the main reasons for the low turn-out this
> time around are fairly easy to identify; for the national
> government of the uk & ni [b], there simply wasn't a half-
> way credible alternative to labour; and labour, though
> they've demonstrated they can complete the job of getting
> the economy running prudently and sensibly smoothly, have
> yet to show that they can invest effectively in the parts
> of our society's supporting structures, that the tories
> did their - possibly unintended - best to comprehensively
> wreck.
As I've commented elsewhere, the solution to getting political
candidates you don't like *isn't* to do the equivalent of sitting and
sulking. Instead, what you have to do is get involved in your local
political machinery, and start getting involved in the selection of
the candidates themselves. Don't leave it up to the party machinery -
let them know what was wrong with the candidate they fielded. Let
them know what was wrong with the policies they put up. Let them know
*why you didn't vote for them*. They can't find that out from you not
voting - all they know from that is that you didn't vote for some
reason. The assumption from that is that you don't give a damn, and
that your opinion therefore isn't relevant.
If you want your alternatives, you have to *make* them. You can't
make alternatives by assuming that the various political parties can
read your mind.
Miq
>6) One of the standard comments is that people want a "none of the
>above" box if they have to comply with compulsory voting legislation.
>My own question is "why"? If you disapprove of all of the candidates,
>then surely the answer is to get involved in politics yourself, and
>take charge of selecting a candidate who meets your rigorous
>standards?
That takes time. And it assumes that you can gain that much influence
over the selection process.
The choice in my constituency was between the Tories (whose policies are
utterly repugnant to me), a Labour candidate (whose sole reason for
standing was to cash in on the most corrupt government we've had in
living memory) and a Lib Dem (whose main policy is to spend an entire
parliamentary term on ill-thought-out constitutional reforms, some of
which would be irreversibly awful).
To take your argument to its logical extreme: if you had a choice
between a nazi and a stalinist, which would you vote for?
>All that a box marked "none of the above" does is gives
>the politically apathetic a chance to publicly wave this apathy at
>those people who *do* bother to give a damn.
Nonsense. Hatred isn't apathy.
--
Miq
hippo
Margaret <no_...@all.thanks> wrote in message
news:top7it4rmjt9n61l6...@4ax.com...
We are indeed all doomed : I can get very depressed very quickly
thinking of all the horrors around. I grew up under the threat of
nuclear holocaust which might seem alarming enough, but instant frying
seems somehow decidedly more acceptable than the suffering and misery
the world appears to be descending toward at the start of this century.
For those who have not done so, I can highlt recommend (re-)reading
the 'prophecies' of the last century, 1984,Brave New World, Clockwork Orange
and similar. A careful reading of any of these and one sadly realises how
much their authors got right.
At the moment, I cannot see a way out, and the recent political shenaniggans
in the uk have done nothing to convince me a path might be found
hippo
--
T J Wilkinson
("ppint.") wrote:
> - for example, i think it would be colossally stupid to
> attempt to renationalise the whole of the railway system;
> but it would be quite reasonable, to require railtrack to
> issue shares to the government in exchange for the public
> investment that it cannot survive without - and pro rata
> with the prevailing stock-market valuation of railtrack.
> this will rapidly result in effective public control of
> the company, via government-nominated directors who would
> be able to ensure that safety considerations were not ig-
> nored, in favour of maximising profits to be distributed
> as dividends; yet it would remain a public quoted company
> hiring (and firing) in the professional market, and one
> whose shares the government might eventually wholly or
> partly sell off.
Um, what evidence is there that
government-nominated/appointed/employed people are any more likely to
have a big focus on safety considerations? And how does that evidence
fit in with, e.g. the collapse of the Cave Creek platform in NZ?[1]
Or the various HIV/hepatitis-contaminated blood scandals that have
happened around the world?
How much did the UK government spend on maintaining the rails in the
decades before the system was privitised?
Tracy
[1] A platform built by the Deparment of Conservation (DoC) over a
gully on DoC land collapsed, killing about fourteen people standing on
it and seriously injuring the rest. The platform, which went out over
the edge of the gully, was attached by nails to the ground. Nails.
Not bolts. The block of concrete necessary for the counter-weight for
the platform was on site but not in anyway attached to the platform.
DoC had been told numerous times it needed to get the platform checked
for safety and to get a permit for it. It had not done so. When the
tragedy happened it had the check to say that it couldn't build a good
platform because of lack of funding. I don't think much of the then
PM, Jim Bolger, but I agree with him when he said that they killed 14
people for the lack of spending $20 on some bolts.
--
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~tajwileb/
"People who have tried it, tell me that a clear conscience makes you very
happy and contented; but a full stomach does the business quite as well,
and is cheaper, and more easily obtained." - J. K. Jerome
Paul Brown
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:25:31 -0000, in alt.fan.pratchett
> Paul Brown <p...@read.the.sig.coz.this.address.is.invalid> wrote in
> <ti77rrh...@corp.supernews.com>:
>>Abolishing party politics altogether would be an option. At the moment
>>a party leader can "whip" his members into line for a particular vote.
>>The result is that you MP is representing the party rather than his
>>constituents, with very few exceptions who usually end up being expelled.
>>
>>Outlaw parties. All candidates are independants and free to form alliances
>>as they please. In this manner no individual has total sway over voting
>>as at present, you will still get alliances of individuals with broadly
>>the same political leanings doing the jobs.
> You've just (re)invented American politics. It has some advantages and
> some disadvantages over the strong party system. The worst is that it
> makes money very important and the big donors have more sway with many
> Senators and Representatives than the parties do.
Ah, did I mention also outlawing, or at least monitoring, extra
curricular income. Allow the record of members interests to be
used in whatever manner is seen fit. Candidates must disclose
any and all donations from "interested parties" over, say, 1000
pounds, aggregated over their term.
>>Get parliament to elect a cabinet from its members once parliament
>>has reformed and also have them elect a prime minister. This way
>>you have absolute representation from the ground up, people who their
>>peers think would be *good* at any particular job doing that job
>>and no cronyism as the structure wouldn't permit it.
> Similar to what happens in the US for leadership of the houses, today.
> You will be trading _cronyism_ for _logrolling_ and _quid pro quo_ (and
> still not get rid of the cronyism).
Leadership of the houses is a bad comparison here. You end up with
a leader and a deputy leader. With the UK government you can easily
end up with 25 cabinet ministers and another 50 junior ministers
if the circumstances warrant it at the time.
>>It would also mean that you would have an MP who would be more or less
>>directly answerable to his constituents as opposed to the party.
> We do that here in the US, too. People who care about good government
> are trying to figure out how to make these representatives less
> parochial.
You are allowed to be in parliament for 2 terms, non consecutively.
After your second term you must stand down. This allows for a turnover
and more or less eliminates the professional politician.
Never happen because the professional politicians are that way for a
reason.
>>This would also require absolutely minimal reform to elections, with there
>>being 2 additional ballots held in the house to form a government.
>>
>>The problem is that the only way to get this to happen would be for
>>one of the parties in power to commit suicide in effect, by passing
>>legislation outlawing itself.
> Just outlaw party whips and replace slating with primary elections.
As I say, never happen. Be nice if it would. There have been some recent
votes that would most likely have been *very* different if the
MPs hadn't been whipped.
Suzi
news:ssk8itol2ctbq00mq...@4ax.com...
[Snip]
> Quite frankly, *anyone* who complains in this newsgroup, over the next
> five years, about the viscitudes of the Blair Labor government had
> better be able to assert that they voted against them (and be able to
> prove this with appropriate records) or at least that they actually
> voted in this particular election.
And just how are you supposed to "prove this with appropriate records"
given that elections are conducted by secret ballot? e.g. I can fulfil
the "assert" category, but not the "prove which way you voted" category.
> Otherwise, the answer they're
> going to get from me is going to be constant: "hush yer whingin! You
> haven't earned it!". If you haven't taken the responsibility to
> actually have your say in the election of your government, you *don't*
> have the right to complain about it, in my view.
Although I do subscribe to this view - if you didn't vote you have no
right to complain about the government you got given you... and ditto if
you voted for 'em <g>
Suzi
Peter Ellis
>
>Although I do subscribe to this view - if you didn't vote you have no
>right to complain about the government you got given you...
>
Agreed. Although I'd say a deliberately spoiled ballot should be counted
as a vote.
>
>and ditto if you voted for 'em <g>
>
If you voted for them and they systematically broke promises and didn't
fulfil manifesto pledges? I'd say that gives you *more* right to
complain, since you're the one they broke the contract with (if you want
to look at it like that.)
Peter
em
<Super...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> In article <MPG.158c0a855...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk>, Suzi
> <ptr...@youbastard.co.uk> writes
> >Gone that way already... Water, Electricity, Gas, Rail Network... all
> >now shareholder owned :-(
>
> I feel I've benefited by the privatisation of the utilities, but the
> rail network is a mess. As far as I can tell, it's exactly the same sort
> of shambles that led to rail being nationalised in the first place.
Aye, AOL.
It hurts to say it as I am somewhere left of Tony Benn in my political
outlook and somewhere south of Simon Hughes in my Libetarian outlook.
(See http://www.politicalcompass.org - if you want to know)
<rant>
The trouble with the privatisation of the railways is that effectively
it is a seller's market. I work in the centre of London. I have to
travel in by train. In theory I could drive (if I didn't have to be at
work for 3 months ;)). However, I have to go to work every day, I
pretty much have to use the train system and therefore I pretty much
have to pay whatever price is dictated by the train company I use. Now
I can complain until I'm blue in the face about the poor service, the
fact that at 7am I can't get a seat on a train and the fact that I pay
?1500 pounds a year for this priviledge, but at the end of the day I
can't give my business to someone else. I cannot exercise a right to
choose and so the train companies don't feel the need to please me
particularly, or make sure I get my money's worth because I'll use the
trains anyway.[1]
</rant>
You can choose (to a certain extent) your utilities provider so they
have to tempt you and please you to keep customers and therefore profit.
Hence the benefit, or at least not much of a change.
[1] Alright, I confess, I won't be using the trains for much longer as I
have a new job, 5 minutes from home :)
--
em
Stevie D
> What is actually *compulsory*, and the bit you can be fined for
> not doing, is turning up to *receive* your ballot papers.
That's fine by me. At least if people have to turn up, they are more
likely to vote - most of time I think people just can't be bothered to
shift their lazy arses and get to the polling station, rather than
actively wanting to abstain.
Although given how postal votes have taken off in a big way here, I'm
not sure that it would work as well as it ought to, I can imagine more
people might ask for a postal vote just so they don't have to get up
from the sofa at any point other than to go and grab another beer.
--
Cordon Bleu songbook, featuring The Nutcracker Suite
Stevie D
> I haven't been keeping up. How did they slide from the
> center-left past Labour?
They didn't. The Lib Dems are still centre-left. But when Tony BLiar
took charge of the Labour party in the mid 90s, he abandoned all the
principles it had stood for in the past and dragged it kicking and
screaming to the right - hence continued privatisation of essential
public services, abolition of student grants and introduction of tuition
fees (which was too extreme for even the Tories to have done both within
one term of government), and so on.
Stevie D
> You can't blame it all on Blair.
Most of it. The party was still well and truly committed to left-wing
socialist politics in the early 90s when it was led by Kinnock and then
briefly by John Smith. When BLiar took over, it very quickly turned away
from those principles.
Since the SDP party was dissolved into the Liberal Democrats in, IIRC,
1988 - at least seven years BB [1] - I don't think you can attribute
much of the turn around to their creation!
[1] Before BLiar.
Stevie D
> I've never understood why countries do this. If people don't
> care enough to vote, what does making them vote do for
> anything? It won't make them pay more attention to politics
> or care more about who gets in.
Because under the current system, 50% more people in the UK didn't vote
at all than voted for the present government. BLiar and his cronies
can't claim that the people have given them a mandate to rule when only
one person in four, out of those eligible to vote, has actually put a
cross next to a Labour candidate's name.
Who is to say that the people who did not bother to vote approve of the
current government? The BBC analysis showed that one of the top (if not
_the_ top) reasons for voter apathy was "It won't make any difference" -
they quite possibly don't want a Labour MP, but don't believe that any
other choice would ever happen. There are plenty of 'safe' Labour seats,
where the majority of those people who aren't particularly bothered
about politics don't vote, *because* they know it is a safe seat. There
were over a dozen of these constituencies in the North-East alone, with
turnouts of below 50%. If just half of the non-voters had voted, and
against the government, most of these seats would have gone to the
Tories or the Lib Dems - and so the end result would be much more
representative of the wishes of the people.
> If there's a secret ballot you can always effectively not vote
> by stuffing up the ballet paper, e.g. by ticking every candidates'
> name.
But most people who don't vote, don't vote because that would mean
walking all of źmile to the polling station and back - if they had to
make the effort to go that far, a lot of them would then vote - it's not
that they actively don't want to, they just can't be bothered.
> Last local elections in Christchurch I got the voting papers to
> discover that apart from the mayor and the council I was
> expected to vote for three different community board things,
> none of whose *existance* I had ever heard of before, let
> alone knowing anything about any of the candidates listed.
I don't rate local elections in the same way that I do general
elections. They make less difference to the country and to the local
area, since so much policy is decided in Westminster and thus controls
what the local councils do - and as you say, you are often faced with
choices you know nothing about.
You'd have to be a real ostrich to not know enough about the major
parties to vote sensibly in a general election.
Suzi
news:Pine.SOL.4.33.01061...@green.csi.cam.ac.uk...
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Suzi wrote:
> >
> >Although I do subscribe to this view - if you didn't vote you have no
> >right to complain about the government you got given you...
>
> Agreed. Although I'd say a deliberately spoiled ballot should be
> counted as a vote.
Oh yes... you still voted (albeit with a "don't trust any of you lot"
vote)
> >and ditto if you voted for 'em <g>
>
> If you voted for them and they systematically broke promises and
> didn't fulfil manifesto pledges? I'd say that gives you *more*
> right to complain, since you're the one they broke the contract
> with (if you want to look at it like that.)
Depends... if you voted to re-elect people who had *already* broken
promises, then it could be argued you knew you were voting for people
you knew wouldn't keep to their promises as they'd proved themselves
incapable already.
Suzi
Cyclops
Wilkinson) writes:
>
>How much did the UK government spend on maintaining the rails in the
>decades before the system was privitised?
>
>
Strangely enough, they appear to have been quite good at it. Unfortunately, in
the name of "efficiency" staff numbers have been reduced and in the name of
share dividends, so has essential spending.
As a pointer to staff reductions, it looks to me as if certain railway
companies are issuing high visibility bibs to staff who aren't working out on
tracks in order to make them more visible than they used to be, which means
that you can have fewer of them and customers will actually think the numbers
have been increased. I'm pretty sure that they have reduced the number of
maintenance crews as well (this may be Railtrack as opposed to the individual
operators – I don't know whether they do their own thing and then recharge
the costs).
--
Cyclops
phil AT cyclops DOT force9 DOT co DOT uk
Please don't e-mail me at the AOL account I am posting from
I have "all e-mail blocked" set on it.
Cyclops
(Nanny Ogg) writes:
>Y'know, the more I think about it, the more the oxymoron in the title is
>bugging me.
>
First of all, I want to say that I agree with the comments which I have snipped
out.
Oxymoron or not, elected dictatorships can happen. It happened in Germany in
1934.
Cyclops
<fr...@last.dircon.co.uk> writes:
>Militant were a fairly small grouping that had a strong influence in
>Liverpool and one or two London branches...they never had a cat in
>hells chance of taking over the Labour Party
>
I know that. The problem is that at the time their influence was blown out of
all proportion by those members of the Labour Party who wanted to make it less
left wing. They were helped in this by the press because everyone knows that
hysterical headlines are more likely to sell newspapers.
>the "gang of four" left at a time when their own personal positions
>within the party were under threat from a fairly broad alliance of
>left wing "factions"...basically everyone in the party except the
>right wing...the Labour Party reacted to it's perceived failure
>under Callaghan by being more sympathetic to the arguments of those
>in the party that opposed him...a move to the left...Militant
>weren't particularly part of that
>
I don't think they were as under threat as all that. However, Militant Tendency
was *perceived* to be a threat. Maybe they wanted to do what Gaitskell tried
to start and Blair succeeded in doing and thought the only way to go was to
form a new party. Has anyone compared the original SDP policies with New Labour
(I haven't but I wonder just how close they are).
<Snip>
>
>the Labour party did not move to the right...the labour party was
>not modernised...
>
I don't agree with that. They got rid of Clause 4! By doing so they became more
electable to those on the left of the Conservative Party and picked up members
who would never have joined before, so moving the membership to the right as
well as the leadership.
>it was taken over by a set of activists who know
>how to organise a political machine and very little else...it's very
>effective...it's likely to lead to moderately OK government in many
>ways since they have very little ideological baggage [2]...it's
>better than any of the currently viable alternatives...it's also
>damn scary when you see it in action up close and personal
>
Let's face it, it's like having the country run by an advertising agency.
Richard Bos
> Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> wrote:
>
> > More Fahrenheit 451, I'd say. That's the one with the tele-walls, and
> > digest-digests...
>
> You might well be right...I read F451 about the same
> number of years ago (>>lots) as 1984 (and AF), but I
> remember it less well. Do i want to read it again?
Yes, you do. So do I, in fact.
Richard
Andy Davison
>Um, what evidence is there that
>government-nominated/appointed/employed people are any more likely to
>have a big focus on safety considerations? And how does that evidence
>fit in with, e.g. the collapse of the Cave Creek platform in NZ?[1]
>Or the various HIV/hepatitis-contaminated blood scandals that have
>happened around the world?
Well, if the government reappointed all the ex-BR people who were
excluded from re-applying for their jobs and then overlooked by the
privatised companies beecause they would have spent money on
maintenance that was obviously put to far better use in the pockets of
the shareholders, Railtrack and the privatised TOCs would have a few
people who know how to run a railway on their staff rather than a load
of accountants who think they know how to cut corners to save money
and situations such as Hatfield would be far far less likely to
happen. Under BR the safety policy allowed for a maximum of 2
emergency speed restrictions in place between London and Glasgow.
Under Railtrack there are something like 90 at the moment. This is
because maintenace levels have been slashed to save money.
>How much did the UK government spend on maintaining the rails in the
>decades before the system was privitised?
A damn sight more than Railtrack is now. And the government is still
paying while Railtrack doles out large dividends to it's shareholders.
ppint.
m...@lspace.org "Miq" waxed irate, and frothed:
[snip]
>The choice in my constituency was between the Tories (whose policies
>are
>utterly repugnant to me), a Labour candidate (whose sole reason for
>standing was to cash in on the most corrupt government we've had in
>living memory)
- in that case, my memory's not living; for i yet recall
the governments of margaret thatcher, and of john major.
- ([a])
>
>To take your argument to its logical extreme: if you had a choice
>between a nazi and a stalinist, which would you vote for?
- tut, tut miq: neither logical, nor credible - the whole
point about both these shambolic forms of police-state is
that you *don't* get a choice. you _may_ get the "chance"
(i.e. the order) to vote - but, in any case, the result'll
be the 96.4% (or whatever) in favour, that the apparatus's
already decided upon as part of the 98.9% turnout likewise
determined, but if you know that last week's choice was in-
deed fairly comparable with your totally unbelievable dem-
ocratic extreme case, you presumably know equally well that
had you stood as an independant, you'd have been carted off
to the concentration camps already (if you hadn't been ab-
ducted, tortured and killed by the armed services [thinly
disguised as "vigilantes"], or the thugs of the british nat-
ionalist party [or other right-wing, possibly even islamist
group who've adopted violence as a tactic, or as an end in
itself]), just like all the other independant candidates in
this election have been... - [b]
>
>>All that a box marked "none of the above" does is gives the politically
>>apathetic a chance to publicly wave this apathy at those people who *do*
>>bother to give a damn.
>
>Nonsense. Hatred isn't apathy.
>
>Miq
>
- indeed; but hatred is a poor base, upon which to frame a
political programme for a nation. even apathy is arguably a
superior basis - its adoption as the ruling "force" govern-
ing a group seems almost bound to kill far fewer people, by
several millions, than has hatred, in our fairly recent past.
- love, ppint.
[the mailbox from which this was posted does not accept mail;
use the reply-to: e-address to email me, or to send ccs.]
[a] - and some of those of harold macmillan... for corruption
on a truly megascale (by uk governmental standards), it is
hard to beat these tories' governments, over the last sixty
years. (both tory and labour _local_ governments, where too
long entrenched, seem to've been susceptible to corruption.)
[b] - that's funny; neither did i.
--
"...for there is hope in two women, help in three women, strength in four,
joy in five, power in six and against seven, no gate may stand."
_Gibbon's Decline and Fall_ - Sheri S. Tepper (p) 1996
ppint.
usene...@angelfire.com "T J Wilkinson" wrote:
> $af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint.") wrote:
>
>> - for example, i think it would be colossally stupid to
>> attempt to renationalise the whole of the railway system;
>> but it would be quite reasonable, to require railtrack to
>> issue shares to the government in exchange for the public
>> investment that it cannot survive without - and pro rata
>> with the prevailing stock-market valuation of railtrack.
>> this will rapidly result in effective public control of
>> the company, via government-nominated directors who would
>> be able to ensure that safety considerations were not ig-
>> nored, in favour of maximising profits to be distributed
>> as dividends; yet it would remain a public quoted company
>> hiring (and firing) in the professional market, and one
>> whose shares the government might eventually wholly or
>> partly sell off.
>
>Um, what evidence is there that
>government-nominated/appointed/employed people are any more likely to
>have a big focus on safety considerations?
- past record.
> And how does that evidence
>fit in with, e.g. the collapse of the Cave Creek platform in NZ?[1]
>Or the various HIV/hepatitis-contaminated blood scandals that have
>happened around the world?
- safety of the uk rail system has very little to do with
any of these, at least in so far as i can see. [perhaps
tracy'll be good enough to enlighten us (or, at least, this
ppint.) as to the precise connection between HIV/hepatitis-
contaminated blood, or even the kiwiiiian platform collapse,
and the british railways system.]
>
>How much did the UK government spend on maintaining the rails in the
>decades before the system was privitised?
>
- most recently, not enough to allow the operation of the
new generation of trains upon the west coast mainline, nor
even to keep parts of the cumbrian coastal route open to
services operated by main-line train sets; but sufficient,
to avoid such accidents waiting to be disasters, as we've
unfortunately seen, since the break up. british rail, after
a rather poor patch (in terms of services, not safety), was
the most efficient passenger national rail service in the
western world, by the measures for which i've seen figures
presented (not by british rail) - and the one operating upon
the smallest public subsidy. *all* of the trunk passenger
routes ["inter-city"] were profit-making, and quite a few of
the non-trunk routes were, also. i don't have knowledge of
the freight operations, sorry; you'll have to hunt them down
yourself, 'less there's a knowledgable afper who could oblige...
- that there was *no* good social or public finance case for
destroying british rail, is a point that was well & widely-
known before the sell-off; the tory government of the day was
warned by not only by people within the industry, but even by
those knowledgeable within their own party, that there would
be chaos, and danger to the travelling public, as a result of
the cock-eyed manner in which it was to be done. that well-
known soggy pink commie liberal, margaret thatcher, hadn't at-
tempted or even been able to draw up plans for it, when she was
in power. she said she didn't believe it was possible.
- john major went ahead anyway, for reasons of doctrinaire
right-wing idiocy - or perhaps, to transfer valuable assets
to corporations owned & controlled by his wealthy sponsors -
hitherto owned by the people, at a small fraction of even the
real estate value of their considerable land holdings (which
went *far* beyond the land along which the track is laid), and
we're witnesses to the disastrous results of doctrinaire idiocy.
- in a way, a reprise of the early 1960s' great railway axing
by the tories, when the infamous dr. beeching was employed by
the transport minister, one ernest marples, to produce a plan
to cut c. 40-60% of the then comprehensive national railway
network: this programme made massive spending upon an ever-
expanding ribbon of concrete otherwise known as the motorway
system a matter of great urgency - and one of the bigger civil
engineering (incl. motorway) contractors just _happened_ to be -
marples-ridgeway. yup, the transport minister's family firm.
- no, nationalisation isn't necessarily the answer to any one
problem, let alone all of the social problems we're currently
facing; indeed, i said that each problem needs its own, *nnon*-
politically doctrinaire solution to be found, in the part of
my article tracy chopped;
- but nor is it true, that state ownership of core social in-
frastructure is necessarily inefficient, or bad: we've seen
*both* here in the uk, and some of the most eficiently run
companies over the past fifty years have been amongst the
nationalised indutries that thatcher & major sold off on the
cheap. and what some of them've managed to become since, beg-
gars belief.
- love, ppint.
[the mailbox from which this was posted does not accept mail;
use the reply-to: e-address to email me, or to send ccs.]
--
"Any flat surface has to take its chances around me."
- the real dick eney, as recorded by ms tamar lindsay, c.1994
Richard Bos
> Because under the current system, 50% more people in the UK didn't vote
> at all than voted for the present government. BLiar and his cronies
> can't claim that the people have given them a mandate to rule when only
> one person in four, out of those eligible to vote, has actually put a
> cross next to a Labour candidate's name.
This argument keeps cropping up, and I'm afraid it's bogus. You see,
Labour was elected a majority in a perfectly regular[1] election. Those
people who didn't bother to vote actually gave Labour a large part of
its mandate. You see, not voting is _not_ equal to "I don't want any of
you to govern"; it's equal to "I don't give a damn; anyone who chooses
can have my mandate to govern".
If you do not vote, you _know_ that the choice of who gets to govern is
made by those who do. You actively, and of fully autonomous choice, give
_them_ this option. Basically, you mandate "whomever gets enough of
those others to vote for him" to government. Now if this doesn't turn
out to be someone you like, sorry, but you really can't change your mind
afterwards, you know. You didn't vote "nobody", you voted "whoever".
And in this case, "whoever" happens to be Tony Blair. Now lump it, or
like it. And next time, have the decency to _vote_, damn it.
Richard
[1] AFAIK; as near to regular as necessary, in any case.
Richard Bos
> Miq <m...@lspace.org> wrote:
> > And then you have a party - if they're illegal, the only difference is
> > that it will be called a 'faction' or a 'group' or something. The same
> > thing happens in one-party systems, and within established parties (see
> > under 'Militant Tendency' and 'Bruges Group').
>
> And that's fine and dandy. That is government by consensus and as it
> should be.
>
> What it is not is government by coercion which is what the party whip
> system amounts to. Voting against the whip leaves you liable for
> retribution which can take many forms.
>
> Without a *formal* party system this retribution cannot exist in such
> a formalised setting. You can still get tit for tat "I won't vote
> for your motions" but no large scale coercion.
No? "If you won't vote the way the Cabal wants you to, we won't choose
you as minister in the next government. Oh, and we'll secretly fund one
of your opponents who _does_ toe the party line."
You can do _everything_ the parties do now, even if you abolish parties.
You just can't do it openly. But what's another slight bit of corruption
between political friends?
Richard
hop...@anix.co.uk
> Quite frankly, *anyone* who complains in this newsgroup, over the next
> five years, about the viscitudes of the Blair Labor government had
> better be able to assert that they voted against them (and be able to
> prove this with appropriate records) or at least that they actually
> voted in this particular election. Otherwise, the answer they're
> going to get from me is going to be constant: "hush yer whingin! You
> haven't earned it!". If you haven't taken the responsibility to
> actually have your say in the election of your government, you *don't*
> have the right to complain about it, in my view.
What about people like me then? I actually got disenfranchised through no fault
of my own. Yes, I know this is technically illegal but, to cut a long story
short, my employer sent me on a course at short notice - it was however long
enough notice to send in my application for a postal vote on time (which is why
it's only technically illegal!) I sent in my vote application - on time -
however, I STILL haven't received my ballot paper!!!!
This is the first time I have failed to vote - even in local gov't elections.
Although I would add that it is a shame my vote makes no difference in the
national elections. I live in a safe seat and I do not support the incumbent
MP. In fact the only reason I usually vote is to register my dissent in the
national statistics. When they say the current gov't got less than 50% of the
vote I will have the satisfaction of knowing that I contributed to that at
least.
If anyone knows how to get politicians to change this, when they have first to
get elected using the existing system I, for one, would be happy to help
implement the plan.
Jane
Andy Brown
<in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
> You didn't vote "nobody", you voted "whoever".
Except there is no option for 'none of the above'
>
> And in this case, "whoever" happens to be Tony Blair. Now lump it, or
> like it. And next time, have the decency to _vote_, damn it.
I had a choice of 3 candidates for the general election, none of whom
I considered a good choice. Should I therefore be voting for the least
worse case?
--
Andy Brown
At work. All opinions are my own.
Sherilyn
Julia Jones
<mag...@megabitch.org.uk> writes
>Quite frankly, *anyone* who complains in this newsgroup, over the next
>five years, about the viscitudes of the Blair Labor government had
>better be able to assert that they voted against them (and be able to
>prove this with appropriate records) or at least that they actually
>voted in this particular election. Otherwise, the answer they're
>going to get from me is going to be constant: "hush yer whingin! You
>haven't earned it!". If you haven't taken the responsibility to
>actually have your say in the election of your government, you *don't*
>have the right to complain about it, in my view.
Well, I would have voted, had they note gone out of their way to make it
difficult for overseas residents to vote. I'm not going to bitch too
much about this, as I can see why it was necessary to address various
abuses, but since I'd left the country intending to be away for more
than three months, I don't get a postal vote, I get a proxy vote in the
constituency I was last registered in. Which means that I have to find
someone in my previous place of residence whom I trust to vote on my
behalf.
Before anyone says that I shouldn't be voting if I live overseas - I
left the country less than two months ago, and I intend to return before
the next change of government. I have a personal interest in the outcome
of the election, and it would appear that I know more about what's going
on than do many of the people who didn't bother to vote. (It was quite
entertaining this weekend reading the Observer a week late:-)
--
Julia Jones
Redemption 03, 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent
Celebrating 25 years of Blake's 7 and 10 years of Babylon 5
http://www.smof.com/redemption
Julia Jones
<usene...@angelfire.com> writes
>How much did the UK government spend on maintaining the rails in the
>decades before the system was privitised?
On the rails, I would not know, although the amount spent on maintenance
overall has been cut since privatisation in the name of increased share
dividends.
On the railway system as a whole, less than they do now, which is a
major cause of bitching. The privatised railway companies are getting a
bigger state subsidy than British Rail did (and yes, this *is* allowing
for inflation), charging higher fares, and in some areas offering a
poorer service.
MP
<mag...@megabitch.org.uk> wrote, on Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:15:34 +1000,
that:
>On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 14:59:24 +0100, Andrew Brydon
><and...@isbjorn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Once upon a time, Lord Lucan <bur...@melb.globaldial.bom> wrote
>>>
>>>"Margaret" <no_...@all.thanks> scrawled in fluorescent crayon
>>>news:r3m2it4cbigkgcbsp...@4ax.com...
>>>> ptr...@youbastard.co.uk (Suzi) wrote:
>>>>
>>[snip UK election stuff]
>>>
>>>Thank the Gods for compulsory voting here in Oz or else we'd have voter turn
>>>outs even lower than the US and UK.
>>>
<snip>
>4) Something that a lot of governments could learn from .au - we have
>our elections on *Saturdays*, and thus avoid the problem, for most
>people, of having to find the time to vote.
People like taking time off work to vote if they can persuade their
companies to let them. I think Saturdays would mean lower turnouts
here - people too busy with football and so on. :-}
>5) We also have preferential voting - which means that if you vote for
>one of the minor party, you haven't "wasted your vote". Instead, your
>preferences count - actually, if you vote for a minor party, your
>preferences count even more... and can count up to three or four
>times, depending on the narrowness of the margin.
But UKians have enough trouble with the normal voting system - about 1
in 4 potential votes (where the people have bothered to go an vote)
are duds, apparently (Guardian, Sat). Preferential voting is perfectly
usable[1], but too confusing for a lot of people, I would guess.
MP (not highly respectful of the abilities of the majority of his
country's population)
[1] We use it for SU elections at York, fr'instance
--
"The organiser said to me 'It`ll be lovely, because it`s full
of sad girls who want to sleep with Captain Kirk, and if he`s
not there, you might do.'
- PTerry, on attending a Star Trek convention (Sunday Times, again...)
Jonathan Ellis
Peter Ellis wrote in message ...
On the other hand, if you voted for them *again*, and AFTER they'd
broken all their promises the first time - indeed, if you did anything
other than actively cast a vote *against* them (and not a spoiled ballot
paper, but a valid vote for an alternative candidate, even if you don't
like the alternative either) - then you certainly have no right to
complain.
Jonathan.
Livia Mitson
Paul Brown <p...@read.the.sig.coz.this.address.is.invalid> wrote:
>Politicians - they're all lying self serving bastards, to a man.
What about the women?
:-)-
(sticking tongue out)
Livia
--
Livia Mitson livia at wheelwright dot net
"Once deconstructed, Harry Potter is only too clearly a hero of political
allegory for the triumph of the socially ascendant petit bourgeoisie"
-- Pierre Bruno
Suzi
spam...@golder.co.uk wibbled...
[Snip]
> I had a choice of 3 candidates for the general election, none of whom
> I considered a good choice. Should I therefore be voting for the least
> worse case?
I'd say Yes.
Suzi
Quantum Moth
<snip>
>
> And next time, have the decency to _vote_, damn it.
>
What, precisely, has *decency* got to do with it?
I didn't vote. In that respect, I am with 41% of the country, but not
*part* of that 41%. Why did they fail to turn out in our millions? What
possible reason could there have been for such mass withdrawal from
democracy? 41% of the electorate of the UK decided that it simply wasn't
worth it, for whatever reason. Perhaps some were in the percentage that
was sneered at elsewhere in this thread for simply wanting to sit around
and not bother voting. Some have ideological objections to the whole
*concept* of democracy - shocking though this may be to those who
consider voting to be the decent thing to do. Some possibly weren't even
aware of it, or forgot. It's possible. Hell, I was so out of touch
earlier this year that I can't name all five members of Hear'Say, and
the election got less coverage than "Popstars".
Most probably thought it wasn't worth it. Neither of the main contenders
(though it's hard to think of the Tories as contenders these days)
seemed appreciably different from one another; even the Liberal
Democrats seem like a slightly less competent New Labour from their
depiciton in the media. Those who really don't give a shit who's running
the place as long as the trains run on time and nobody's chopping any
bits off are quite happy to accept the status quo. Of course, they'll
bitch about the government, but that's practically a national pastime
and even those who voted New Labour will bitch about them. The actual
going out and putting a cross in a box bit doesn't seem terrifically
important to a lot folk, it would seem, and who can blame them? The
tyranny of the bland has infected the tyrants, to the point where we
can't hate them, can't love them, why the hell should we vote for them.
Remember Thatcher? The only time this year's campaign got any kind of
interest was those times the Mummy Returned[1]. Right-wing Tories were
ecstatic that they had a *personality* on board, someone the electorate
could connect to; negative or positive, any publicity was good publicity
this year. Of course, New Labour had John Prescott in a flapping,
playground scuffle that could have been a big scandal[3]. The fact that
it was smoothed over with the merest of comment showed that even
violence couldn't stir the blood of a disinterested public.
Given that the actual choice facing most people was the Conservative
Party or the Conservative Party painted red, people voted with their
feet, and didn't move them. New Labour acknowledged that they were
getting in, but it wasn't because people *liked* them, or anything - on
election night, the party headquarters was a solemn, quiet place, a
stark contrast to the Party Central it was in 1997. Blair must know that
he's only there because it'd be unthinkable to vote the Tories back in
after what they done last time. This low turn-out does not say "We're
happy with the way things are, we don't need to tell you that", it says
"We don't care because we can see it doesn't seem to make any difference
what we say. Just make sure the trains run on time and you don't start
chopping bits off", and the Government know this. I'm pretty sure
they're not sitting around thinking "Oh, they didn't turn out to vote
because they were so ecstatic with the job we're doing they didn't even
feel the need to tell us".
Withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy.
Oh, and I didn't vote because I'm not on the electoral role. Long story.
[1]And, indeed, as she noted herself[2], she resembles nothing less than
a vengeful embalmed corpse.
[2]I may be misquoting here.
[3]In the movies, his press secretary would have been saying "your
career is over right here", dumping a paper with a photo of the incident
on his desk. Cue montage..
--
thom willis - sc...@mostly.com - Corinne's Worse Half
**movie- http://afpmovie.orcon.net.nz**
"you can't make an omelette without killing some people."
Paul Brown
> In article <ti7uiqq...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Paul Brown <p...@read.the.sig.coz.this.address.is.invalid> wrote:
>>Politicians - they're all lying self serving bastards, to a man.
> What about the women?
> :-)-
> (sticking tongue out)
I am unfortunately too much of a gentleman to use that sort of language
about a lady.
Feel free to come up with your own phrases to continue the statement
Paul
Wondering if Chivalry means I get to drive horses over them
--
Being a geek is a state of mind
Being paid to be a geek is a state of utopia
- p...@geekstuff.co.uk
Paul Brown
As somebody stated it during the coverage, the lesser of three weevils.
Paul
Peter Ellis
>
> As somebody stated it during the coverage, the lesser of three
> weevils.
>
<pedant> Least! [muttermumbleyouthoftodaymutter] </>
That would be the famous See-no-weevil, Hear-no-weevil and
Speak-no-weevil, I take it?
Peter
Miq
> - hi; in afparticle, <yqg$q2A$MHJ7...@kew1.demon.co.uk>,
> m...@lspace.org "Miq" waxed irate, and frothed:
>[snip]
>>The choice in my constituency was between the Tories (whose policies
>>are
>>utterly repugnant to me), a Labour candidate (whose sole reason for
>>standing was to cash in on the most corrupt government we've had in
>>living memory)
>
> - in that case, my memory's not living; for i yet recall
> the governments of margaret thatcher, and of john major
I remember both of those well, and I stand by the above statement.
However, I have a feeling we're not going to agree on this.
>>To take your argument to its logical extreme: if you had a choice
>>between a nazi and a stalinist, which would you vote for?
>
> - tut, tut miq: neither logical, nor credible - the whole
> point about both these shambolic forms of police-state is
> that you *don't* get a choice.
The Nazis stood for election before they took over the country. There's
no particular reason why a Stalinist shouldn't stand against one.
>>Nonsense. Hatred isn't apathy.
>
> - indeed; but hatred is a poor base, upon which to frame a
> political programme for a nation. even apathy is arguably a
> superior basis - its adoption as the ruling "force" govern-
> ing a group seems almost bound to kill far fewer people, by
> several millions, than has hatred, in our fairly recent past.
So you're saying that apathy is a better basis of action than hatred?
So (not voting) is actually morally *superior* to (voting for the Big-
Enders purely because you hate the Little-Enders)?
In the General Election of 1987, a Labour candidate tried actively to
solicit my vote as I was sitting, minding my own business, in a student
bar. I asked why I should vote for him; he said, and I quote, that "the
main thing is to get the Tories out". I thought that was a rather
feeble argument, and said so - and at that point he hurried off to find
someone more promising.
This wasn't some under-briefed canvasser, this was the candidate himself
speaking.
I voted Liberal (or whatever they were calling themselves in those days)
- as I have, more often than not, since. I've voted tactically and I've
voted from conviction, and neither the candidate nor the party I voted
for has ever won yet. And I've had it to *here* with people telling me
that "what I really/effectively voted for was..."
I *know* what I voted for. Don't anyone try to tell me.
And now I've come to the conclusion that simply being the least-bad
party isn't good enough. Because whoever I vote for is going to claim,
quite reasonably, that my vote actually represents *support* for them
and their policies. And it doesn't.
Now, you'll have noticed some soul-searching already on the part of the
main parties regarding the low turnout last week. Some people wring
their hands, others shrug their shoulders - the official government
interpretation, I understand, is that it represents complacency and
contentment. Whatever - they'll have a lot more trouble taking that
line next time. If enough people abstain - particularly if they abstain
actively, i.e. spoil their ballots - then the politicians *will* get the
(accurate) message that many people don't have a lot of time for any of
them. However, they can't afford simply to ignore that 40% (or
whatever) - because they know that if anyone *does* find a way to
inspire them, they *will* get elected - so I'm betting that both Mr
Blair and Mr Portillo have already briefed their focus groups/think
tanks/whatever to look for ways to funnel those voters their way. And
while they will undoubtedly come up with many harebrained ideas and much
half-baked demagoguery, the end result could well be more accountable
government.
--
Miq
Kristian Peacocke
"Nanny Ogg" <swhi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010610145711...@nso-cl.aol.com...
> In article <9fqaqu$e7l$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>, "Hoofer"
> <DELET...@ollyb.co.uk> writes:
>
> >We appear to have elected Labour again in Great Britain.
> >
> >I'm sure there's something funny about that. Any ideas?
>
> Y'know, the more I think about it, the more the oxymoron in the title is
> bugging me.
>
<SNIP>
Who what where? Are these your sour grapes sir?
So hear-hear for the justly ellected govenment :)
Kristian Peacocke
> <and...@isbjorn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Once upon a time, Lord Lucan <bur...@melb.globaldial.bom> wrote
> >>
> >>"Margaret" <no_...@all.thanks> scrawled in fluorescent crayon
> >>news:r3m2it4cbigkgcbsp...@4ax.com...
> >>> ptr...@youbastard.co.uk (Suzi) wrote:
> >>>
> >[snip UK election stuff]
> >>
> >>Thank the Gods for compulsory voting here in Oz or else we'd have voter
turn
> >>outs even lower than the US and UK.
> >>
> >disagreeing more strongly with the results)?
>
> You get fined if you don't have your name ticked off the electoral
> roll as having received the ballot papers. Given that we have secret
> ballots, we quite literally *cannot* get punished for not voting.
>
> Just to answer a few of the more common misconceptions about
> "compulsory voting":
>
> 1) Nobody forces us to vote. Nobody stands behind us and makes sure
> that we fill in our paper correctly. We are legally allowed to put a
> blank ballot into the ballot box - it's called an "invalid vote", and
> as such it doesn't count for anything.
>
> 2) The only "punishment" is a fine, of approximately $50[1]. However,
> if you can show just cause for not voting (eg religious convictions),
> you can be waived the fine.
>
> [1] I haven't checked this - it may be more.
>
<CUT>
It's more... there is one over 18 year old here that didn't vote in a
certain referendum and was told by Australia house in the UK that since I
knew it was on, and didn't postal vote... I owe money.
Arse. I was sure that I didn't have to vote, honest guv
esmi
>Depends... if you voted to re-elect people who had *already* broken
>promises, then it could be argued you knew you were voting for
>people you knew wouldn't keep to their promises as they'd proved
>themselves incapable already.
Shirley that only works if you have the option to vote for people who
*aren't* politicians by profession.? ;-)
esmi
--
* "2002: A Discworld Odyssey" * The Discworld Convention *
* Hanover International, Hinckley * August 16th-19th, 2002 *
* Web: http://www.dwcon.org/ * Email: in...@dwcon.org *
Margaret
> It hurts to say it as I am somewhere left of Tony Benn in my political
> outlook and somewhere south of Simon Hughes in my Libetarian outlook.
oooo good another one! :-)
You, Gideon, and I make 3. Who else?
Margaret
Sherilyn
Margaret <no_...@all.thanks> wrote:
>em <em@*helpfulelf*.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It hurts to say it as I am somewhere left of Tony Benn in my political
>> outlook and somewhere south of Simon Hughes in my Libetarian outlook.
Simon Hughes as in "anti-abortion Bermondsey LibDem MP?"
>
>oooo good another one! :-)
>
>You, Gideon, and I make 3. Who else?
>
--
Sherilyn
Eric Jarvis
> In Message-ID <dm8aitk360euf5chg...@4ax.com>,
> Margaret <no_...@all.thanks> wrote:
> >em <em@*helpfulelf*.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> It hurts to say it as I am somewhere left of Tony Benn in my political
> >> outlook and somewhere south of Simon Hughes in my Libetarian outlook.
>
> Simon Hughes as in "anti-abortion Bermondsey LibDem MP?"
>
that's the bunny...the winner of THE most hypocritical by election
campaign in British history [1]
> >
> >oooo good another one! :-)
> >
> >You, Gideon, and I make 3. Who else?
> >
>
<raises hand>
[1] take this as a total absence of any suggestion about anything in
exactly the same way as "Have I Got News For You" referring to Peter
Mandelson [2]
[2] since "outing" a public personage without their consent would be
inexcusable
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
"money can't buy you love, but sometimes dinner
is much more important"
MEG
news:MPG.158f0e303...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> Richard Bos <in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> said...
> <snip>
> >
> > And next time, have the decency to _vote_, damn it.
> >
> Decency?
>
> What, precisely, has *decency* got to do with it?
>
> I didn't vote. In that respect, I am with 41% of the country, but not
> *part* of that 41%. Why did they fail to turn out in our millions?
Well I forgot it was election day. I had much more important things to worry
about. And, yes, I assure you, they were *much* more important. It's the first
time I've ever missed a vote and, hopefully, the last. At least if I vote, I can
whinge. (Though I'm sorely taken with the notion of deliberately spoiling the
ballot paper.)
- MEG
Margaret
> > >oooo good another one! :-)
> > >
> > >You, Gideon, and I make 3. Who else?
> > >
> >
>
> <raises hand>
Excellent!!
More? More?
(That's an interesting instrument, though i'm not sure
how much I agree with the idea that left=controlled
right=free economy. I'd argue L/R have more to do
with whether profit is distributed/concentrated.)
Eric Jarvis
> In article <MPG.158e2732...@news.dircon.co.uk>, Eric Jarvis
> <fr...@last.dircon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >the Labour party did not move to the right...the labour party was
> >not modernised...
> >
> I don't agree with that. They got rid of Clause 4! By doing so they became more
> electable to those on the left of the Conservative Party and picked up members
> who would never have joined before, so moving the membership to the right as
> well as the leadership.
>
the question is therefore, in what sense do you consider the removal
of Clause 4 to be modernisation...I've heard it justified in terms
of increasing the electability of the party (ie being a move to the
right)...but I don't see how that is anything other than ditching a
principle for electoral gain...to call that modernisation implies
that you consider the ONLY purpose of a political party is to be
elected
"modernisation" consisted of a whole bunch of measures...the removal
of clause 4 got publicity...but the emasculation of conference as a
policy making forum was actually what generated most heat within the
party, at least from where I was sitting [1]...that was explicitly
presented as a matter of stopping "activists" [2]...in other words
limiting the entire decision making process to a self selecting
few...something that was unquestionably a return to the Party's past
[1] at the time that was as constituency Agent
[2] much of this was conducted in code...an activist could most
accurately be defined as any party member that wanted to contribute
without being a member of the correct caucus
Margaret
> Shirley that only works if you have the option to vote for people who
> *aren't* politicians by profession.? ;-)
Exactly: the problem of the wrong lizard getting in.
That said, I've still decided never to vote Lizard
again, no matter *what* their excuses for being
cold-blooded reptiles.
Carol Hague
> Quite frankly, *anyone* who complains in this newsgroup, over the next
> five years, about the viscitudes of the Blair Labor government had
> better be able to assert that they voted against them (and be able to
> prove this with appropriate records) or at least that they actually
> voted in this particular election.
We have a secret ballot in the UK too, so it might be a bit difficult to
prove who an individual voter voted for. They keep a list of registered
voters at the polling station and tick names off as people turn up, so
if they keep those it might be possible to prove that you turned up and
were given the requisite bits of paper, but that's about it.
FWIW, I always vote in any elections, general or local.
Carol Hague
(no relation thank you)
--
"How fleeting are all human passions when compared to the massive
continuity of ducks." - Dorothy L. Sayers, _Gaudy Night_
Nanny Ogg
>Quite frankly, *anyone* who complains in this newsgroup, over the next
>five years, about the viscitudes of the Blair Labor government had
>better be able to assert that they voted against them (and be able to
>prove this with appropriate records)
Errrrrrmmmmm....... am I missing a humorous intent there? I'm a bit baffled
as to how you could prove a secret vote with appropriate records.........
<wanders off scratching head>
All the best,
Sarah
--
`If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you'll be
taller than everyone else.' Kipling and _I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue_
`Unfortunately Real Life lacks a decent tourist information service' Adrian
Morgan
Nanny Ogg
In article <mon7itcf88g5fjhaq...@4ax.com>, Margaret
<no_...@all.thanks> writes:
>> But the system we have is not a dictatorship. And, IMO, describing it as
>such
>> just because you don't like the method/the result, simply trivialises the
>evils
>> of genuine dictatorship and the problems of those who have to endure such a
>> system. It strikes me as being, at the very least, tasteless.
>
>Perhaps you're using a special definition of
>dictatorship, Sarah? I've never seen a definition of
>dictatorship that includes nastiness as a requirement.
>All that seems to be required is that they rule without
>reference to popular will.
That's the definition I was using. I don't believe that a system in which the
government have to be voted in in the first place and know that they'll have to
be voted in again if they want to stick around for more than a few years is a
system in which the government do rule without reference to popular will.
David Chapman
> Cyclops wrote:
>
> > You can't blame it all on Blair.
>
> Most of it. The party was still well and truly committed to left-wing
> socialist politics in the early 90s when it was led by Kinnock and then
> briefly by John Smith. When BLiar took over, it very quickly turned away
> from those principles.
The Scottish Socialist Party had a sticker for the 1997 election that
read:
NEW LABOUR - GENETICALLY MODIFIED TORIES.
I quite liked that one [1].
[1] Although it didn't persuade me [2] to vote SSP.
[2] Or anybody else.
--
"Would you say your songs are about liquor,
women, drugs and killing, for the most part?"
"Yep."
David Chapman
> Hmm, he may be wrong, but MP thinks that "David Chapman"
> <anti...@evildeath.madasafish.com> wrote, on Sat, 9 Jun 2001 15:41:09
> +0100, that:
>
> >"Cyclops" <jancy...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010609083448...@nso-fm.aol.com...
> >
> >> BTW, even the Monster Raving Loony Party doesn't seem to be keeping its feet on
> >> the ground any more... their shadow cabinet includes a Minister for the
> >> Abolition of Gravity!
> >
> >Query: has there been a schism in the MRLP? There seems to be a rival organisation
> >called the Rock and Roll Loony Party doing the rounds, and they're almost as big as
> >the MRLP.
>
> I would imagine they are a new group with the same sort of idealogy -
> as, one would hope, are the Fancy Dress Party and the Jam Wrestling
> Party.
>
My mother happens to think that the Fancy Dress Party are the best named
party ever. I disagree - I think that honour goes to the Party Party Party Party
- but it's still pretty funny.
> >Bonus points: name the one constituency where the MRLP and R&RLP both fielded
> >a candidate.
>
> Hastings and Rye - it appears to have split the loony vote...
Correct. The MRLP won out by about 100 votes, or an 11% margin in the Loony
constituency.
>
> >Extra bonus points: name the constituency(ies) which had a Church of the Militant Elvis
> >candidate.
>
> Brentwood and Ongar - and that one too!
I bow to your superior knowledge; I only asked this one because I couldn't be bothered
going through the records to look it up. <thrrrp>
Now *that's* how to get someone to DYFH. <grin>
>
> Incidentally, Kensington and Chelsea managed to produce 100 votes for
> the Jam Wrestling Party candidate, and in Sedgefield, the R&R Loony
> didn't have the fewest votes. This may be considered worrying,
Not as worrying as how the MRLP beat the Scottish Socialists in every
constituency where they faced off, and frequently were only beaten by
the big three parties and the Greens. They were 5th of 8 standing in at
least seven seats.
apart
> from the fact that it was rather amusing watching Blair and
> Christopher "Screw" Driver being in the same room...
<grin>
I wonder how many votes a Death to Blair and his Scumbag Fanatics Party
candidate would get in Sedgefield?