Democracy For Scotland
Tim Steele
For those who do not know: Scotland is NOT part of England. Until 1707,
Scotland was a seperate, sovereign nation. In 1707, Scotland and England
joined together, under the terms of a treaty called The Act Of Union, to form
the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The terms of this treaty have since
been broken on many occasions by governments more oriented towards English
concerns than Scottish ones.
Scotland had then and retains to this day its own legal system, educational
system, and cultural identity. The Scots are identifiable as a people,
seperate from the English, and the charter of the United Nations recognises
the rights of all peoples to self-determination. The people of Scotland wish
to exercise that right. International support will help make it happen.
I presume the argument against is that the English defeated the
Scottish in battle, so Scotland was subjected to English rule. This
principle governed the formation of most modern nations, so why is it
less legitimate regarding Scotland than regarding other parts of
nations which were added by force?
Tim
--
Tim Steele
Product Support Manager
Tadpole Technology plc
Alan Smaill
I presume the argument against is that the English defeated the
Scottish in battle, so Scotland was subjected to English rule. This
principle governed the formation of most modern nations, so why is it
less legitimate regarding Scotland than regarding other parts of
nations which were added by force?
No, this is not at all the argument.
The union of the countries was in no way the result of any military
engagements. (We could of course debate that case - in fact the history
of the British empire is pretty much that of military conquest, and
subsequent independence of the conquered territories.)
A certain John Major recently declared that Scotland was a full and equal
partner in the union of the countries. The argument is that such a
partner should be able to withdraw from the agreement should it think that
the usefulness of the arrangement is at an end.
Tim
--
Tim Steele
Product Support Manager
Tadpole Technology plc
--
Alan Smaill, JANET: A.Sm...@uk.ac.ed
Department of Artificial ARPA: A.Smaill%uk.a...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Intelligence, UUCP: ...!uknet!ed.ac.uk!A.Smaill
Edinburgh University.
Nick Maclaren
>Scottish in battle, so Scotland was subjected to English rule. This
>principle governed the formation of most modern nations, so why is it
>less legitimate regarding Scotland than regarding other parts of
>nations which were added by force?
As Alan Smaill pointed out in a later item, this was not the case. However,
I should mention that it does apply to the Channel Islands and England - the
latter is a colony by right of conquest of the Duchy of Normandy (as
represented by the Channel Islands). The Act of Union should be regarded as
an agreement between the Channel Islands and Scotland.
Anyone who doubts this situation should enquire what the official language
of the UK really is. A clue: it is used by the Sovereign when turning Acts
of Parliament into law.
[To would-be flamers: please do not turn this semi-serious reply into a
multi-megabyte spectacular.]
Nick Maclaren
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street,
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email: n...@cl.cam.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 223 334761
Fax: +44 223 334679
David Morning
Which battle?
The Union of the Crowns took place when James the 6th of Scotland took over as
James the 1st of England. There was no 'battle', just a bunch of ne'r-do-wells
looking for somewhere less rainy to stay :-)
The Act of Union followed around 100 years later disolving the Scottish
Parliament. Again no 'battle'.
To the originator of this thread, this has been beaten to death in soc.culture.
celtic and the media. The clear consensus of all the polls (bar one rogue
poll which asked very leading questions) has been that Scotland wants more
say in running its own affairs but not independance. The result of the
General Election where the Scottish Nationalist Party (who normally run at
15-20% support) failed to gain ANY ground despite running on an "Independance
in Europe" ticket and failed to even overtake the Conservatives who were on
a "No Change" ticket clearly points to little enthusiasm for full blown
independance.
There is however overwhelming support for some form of devolution.
Dave
>Tim
>--
>Tim Steele
>Product Support Manager
>Tadpole Technology plc
--
============================================================================
| Dave Morning | "Broon Hee Haw Maw" |
|d...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk | |
============================================================================
Craig Cockburn
In article <1992Apr27....@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>, d...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning) writes...
>General Election where the Scottish Nationalist Party (who normally run at
>15-20% support) failed to gain ANY ground despite running on an "Independance
>in Europe" ticket and failed to even overtake the Conservatives who were on
>a "No Change" ticket clearly points to little enthusiasm for full blown
>independance.
The SNP gained a lot of ground - they increased the number of votes they
received by over 50%. This put them at about 21% (up from less than 14%)
Which other party increased their share of the vote by over 7% ?
The fact that the SNP actually lost a seat is an indictment of the
present electoral system. The SNP are gaining more support throughout
Scotland, rather than just one or two constituencies. A bit like the
LibDems.
A few more by-elections and the SNP will be up to, and probably exceed
their previous total.
However, despite the importance of what kind of government to have
(UK, Devolved, or Scottish), the Constitutional question was only
the 5th most important issue at the election. This accounts for,
for example, the difference in support for the SNP (about 21%) versus
the support for independence as an issue in itself (about 30%).
Most people place issues such as the economy and the NHS as being
more important, which seems strange to me as the constitutional
setup would determine such things as economic policy and NHS funding!
Craig
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Cockburn, Digital Equipment Co. Ltd, Newbury, England.
ARPAnet: cock...@majors.enet.dec.com Saor
UUCP:..!decwrl!majors.enet.dec.com!cockburn Alba!
Views here are my own, and are not necessarily those of Digital
Stewart Fleming
>Anyone who doubts this situation should enquire what the official language
>of the UK really is. A clue: it is used by the Sovereign when turning Acts
>of Parliament into law.
There was a time when the official language of Scotland (in the
law-making/ruling class context) was French.
"Scots Wha Hae" was indeed delivered at Bannockburn,
by Robert the Bruce, only in Norman French rather than the
braid Scots in which it is usually expressed.
["Whit the **** is he oan aboot ?"
"Dinna ken - let's get laid intae they English..."]
>Nick Maclaren
So it goes...
STF
--
sfle...@cs.hw.ac.uk ...ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!sfleming
She looked at me as if I was from another planet
and said, with a bemused look on her face, "New York Penta ?"
Guy Barry
>The fact that the SNP actually lost a seat is an indictment of the
>present electoral system.
Since the seat they lost (Glasgow Govan) was gained at a by-election, I
don't think too much significance should be attached to the loss in any
case.
--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757
Computer Laboratory | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street | JANET: Guy....@uk.ac.cam.cl
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK | Internet: Guy....@cl.cam.ac.uk
David Morning
>In article <1992Apr27....@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>, d...@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning) writes...
>>General Election where the Scottish Nationalist Party (who normally run at
>>15-20% support) failed to gain ANY ground despite running on an "Independance
>>in Europe" ticket and failed to even overtake the Conservatives who were on
>>a "No Change" ticket clearly points to little enthusiasm for full blown
>>independance.
>The SNP gained a lot of ground - they increased the number of votes they
>received by over 50%. This put them at about 21% (up from less than 14%)
Well, I will concede that Craig, however, given that Alex Salmond (who's name
I always spell wrong!) was boldly predicting a mandate for the SNP to go it
alone without England and the total demise of the Tory party in Scotland, the
amount of ground they made was miniscule wrt to their target and of course
the Tory vote *increased* slightly.
>However, despite the importance of what kind of government to have
>(UK, Devolved, or Scottish), the Constitutional question was only
>the 5th most important issue at the election. This accounts for,
>for example, the difference in support for the SNP (about 21%) versus
>the support for independence as an issue in itself (about 30%).
I'm not sure where you got the 5th most figure from Craig. Was this in the UK
as a whole? It was never off the TV and radio up here and sure looked like
number 1.
Neil Postlethwaite
>received by over 50%. This put them at about 21% (up from less than 14%)
>
>Which other party increased their share of the vote by over 7% ?
>
Is the an increase of 7% added to their total % or a 7% increase
on their last share of the vote. You are a little unclear. The SNP, a little
like the LibDems, have there vote concentrated here and their. Labour
strong in central belt, SNP in the Wilds, LibDems in Angus and here and their.
Tories in Stirling(ish) area/SW Scotland.
For the Tories a 3-4% increase in vote share (+ a gain of 2 seats)
was a result which confounded the critics/pollsters, hell almost everyone.
I think that is the real underlying story. Rather than the Labour acting
as if they had already won and the SNP promising Jobs for everyone who
wants one and Scotland would become some sort of Utopia under them
Neil
P.S. The Scottish Sun has gone quiet of late ...............
Gordon Reid
>
> .............. The SNP, a little
>like the LibDems, have there vote concentrated here and their. Labour
>strong in central belt, SNP in the Wilds, LibDems in Angus and here and their.
>Tories in Stirling(ish) area/SW Scotland.
>
I don't have the results to hand but I think you'll find the above not only
factually incorrect, but something of a sweeping generalistion in terms of
who gets votes where.
The Lib Dems do *not* hold Angus, the SNP do (and run the district council).
You may have been thinking of Fife NE which Lib Dems do hold.
Angus is rural, yes, but barely in the *Wilds* (if by that you mean the the
Highlands and Islands).
The Tories regained Kincardine & Deeside, and took the adjacent Aberdeen South
an urban seat in the North East and far removed from the rural Tory heartlands
alluded to in Stirling/Perth or the south west. There are also tories in
Edinburgh.
Labour not only won seats in the central belt but the other major cities
Dundee and Aberdeen. They also, I believe, hold one of the *Wildest*
seats in the country the Western Isles.
The other furthest flung seat is held by the Lib Dems in Orkney and Shetland.
And having more MPs than the SNP they could be said to be the greater force
in northern rural Scotland. Only a close scrutiny of who came second in each
seat would show where the real strengths and weaknesses lie for the SNP
and Lib Dems.
So please, lets not write off everything north of the Forth as being in the
wilderness, political or otherwise.
Gordon
David Morning
>In article <1992Apr27....@rdg.dec.com> cock...@majors.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:
>>The fact that the SNP actually lost a seat is an indictment of the
>>present electoral system.
>Since the seat they lost (Glasgow Govan) was gained at a by-election, I
>don't think too much significance should be attached to the loss in any
>case.
They lost 2 seats, both gained at by-elections (Glasgow Govan and Kincardine
and Deeside) and gained one.
Matthew Huntbach
>They lost 2 seats, both gained at by-elections (Glasgow Govan and Kincardine
>and Deeside) and gained one.
Kincardine & Deeside was won by the Liberal Democrats at a
by-election and lost back to the Tories in the general
election. The SNP lost the one seat they gained at a
by-election (Glasgow Govan) and didn't make any gains.
Matthew Huntbach
Innes MacKenzie
> For the Tories a 3-4% increase in vote share (+ a gain of 2 seats)
>was a result which confounded the critics/pollsters, hell almost everyone.
>I think that is the real underlying story. Rather than the Labour acting
>as if they had already won and the SNP promising Jobs for everyone who
>wants one and Scotland would become some sort of Utopia under them
By 3-4% I take it that you mean a 3-4% swing from Labour to Tories, ( it was
a 1% increase) the figure of a swing between Labour and the Tories is of little
significance considering the much larger changes in share of the vote for the
other two parties. This figure was designed to fit into the 'swingometer' system
that the BBC used for the British election, and as such it is misleading.
Anyway! One of the Tory gains was a by-election loss, and considering the 1983
massacre, one gain is bugger all (unless you`re a Conservative, in which case
it is a huge triumph! "smug grins all round, boys!").
But! It is a huge triumph, but only with respect to the fantasy outcome expected
by all.
> Neil
Innes.
--
Innes MacKenzie
>gd...@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr27....@rdg.dec.com> cock...@majors.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:
>>>The fact that the SNP actually lost a seat is an indictment of the
>>>present electoral system.
>>Since the seat they lost (Glasgow Govan) was gained at a by-election, I
>>don't think too much significance should be attached to the loss in any
>>case.
>They lost 2 seats, both gained at by-elections (Glasgow Govan and Kincardine
>and Deeside) and gained one.
Bollocks! They couldn't have lost Kincardine and Deeside as that constituency
did not have an SNP member of parliament in the first place!
K & D was lost by the Liberals.
SHOCK HORROR!!!!!!!
LIBDEM MP
WAS SNP INFILTRATOR
SHOCK!!!!!!!!!
I'll eat Golden Grahams if I'm wrong.
Innes.
--
Alison J Wyld
>
>
>I understood that one of the Dunfermline seats was SNP before the
>election as well (it was Dick Douglas's, who left Labour over the poll
>tax issue, and joined the SNP). He didn't defend it, but stood in
>Glasgow, and didn't get back.
>
Dunfermline West hardly counted as SNP, since Dick Douglas was voted
in as Labour. The feeling in the town was that when he left the Labour
party, he should have resigned and refought the constituency in a
by-election. Had he done so as an Independant he might well have won.
Had he done so as SNP he might have stood a chance.
Just staying on the way he did turned a lot of folk against him.
Of course Dunfermline West is about as rock-solid Labour as you can get...
Alison Wyld
Neil Postlethwaite
>
>The Lib Dems do *not* hold Angus, the SNP do (and run the district council).
>You may have been thinking of Fife NE which Lib Dems do hold.
>Angus is rural, yes, but barely in the *Wilds* (if by that you mean the the
>Highlands and Islands).
I was trying to remember which ones they held, alas I got the
wrong one and hit one of the SNP's 2/3 instead.
>The other furthest flung seat is held by the Lib Dems in Orkney and Shetland.
>And having more MPs than the SNP they could be said to be the greater force
>in northern rural Scotland. Only a close scrutiny of who came second in each
>seat would show where the real strengths and weaknesses lie for the SNP
>and Lib Dems.
>
>So please, lets not write off everything north of the Forth as being in the
>wilderness, political or otherwise.
I wasn't 'writing off' everyting above the forth-clyde line,
merely saying that the SNP tend to have seats in the sticks, Labour tend
to have seats in the central belt (Glasgow, Edinburgh), and the Tories
in rural (but not the wilds): S/W Scotland, Pentlands, Ayr. When I say
tend I mean the majority of their seats. I saw Jon Snow's map of Scotland
and the central belt was almost a pure shade of crimson. Galloway, Ayr
and Dumfriesshire (my home area) were a Tory blue. Above the Forth-Clyde
line the colours were orangy-yellow- MOSTLY but not always. I can't say I
remember seeing saw red on the Western Isles like you mention, but I could
be wrong.
I suppose for all the people in the islands and the far North of
Scotland if there had been a Scottish assembly, they would have started to
moan about Labour policies foisted upon them by the Labour majority in
the prosperous South of Scotland ?! Independence (in Europe) for the
Highlands !!!!!
Neil
Guy Barry
>I understood that one of the Dunfermline seats was SNP before the
>election as well (it was Dick Douglas's, who left Labour over the poll
>tax issue, and joined the SNP). He didn't defend it, but stood in
>Glasgow, and didn't get back.
Apparently he stood in Glasgow Garscadden against Donald Dewar, and
naturally got trounced. Can anyone see the point of this exercise?
Gordon Reid
>
> I wasn't 'writing off' everyting above the forth-clyde line,
>merely saying that the SNP tend to have seats in the sticks, Labour tend
>to have seats in the central belt (Glasgow, Edinburgh), and the Tories
>in rural (but not the wilds): S/W Scotland, Pentlands, Ayr. When I say
>tend I mean the majority of their seats. I saw Jon Snow's map of Scotland
>and the central belt was almost a pure shade of crimson. Galloway, Ayr
>and Dumfriesshire (my home area) were a Tory blue. Above the Forth-Clyde
>line the colours were orangy-yellow- MOSTLY but not always. I can't say I
>remember seeing saw red on the Western Isles like you mention, but I could
>be wrong.
OK so the map shows the North mostly orangy-yellow, but what the above paragraph
does not make clear is that that is MOSTLY Liberal Democrats territory! You
seem to assume that its somehow SNP at least if the paragraph below
is supposed to follow logically from the one above, which it doesn't :-)
> I suppose for all the people in the islands and the far North of
>Scotland if there had been a Scottish assembly, they would have started to
>moan about Labour policies foisted upon them by the Labour majority in
>the prosperous South of Scotland ?! Independence (in Europe) for the
>Highlands !!!!!
Not at all. If the North supports the Liberals then it supports a
pro-assembly, pro-PR party. That would mean that there would probably
be a Labour majority, but not overall. They would not be in a position
to foist anything off on the North or anyone else. The whole point of
PR is that we would prevent the kind of 'elected dictatorship' the
Westminster system has us trapped in. (Labour's proposals for the
Additional Member System with 72 directly elected and 40 (?) additional
MPs looks as though it might favour them slightly but its better than
first past the post)
The Highlands and Islands might even hold the balance of power !
Gordon
Neil Postlethwaite
>
>Not at all. If the North supports the Liberals then it supports a
>pro-assembly, pro-PR party. That would mean that there would probably
>be a Labour majority, but not overall. They would not be in a position
>to foist anything off on the North or anyone else. The whole point of
>PR is that we would prevent the kind of 'elected dictatorship' the
>Westminster system has us trapped in. (Labour's proposals for the
>Additional Member System with 72 directly elected and 40 (?) additional
>MPs looks as though it might favour them slightly but its better than
>first past the post)
Yes. PR the keystone of rock solid government.
Take a look at Italy, West Germany....
PR doesn't look so hot now does it. With first past the post you
can at least have strong government (right or wrong) for a reasonable
length of time to try out their policies (also right or wrong). With PR
you have to go round brown-tongueing the micro parties who how a balance
of power (without ANY populat mandate). See Israel for this. The Ultra Nutter
Religious parties hold the sway there !.
Neil
Rick Innis
Yes. PR the keystone of rock solid government.
Take a look at Italy, West Germany....
Yes...countries with much stronger economies than the UK. Sounds good to me.
With PR you have to go round brown-tongueing the micro parties who how a
balance of power (without ANY populat mandate).
This depends on the form of PR adopted, the threshold level at which smaller
parties get representation, and the willingness of the larger parties to deal
with each other instead of the extremists. There is *no* reason other than
political dogma why the two largest parties couldn't form a government
between them...am I alone in considering the split of "government" and
"opposition" to be an utterly ludricrous way of running a country?
See Israel for this. The Ultra Nutter Religious parties hold the sway
there !.
Bad example. The representation threshold in Israel is only 1%. If it was
much larger the extremes wouldn't be so influential.
Come on, Neil - you can do better than this!
--Rick.
--
Rick Innis, Computer Science, | "Has anyone seen the secret of the universe?"
Heriot-Watt University, | said Zebedee, arriving. "I know I left it
Edinburgh, Scotland. | around here somewhere."
ri...@cs.hw.ac.uk | -> My opinions, not the University's. <-
Jon Livesey
|> ne...@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:
|>
|> Yes. PR the keystone of rock solid government.
|>
|> Take a look at Italy, West Germany....
|>
|> Yes...countries with much stronger economies than the UK. Sounds good to me.
Italy: can't even make its economy look as large as the UK without
counting its black market as part of its GNP.
West Germany: where public service unions are currently on strike,
trash is lying uncollected in the streets, inflation is
rising, while it's falling everywhere in most of the rest
of Europe, including the UK
You were saying?
jon.
Richard Innis
What Italy, surely you jest !!!
Italy has one of the fastest growth rates in the EC; certainly did throughout
the 80's anyway. But then, most countries in Europe have better growth rates
than Britain; a side effect of 12 years of the Lords of Misrule.
So if PR ever gets here they'll start fighting over what sort of
PR they will want.
No; we just educate those concerned (ultimately, the voters) to decide what
form of PR we want. Before putting it in place.
Can YOU come up with 'better' examples than this then ?
Hey, I just came up with counterexamples. Now *you* refute them. If you
can.
Bob Gray
>Tories cooking the books for political ends, by the way (e.g. the proceeds
>of selling off hospital land count towards "spending on the health service"
>I believe, along with all money then spent by private developers to build
>on that land). They're also unreliable because Thatcher axed lots of
And you missed the little bit about the efficiency targets
also being counted towards "increased spending". If the
Government deems that hospital A has to make spending cuts
of 10 million pounds by "improved efficiency" this is then
counted by the Government as 10 million pounds in increased
spending.
Bob.
Neil Postlethwaite
>|>In article <RICK.92M...@helios.hci.hw.ac.uk> ri...@hci.hw.ac.uk (Richard Innis) writes:
>|>> Italy: can't even make its economy look as large as the UK without
>|>> counting its black market as part of its GNP.
>|>>
>|>>indeed than most of the EC.
>|>
>|>Growth of something small compared to growth of something bigger will always
>|>show a higher growth rate.
>|>
>|> An increase of 10 in 1000 is a 1 % increase.
>|>
>|> An increase if 100 in 10000 is also a 1% increase.
>|>
>|> Stop trying to cloud the issue with massaged figures.
>|>
>|>
>
>Bollocks I don't think Rick was talking about growth. He said GROWTH RATE
>which obviously (given a little maths) is a measure of growth in comparison
>to the present size. This is the only fair way to compare growth. I take it
>you want to compare net growth between UK and Italy? Senseless.
>
>You're the one who's massaging figures.
Forgive me for stating the obvious, ahem, but when I learned
percentages at school do they not they relate to the current event. A 10%
increase on a past event, say 50 for arguments sake, will make the present
value 55. %tge growth IS growth rate. There has been a X% growth in the
economy from 1990-91.
I don't see your point. You did actually read the article before
replying to it ??
The original point that was made (By ri...@hw.hci) was that Italy
has the highest growth rate (ie the biggest growth) of any E(E)C country,
which is a very dubious statement. Italys's economy is small compared
to Germany/UK/France (I would say in that order too!) so making comments
on something small growing faster than something large is nonsense.
My point exactly which you seem to deny and then support in the same breath.
Neil
Tim Bradshaw
> West Germany: where public service unions are currently on strike,
> trash is lying uncollected in the streets, inflation is
> rising, while it's falling everywhere in most of the rest
> of Europe, including the UK
If the UK had done what Germany did 1.5 years ago I wonder what our
situation would be like now? Of *course* Germany has big problems,
but they aren't anything to do with PR.
--tim
Hugh Osborne
>In article <RICK.92M...@millburn.hci.hw.ac.uk> ri...@hci.hw.ac.uk (Rick Innis) writes:
>> See Israel for this. The Ultra Nutter Religious parties hold the sway
>> there !.
>>
>>Bad example. The representation threshold in Israel is only 1%. If it was
>>much larger the extremes wouldn't be so influential.
>>
>>Come on, Neil - you can do better than this!
> I love a challenge !
> Can YOU come up with 'better' examples than this then ?
The Netherlands. Threshhold 1/150 of the vote (enough for one seat).
Of course, politics in the Netherlands is _terribly_ unstable.
Matthew Farwell
>In article <1992May1.1...@aisb.ed.ac.uk> gor...@aifh.ed.ac.uk (Gordon Reid) writes:
>>Not at all. If the North supports the Liberals then it supports a
>>pro-assembly, pro-PR party. That would mean that there would probably
>>be a Labour majority, but not overall. They would not be in a position
>>to foist anything off on the North or anyone else. The whole point of
>>PR is that we would prevent the kind of 'elected dictatorship' the
>>Westminster system has us trapped in. (Labour's proposals for the
>>Additional Member System with 72 directly elected and 40 (?) additional
>>MPs looks as though it might favour them slightly but its better than
>>first past the post)
>
> Yes. PR the keystone of rock solid government.
>
> Take a look at Italy, West Germany....
Yes, lets take a look at Italy. The government in Italy hasn't changed
for the last 24 years.
> PR doesn't look so hot now does it.
Oh, I don't know.
> With first past the post
>you can at least have strong government (right or wrong) for a
>reasonable length of time to try out their policies (also right or
>wrong). With PR you have to go round brown-tongueing the micro parties
>who how a balance of power (without ANY populat mandate). See Israel
>for this. The Ultra Nutter Religious parties hold the sway there !.
Israel is the worst example possible for PR. Nobody in their right mind
would argue that the system Israel has is good.
Dylan.
--
^ui h nJwer ra rheoe ,atkchtlFtcetsl aatouewM$6ua<5ub<qb*7+qaqi:^uo$-1%b:;>
-1%a:;>$:^Uo
$:go$$
Matthew Farwell
> West Germany: where public service unions are currently on strike,
> trash is lying uncollected in the streets, inflation is
> rising, while it's falling everywhere in most of the rest
> of Europe, including the UK
Umm, I think maybe ex-East Germany may have had something to do with
this....
Matthew Farwell
>In article <RICK.92M...@millburn.hci.hw.ac.uk> ri...@hci.hw.ac.uk (Rick Innis) writes:
>rivalry and bitching over the years for this to happen readily.
So the sooner they start, the sooner we'll have them working together.
>> See Israel for this. The Ultra Nutter Religious parties hold the sway
>> there !.
>>Bad example. The representation threshold in Israel is only 1%. If it was
>>much larger the extremes wouldn't be so influential.
>>
>>Come on, Neil - you can do better than this!
>
> I love a challenge !
>
> Can YOU come up with 'better' examples than this then ?
For the benfit of people who don't know:-
Israel has a parliament of 100 people. It has a threshold of 1% for
seats in that parliament (ie a party has to get > 1% before they get a
seat in the parliament). All members of the parliament are taken from
party lists, ie if a party gets 53% of the vote, then the first 53
people on the party list get seats. There are no constituencies in this
system.
This means that parties with very low percentages of the vote (ie 3 or
4%) get to hold the main parties to ransom, because they can tip the
balance.
I don't think anyone here actually thinks that this system is workable
here. (Very few think its workable in Israel). In Germany, the
threshold is 5%. Can't remember what it is in Italy.
A comment (about the system in the German parliament), I heard on the
radio during the election campaign, was, that although it is harder to
reach an agreement, when an agreement is reached, is based on a greater
consensus.
Jon Livesey
But their successes *are* to do with PR? Cause and effect must
work very strangely over there.
jon.
Jon Livesey
>
> Yes, lets take a look at Italy. The government in Italy hasn't changed
> for the last 24 years.
Didn't I read the other day that italy currently *has* no government?
No Head of State either, if I recall.
Maybe there's a Zen of Italian Government.
jon.
Jon Livesey
|> > West Germany: where public service unions are currently on strike,
|> > trash is lying uncollected in the streets, inflation is
|> > rising, while it's falling everywhere in most of the rest
|> > of Europe, including the UK
|>
|> Umm, I think maybe ex-East Germany may have had something to do with
|> this....
You mean you think there's a *reason*? Yes, of course there's a
reason. What else do you expect: economic problems to fall from
the sky or pop out of a cornflakes package? There's always a
reason.
There were reasons when the garbage used to lie for months uncollected
on the streets of London.
However, if German Unions strike because they want a 5.4% raise rather
than the 4.8% they are being offered, they still bring things to a halt,
and garbage still lies uncollected in the street.
jon.
Jon Livesey
|> >
|> > Labour and the Tories working together. No way. Too much bitter
|> >rivalry and bitching over the years for this to happen readily.
|>
|> So the sooner they start, the sooner we'll have them working together.
Who needs that? With two major parties at one another's throats,
we have some chance that they'll keep an eye on one another, point
out one another's weaknesses, expose one another's scandals. It
dosn't work a hundred percent, and some dirt will stay buried, but
as long as the way to power is to knock the other guy out of the
ring, we'll have at least some vigorous debate and criticism. The
parties have an interest in beating one another up.
When the X-ist and Y-ist parties "work together", then they have an
interest in keeping one another in power. The way to maintain
oneself in power is to maintain ones coalition partners in power,
and the voter is the ultimate loser.
Can you really imagine that the Tories, the big Companies, Labour,
and the Unions, all together in one cozy bunch, is a good idea?
It sounds like a nightmare to me, and not half so funny as today.
jon.
Matthew Farwell
Well, sort of. The problems the Germans are having at the minute can
nearly always be traced back to reunification. The thing about the
German system is that it means that people *have* to talk to one
another (unlike some systems I could mention), and the ruling party
can't just go on its merry way without taking any notice of anyone
else.
Robin Fairbairns
> In article <1992May1.1...@aisb.ed.ac.uk> gor...@aifh.ed.ac.uk (Gordon Reid) writes:
>>
>>Not at all. If the North supports the Liberals then it supports a
>>pro-assembly, pro-PR party. That would mean that there would probably
>>be a Labour majority, but not overall. They would not be in a position
>>to foist anything off on the North or anyone else. The whole point of
>>PR is that we would prevent the kind of 'elected dictatorship' the
>>Westminster system has us trapped in. (Labour's proposals for the
>>Additional Member System with 72 directly elected and 40 (?) additional
>>MPs looks as though it might favour them slightly but its better than
>>first past the post)
>
> Yes. PR the keystone of rock solid government.
>
> Take a look at Italy,
Italy has a curious habit of declaring that the government has collapsed
and then creating a `new' government which is substantially identical to
the previous one. They've been doing this since the war; when I was a
kid in the 50s, Italy was the country in Europe everyone considered to
be the "economic miracle"
> West Germany....
Has had rock solid government for as long as I can remember, with either
the Christian (~= Cons) or the Social (~= Lab) Democrats in coalition
with the Free (~= Lib) Democrats.
Kohl at the last election sought a mandate to reunify, on the grounds
that it would "cost the workers nothing". To no-one's surprise, the
workers are having to pay through the nose for reunification. Result:
Germany gets the sort of situation we had in 1978-9 on the basis of our
FPTP system. Wow!
> PR doesn't look so hot now does it.
Hard cases make bad law. Legislation should attempt to do what's right,
not to solve perceived single problems.
> With first past the post you
> can at least have strong government (right or wrong) for a reasonable
> length of time to try out their policies (also right or wrong).
I've lived through three periods of lame-duck governments in the UK -
1963-4, 1973-4, 1978-9. Strangely enough, they were all FPTP-elected.
> With PR
> you have to go round brown-tongueing the micro parties who how a balance
> of power (without ANY populat mandate). See Israel for this. The Ultra Nutter
> Religious parties hold the sway there !.
Oh come on: my perception is that a religious party is the largest
single party in Israel, and is the main party in the coalition. I can't
see how Israel contributes on either side of this argument.
--
Robin Fairbairns, Senior Consultant, postmaster and general dogsbody
Laser-Scan Ltd., Science Park, Milton Rd., Cambridge CB4 4FY, UK
Email: ro...@lsl.co.uk --or-- r...@cl.cam.ac.uk
Matthew Huntbach
>OK so the map shows the North mostly orangy-yellow, but what the above
>paragraph does not make clear is that that is MOSTLY Liberal Democrats
>territory! You seem to assume that its somehow SNP at least if the
>paragraph below is supposed to follow logically from the one above,
>which it doesn't :-)
The personalities of the candidates count for a lot more in the
Highlands and Islands than they do in the rest of the country.
You cannot draw very many conclusions from the actual party of
its MPs. Caithness and Sutherland, for example, happily went on
voting for Robert MacLennan as he went from Labour to SDP to
Liberal Democrat. Other Labour areas whose MPs joined the SDP
soon reverted to Labour as for them it was the party label, not
the personality that was important.
Matthew Huntbach
Neil Postlethwaite
>>
>> Take a look at Italy, West Germany....
>
>Yes, lets take a look at Italy. The government in Italy hasn't changed
>for the last 24 years.
>
Yes, but how many elections have there been in Italy since the war.
About 50. On average once a year. That climate does not make for getting
much work done when they spend most ofd their time having elections and
getting kicked out of office because a minor party withdrwas support for
whatever reason they have.
Neil
Matthew Farwell
>In article <1992May04.2...@ibmpcug.co.uk>, dy...@ibmpcug.co.uk (Matthew Farwell) writes:
>|> In article <1992May4.0...@cs.hw.ac.uk> ne...@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:
>|> > Labour and the Tories working together. No way. Too much bitter
>|> >rivalry and bitching over the years for this to happen readily.
>|> So the sooner they start, the sooner we'll have them working together.
>
>Who needs that? With two major parties at one another's throats,
>we have some chance that they'll keep an eye on one another, point
>out one another's weaknesses, expose one another's scandals. It
>dosn't work a hundred percent, and some dirt will stay buried, but
>as long as the way to power is to knock the other guy out of the
>ring, we'll have at least some vigorous debate and criticism. The
>parties have an interest in beating one another up.
Oh, yes. Lets depend on the other party for exposures. Of course,
nobody believes polticians, remember, especially when they're slagging
off other politicians? Apart from that, the opposition has *no*
information about the government, apart from what the government
publish. This even extends to when they come into power. The first
couple of years of any term of office is almost given over to finding
out what the hell is going on in the country. How can anyone get any
work done under those circumstances?
>Can you really imagine that the Tories, the big Companies, Labour,
>and the Unions, all together in one cozy bunch, is a good idea?
I wouldn't say cozy. I don't think they'll ever be cozy, because their
goals are so different. But cooperating is another thing altogether.
Matthew Farwell
But the leading coalition *hasn't* *changed* for 24 years. Its been the
same 4 parties. And Italy actually has a phenomenal average turnout
(>85%). Pity we can't get that here eh?
Jon Livesey
|> In article <kcq...@zola.esd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >
|> >Who needs that? With two major parties at one another's throats,
|> >we have some chance that they'll keep an eye on one another, point
|> >out one another's weaknesses, expose one another's scandals. It
|> >dosn't work a hundred percent, and some dirt will stay buried, but
|> >as long as the way to power is to knock the other guy out of the
|> >ring, we'll have at least some vigorous debate and criticism. The
|> >parties have an interest in beating one another up.
|>
|> Oh, yes. Lets depend on the other party for exposures. Of course,
|> nobody believes polticians, remember, especially when they're slagging
|> off other politicians?
I'll believe them if they have evidence. I certainly would not disbelieve
someone with hard evidence just becasue they were a politician. What I
fear is the behaviour of politicians who have a strong motivation to keep
the current mob in office.
|> Apart from that, the opposition has *no* information about the
|> government, apart from what the government publish.
That's funny. They often claim they *do* have information, and
they often produce it.
|>
|> >Can you really imagine that the Tories, the big Companies, Labour,
|> >and the Unions, all together in one cozy bunch, is a good idea?
|>
|> I wouldn't say cozy. I don't think they'll ever be cozy, because their
|> goals are so different. But cooperating is another thing altogether.
If their goals are so different, and we believe in democracy, then we
should allow the people to choose between them.
jon.
Jon Livesey
|> >
|> > Yes, but how many elections have there been in Italy since the war.
|> >About 50. On average once a year. That climate does not make for getting
|> >much work done when they spend most ofd their time having elections and
|> >getting kicked out of office because a minor party withdrwas support for
|> >whatever reason they have.
|>
|> But the leading coalition *hasn't* *changed* for 24 years.
Have you actually been reading the papers, Matthew? The current state
of italian politics has been so frustrating for everyone that there has
emerged a whole new party, the Northern Alliance, whose declared aim
is to dismantle the system, which, they say, leads to the ruling coalition
paying off everone in sight to stay in existence. The President just
resigned because it has become necessary to disolve Parliament to solve
the current impasse, just weeks after the last General Election, and a
lame duck President does not have the power to do that (Let's hear it
for written Constitutions, blech)
Come to think of it, Japan has had the same party in office since John
Major was in nappies, and they have what is notoriously the most corrupt
politicial system in the developed world. These cozy little arrangements
between several parties and big industrialists may look very nice and
stable from the outside, but once they get their hands on the Treasury,
they do have a slight tendency to use the voters' own money to buy a
continuation of that stability.
|> And Italy actually has a phenomenal average turnout (>85%). Pity we
|> can't get that here eh?
I'd like to see 95% voter turnout in the UK, but I would not like to
see Italian or Japanese style corruption.
jon.
Robin Fairbairns
I'ld like to see someone who actually _knows_ about Italian politics
posting here (I for one have contributed to the noise without any
qualification). In characteristic British fashion, many of the posts
seem somewhat Xenophobic...
FWIW, _my_ perceptions are:
1. Italian governments are perenially unstable
2. This results in a classic case of "plus \c ca change, plus c'est le
m\^eme chose"
3. There are many fewer elections than there are changes of government
4. The present situation, where the president has also resigned, is an
interesting new turn of events
Matthew Farwell
>In article <1992May05.0...@ibmpcug.co.uk>, dy...@ibmpcug.co.uk (Matthew Farwell) writes:
>|> In article <kcj...@zola.esd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>|> >In article <TFB.92Ma...@eagle.aisb.ed.ac.uk>, t...@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Tim Bradshaw) writes:
>|> >|> Of *course* Germany has big problems, but they aren't anything
>|> |> to do with PR.
>|> >But their successes *are* to do with PR? Cause and effect must
>|> >work very strangely over there.
>|> Well, sort of. The problems the Germans are having at the minute can
>|> nearly always be traced back to reunification.
>
>Public Worker struggles - but even if it were Unification behind all
>this, Unification was implemented by a government which is itself the
>product of PR.
Errr, hang on a minute here. This strike is the first major strike in
Germany for 28 years. The Union leaders, when interviewed, give the
reason for the strike as 'we are having to bear the costs of
reunification'. Also, German reunification was in the German
constitution. (Just like Irish reunification is in the Irish
constitution). They couldn't avoid it if they wanted to. They'd have
had to have a referendum to change the constitution.
>I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways. If you are going to say
>that Germany's successes have to do with PR - personally I think that
>the Germans themselves deserve most of the credit, not some electoral
>system - then you can't just wave away any failures.
I agree. The Germans do deserve the credit. And the system helped,
because their system promotes contact and dialogue, rather than shouting
at each other across 18 feet of carpet.
Matthew Farwell
>|> In article <kcq...@zola.esd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>|> >Who needs that? With two major parties at one another's throats,
>|> >we have some chance that they'll keep an eye on one another, point
>|> >out one another's weaknesses, expose one another's scandals. It
>|> >dosn't work a hundred percent, and some dirt will stay buried, but
>|> >as long as the way to power is to knock the other guy out of the
>|> >ring, we'll have at least some vigorous debate and criticism. The
>|> >parties have an interest in beating one another up.
>|> Oh, yes. Lets depend on the other party for exposures. Of course,
>|> nobody believes polticians, remember, especially when they're slagging
>|> off other politicians?
>I'll believe them if they have evidence. I certainly would not disbelieve
>someone with hard evidence just becasue they were a politician. What I
>fear is the behaviour of politicians who have a strong motivation to keep
>the current mob in office.
What do you define as evidence? Remember, only the current government
know what the current government are really doing.
>|> Apart from that, the opposition has *no* information about the
>|> government, apart from what the government publish.
>That's funny. They often claim they *do* have information, and
>they often produce it.
I think 'claim' is the right word here. Where does that information
come from? Leaks. The only way you can find out what the government is
doing is by a civil servant or politician breaking a promise. Sounds
like a good system to me.
But this is really quite different from PR. This is more to do with
Freedom of Information.
>|> >Can you really imagine that the Tories, the big Companies, Labour,
>|> >and the Unions, all together in one cozy bunch, is a good idea?
>|> I wouldn't say cozy. I don't think they'll ever be cozy, because their
>|> goals are so different. But cooperating is another thing altogether.
>If their goals are so different, and we believe in democracy, then we
>should allow the people to choose between them.
What about the freedom of choice of all the people that didn't vote for
the winning party? (57% in the last election).
Matthew Huntbach
>Come to think of it, Japan has had the same party in office since John
>Major was in nappies, and they have what is notoriously the most corrupt
>politicial system in the developed world. These cozy little arrangements
>between several parties and big industrialists may look very nice and
>stable from the outside, but once they get their hands on the Treasury,
>they do have a slight tendency to use the voters' own money to buy a
>continuation of that stability.
That is precisely the argument against the current system in
Britain which looks like it will keep the Conservatives in
indefinitely.
Matthew HUntbach
Matthew Huntbach
>Come to think of it, Japan has had the same party in office since John
>Major was in nappies, and they have what is notoriously the most corrupt
>politicial system in the developed world. These cozy little arrangements
>between several parties and big industrialists may look very nice and
>stable from the outside, but once they get their hands on the Treasury,
>they do have a slight tendency to use the voters' own money to buy a
>continuation of that stability.
That is precisely the argument against the current system in
Nick Haines
Have you actually been reading the papers, Matthew? The current state
of italian politics has been so frustrating for everyone that there has
emerged a whole new party, the Northern Alliance, whose declared aim
is to dismantle the system, which, they say, leads to the ruling coalition
paying off everone in sight to stay in existence.
Is this the same `northern alliance' that basically wants to ditch
Southern Italy, and stop what they see as `immigration' and `foreign
aid' from flowing south?
Nick Haines ni...@cs.cmu.edu
Rick Innis
Stop trying to cloud the issue with massaged figures.
Who's massaging figures? I'm just pointing out that the italian government's
economic policies seem to have better results for Italy than the British
Government's to for Britain.
>Inflation figures in the UK are pretty unreliable, by the way; like most
>economic indicators they're thoroughly cooked before being served to the
>public. Does anyone have any figures on what unemployment in the UK would
>be by 1979 measures?
Going by 1979 we would all be screwed now if Labour were still in.
Remember transport strikes, steel strikes, refuse strikes (and it all
piling up in the streets and rotting and festering away)....... Never again
Re-read my paragraph. Then answer the question instead of smokescreening.
Remember higher education? Student grants? Unemployment benefit? Housing
benefit? The NHS?.........never again.
--Rick.
--
Rick Innis, Computer Science, | "Has anyone seen the secret of the universe?"
Heriot-Watt University, | said Zebedee, arriving. "I know I left it
Edinburgh, Scotland. | around here somewhere."
ri...@cs.hw.ac.uk | -> My opinions, not the University's. <-
abr...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Israeli political system. Though this is irrelevant to the entire
argument, I wanted to correct your misapprehension about the religious
parties in Israel. There are actually several parties with a few
seats each in the Knesset, each with a different rabbi as a leader.
The largest one, the National Religious Party, formed coalitions
with the Labor Party until about 1977, when a scandal involving
Sabbath observance broke that tie.
I don't have the exact figures on me, but the religious parties do
not get a large percentage of votes, or seats. I'd be quite out
of my league if I tried to explain how the Israeli political
system works, but I think the party in power forms coalitions
with the little religious parties by making concessions on
religious issues that aren't all that popular in the country.
Why do you think Israel has no civil divorce, for example?
I don't know if this is at all helpful for your ongoing,
really interesting argument on PR.
Jon Livesey
>
> I'ld like to see someone who actually _knows_ about Italian politics
> posting here (I for one have contributed to the noise without any
> qualification). In characteristic British fashion, many of the posts
> seem somewhat Xenophobic...
Oh! Heavens no! No, no no. We respect and admire the Italians.
It's just their government we don't want.
jon.
Jon Livesey
Well, no. Of course it's not the same argument at all. If you think
that some Tory MPs are too close to some industrialists, you can vote the
rascals out and vote in the disgust, .... I'm sorry, I'll read that again,
the distinguished gentlemen of the Labour Party.
What I am arguing against is what was suggested here, a kind of coalition
of Labour and Conservatives. I find that just a little scary.
jon.
Jon Livesey
Well, I am afraid that's what it is. I didn't say I approved of these
people. I said that the current state of Italian politics has so
frustrated the voters that they have become willing to vote for such
a party.
I hope you can see the distinction I am making there.
jon.
Jon Livesey
|> In article <ke5...@zola.esd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >
|> >I doubt very much if that is true - they sound like classic Government/
|> >Public Worker struggles - but even if it were Unification behind all
|> >this, Unification was implemented by a government which is itself the
|> >product of PR.
|>
|> Errr, hang on a minute here. This strike is the first major strike in
|> Germany for 28 years. The Union leaders, when interviewed, give the
|> reason for the strike as 'we are having to bear the costs of
|> reunification'.
Oh, sure. No problem with that. The way that Kohl carried out
Reunification dealt the currency a blow, and so they had to up the
interest rates, and now they are trying to slow inflation, so the
Unions can't have the rises they would like. But so what, this is
still something that the German government did to itself.
|> Also, German reunification was in the German constitution. (Just
|> like Irish reunification is in the Irish constitution). They couldn't
|> avoid it if they wanted to.
Oh come on. We were all there. There was a period when an independent
East German state was a possibility.
You still seem to be following the same line. If you can think of
a reason why this and that happens to Germany, then it somehow doesn't
count.
It does count. Whatever happens to a country, short of natural disaster,
has something to do with the way it runs. I'm not saying that PR is
solely responsible for the current strike. I think it's a ludicrous
idea. I'm saying that if you are going to run around saying "PR is
great, look at Germany" then people are entitled to retort "Yes, indeed.
Look at Germany!".
|>
|> I agree. The Germans do deserve the credit. And the system helped,
|> because their system promotes contact and dialogue, rather than shouting
|> at each other across 18 feet of carpet.
Well, that's a clever argument, but it's apples and oranges. The people
who sat down and negotiated forty years of pretty consistent industrial
peace in Germany were Employers and unions, not left and right parties.
Unions in the UK could have been just as cooperative in the same period.
Heck, if they had been, we would probably have a higher standard of living
today, *and* a Labour Government. The Labour Party was assassinated
by the Unions, by accident. Sad, really.
jon.
Jon Livesey
|> > ne...@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:
|> Stop trying to cloud the issue with massaged figures.
|>
|> Who's massaging figures? I'm just pointing out that the italian government's
|> economic policies seem to have better results for Italy than the British
|> Government's to for Britain.
Um, well, you can "point it out" if you like, but you havn't actually
produced any evidence, have you? Italy has very wide social disparities,
terrible poverty in the South, rule by Mafia in some areas, assassination of
judges, notorious corruption, perennial public worker strikes, flight of
capital. In fact, they have, or at least had until recently the kinds of
capital controls that the UK was able to give up in the early eighties.
They have a very large annual fiscal deficit, and a very large accumulated
national debt, about three times the UK level when expressed as a percentage
of GNP, plus ten percent unemployment. Oh yes, and they just passed a
jail sentence on the head of the nation's largest (?) industrial company
for involvement in corruption.
I don't see what's so strikingly superior about the Ialian experience.
Obviously it's not Burundi (sorry, Burundi) but it's not so hot either.
|> Remember higher education? Student grants? Unemployment benefit? Housing
|> benefit? The NHS?.........never again.
You mean they abolished higher education while I wasn't watching. Well,
why didn't you say? That explains a lot.
jon.
Dylan Smith
> Remember transport strikes, steel strikes, refuse strikes (and it all
> piling up in the streets and rotting and festering away)....... Never
> again !!!
>
>Yes, things are so much better now - inadequate transport, a nonexistent
>steel industry, people piling up in the streets and rotting and festering
>away...
And not to mention mass unemployment rivalling the great depression of the
30's...
--
Email : JANET d_s...@brispoly.csd | Everywhere else d_s...@csd.brispoly.ac.uk
dy...@brispoly.hal | dy...@hal.brispoly.ac.uk
Matthew Huntbach
> PR doesn't look so hot now does it. With first past the post you
>can at least have strong government (right or wrong) for a reasonable
>you have to go round brown-tongueing the micro parties who how a balance
>of power (without ANY populat mandate). See Israel for this. The Ultra Nutter
>Religious parties hold the sway there !.
Well, we only narrowly avoided the UK government having to
brown-tongue Ian Paisley after the last election, while the
1974-79 Labour government ended up without a majority
brown-tongueing every minority party MP there was.
First-past-the-post is no guarantee of single-party government.
It only works approximately in the UK because 1/3 of the
country returns all Labour MPs on a 55% Labour vote, 1/3
returns all Tory MPs on a 55% Tory vote, 1/4 has a reasonable
chance of returning either Tory or Labour, and only 1/12 has
any chance of returning anything else. A slight change in the
distribution (arguably we have already seen it - hence
permanent Tory government) would destroy the idea of FPTP
resulting in two big parties alternating in one-party
government.
Matthew Huntbach
Duncan C Thomson
>In article <ke5...@zola.esd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com writes:
>
> Have you actually been reading the papers, Matthew? The current state
> of italian politics has been so frustrating for everyone that there has
> emerged a whole new party, the Northern Alliance, whose declared aim
> is to dismantle the system, which, they say, leads to the ruling coalition
> paying off everone in sight to stay in existence.
>
>Is this the same `northern alliance' that basically wants to ditch
>Southern Italy, and stop what they see as `immigration' and `foreign
>aid' from flowing south?
As far as I was aware the "Leagues" in Italy were standing for election on
a platform of splitting Italy up into three parts (basically the north, the
south and the middle). They took a fairly large proportion of votes in the
north which is more industrialised and where the rest of Italy is looked on
as corrupt, Mafia-run, and money-soaking. Elsewhere they didn't do so well.
The problem with Italy's government is not so much PR as the system of PR
itself. Many different systems of PR exist, some allow easy representation
of fringe parties, some keep representation more to the mainstream. There
is certainly more `democracy' in PR than in FPTP, but to my mind, any kind
of representative democracy is more of an elected oligarchy than any kind
of true `democracy'.
Why has eunet.politics suddenly become a forum for discussion about Italian
and German politics, discussed by Americans, under the subject "Democracy for
Scotland"?
-Duncan
Duncan <dun...@spd.eee.strathclyde.ac.uk> | .__ _. _ .__._ _ , .___ _
Thomson (OR <cnb...@vaxa.strath.ac.uk>) | |_ |_ |_||_ |_|/_\|\| | / \
SPD, Dept of EEE, University of Strathclyde | |__._|| |__| \| || | | \_/
204 George Street, Glasgow G1 1XW, UK | esperanto - lingvo internacia
Jon Livesey
|> From: ne...@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite)
|> > PR doesn't look so hot now does it. With first past the post you
|> >can at least have strong government (right or wrong) for a reasonable
|> >length of time to try out their policies (also right or wrong). With PR
|> >you have to go round brown-tongueing the micro parties who how a balance
|> >of power (without ANY populat mandate). See Israel for this. The Ultra Nutter
|> >Religious parties hold the sway there !.
|>
|> Well, we only narrowly avoided the UK government having to
|> brown-tongue Ian Paisley after the last election, while the
|> 1974-79 Labour government ended up without a majority
|> brown-tongueing every minority party MP there was.
Great. Now we start evaluating systems based on what might
have happened, but didn't.
|>
|> First-past-the-post is no guarantee of single-party government.
|> It only works approximately in the UK because [explanation
|> deleted]
This is more of the same. Giving the reasons *why* it works takes
nothing away from the plain fact that it *does* work. It works.
This is very similar to the notion that you can dismiss Germany's
recent problems if you can think of a plausible reason why they
occurred. They occurred.
A while back I made a crack about cause and effect working funny
over there. I'm beginning to wonder if you know what cause
and effect actually is.
jon.
Jon Livesey
|> In eunet.politics, ni...@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
|> >In article <ke5...@zola.esd.sgi.com> liv...@solntze.esd.sgi.com writes:
|> >
|> > Have you actually been reading the papers, Matthew? The current state
|> > of italian politics has been so frustrating for everyone that there has
|> > emerged a whole new party, the Northern Alliance, whose declared aim
|> > is to dismantle the system, which, they say, leads to the ruling coalition
|> > paying off everone in sight to stay in existence.
|> >
|> >Is this the same `northern alliance' that basically wants to ditch
|> >Southern Italy, and stop what they see as `immigration' and `foreign
|> >aid' from flowing south?
|>
|> As far as I was aware the "Leagues" in Italy were standing for election on
|> a platform of splitting Italy up into three parts (basically the north, the
|> south and the middle). They took a fairly large proportion of votes in the
|> north which is more industrialised and where the rest of Italy is looked on
|> as corrupt, Mafia-run, and money-soaking. Elsewhere they didn't do so well.
Right. That's why Nick's comment is right on. If they get their way,
then in effect the South will be left to shift for itself. Of course,
that won't actually happen because nothing *ever* happens in Italian
Politics.
|> Why has eunet.politics suddenly become a forum for discussion about Italian
|> and German politics, discussed by Americans, under the subject "Democracy for
|> Scotland"?
It seemed like a good idea at the time.
jon
Dylan Smith
>That is precisely the argument against the current system in
>Britain which looks like it will keep the Conservatives in
>indefinitely.
Remember also that anyone under about 25 probably dosen't remember anything
other than a Conservative government (and if they do, they were probably
too young to make sense of it).
Matthew Farwell
>In article <1992May6.1...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> m...@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>>That is precisely the argument against the current system in
>>Britain which looks like it will keep the Conservatives in
>>indefinitely.
>Remember also that anyone under about 25 probably dosen't remember anything
>other than a Conservative government (and if they do, they were probably
>too young to make sense of it).
By the time the next general election comes around (assuming its in
1997), nobody under 41 will have voted in a general election that the
conservatives didn't win.
Robin Fairbairns
> In article <1992May6.1...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> m...@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>
>>That is precisely the argument against the current system in
>>Britain which looks like it will keep the Conservatives in
>>indefinitely.
>
> Remember also that anyone under about 25 probably dosen't remember anything
> other than a Conservative government (and if they do, they were probably
> too young to make sense of it).
No: wrong. My (18-year-old) daughter just voted the way she did on the
basis of the impact of the arrival of the Tories while she was at her
first year in primary school. Children _are_ able to understand what's
going on around them at that sort of age, if you take the trouble to
explain things to them. (She's intelligent enough to realise that
there's probably somewhat of a bias in my explanations ;-)
Neil Postlethwaite
>other than a Conservative government (and if they do, they were probably
>too young to make sense of it).
"Thatcher's Children" ????????????
Neil
P.S. Smiley Included !
David Harris
>
>>> Remember also that anyone under about 25 probably dosen't remember anything
>>> other than a Conservative government (and if they do, they were probably
>>> too young to make sense of it).
Yes, I remember Conservative governments - I remember Edward Heath as Prime
Minister, and I'm 24. I think that a lot depends on how involved one is in
politics. I even have dim memories of the 1970 election when our candidate
in Northwich kept me entertained by catching me when I jumped of the stage
in the Labour Hall.
--
Email: D.A.H...@uk.ac.ed Phone: (+44) 31 650 5234
Dept of Physics, King's Buildings, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ UK
====== ``The labour we delight in physics pain'' - Macbeth II.3.48 ======