is the line "But one MP said Mr Miliband is “bunkerised” are unaware of how poorly he is regarded by colleagues." written in proper English? Doesn't it miss something?
You disagree with Dave and George that it was a big mistake?
I agree with them that it's a good reform - perhaps an indispensable one. As I said at the time, it was probably a political battle too far in a parliament where there were lots of other things to address; in politics you have to choose your time for taking on vested interests, and this was a battle I'd have pencilled in for the second term.
A senior Cabinet minister told The Times newspaper: “We’ve made three mistakes that I regret, the first being restructuring the NHS. The rest are minor.”
One insider said the plans, which were drawn up by Mr Lansley, were “unintelligible gobbledygook” and an ally of Chancellor George Osborne said: “George kicks himself for not having spotted it and stopped it. He had the opportunity then and he didn’t take it.”
A former No 10 adviser also told The Times: “No one apart from Lansley had a clue what he was really embarking on, certainly not the Prime Minister. He [Lansley] kept saying his grand plans had the backing of the medical establishment and we trusted him. In retrospect it was a mistake.”
A senior Cabinet minister told The Times newspaper: “We’ve made three mistakes that I regret, the first being restructuring the NHS. The rest are minor.”
One insider said the plans, which were drawn up by Mr Lansley, were “unintelligible gobbledygook” and an ally of Chancellor George Osborne said: “George kicks himself for not having spotted it and stopped it. He had the opportunity then and he didn’t take it.”
A former No 10 adviser also told The Times: “No one apart from Lansley had a clue what he was really embarking on, certainly not the Prime Minister. He [Lansley] kept saying his grand plans had the backing of the medical establishment and we trusted him. In retrospect it was a mistake.”
Yeah yeah, unattributed quotes taken out of context. So what?
is the line "But one MP said Mr Miliband is “bunkerised” are unaware of how poorly he is regarded by colleagues." written in proper English? Doesn't it miss something?
You disagree with Dave and George that it was a big mistake?
I agree with them that it's a good reform - perhaps an indispensable one. As I said at the time, it was probably a political battle too far in a parliament where there were lots of other things to address; in politics you have to choose your time for taking on vested interests, and this was a battle I'd have pencilled in for the second term.
So why are they briefing it was a big mistake. Perhaps because its brought the NHS to its financial knees.
If they thought its a good reform dont think they would describe it as in todays briefing do you?
A senior Cabinet minister told The Times newspaper: “We’ve made three mistakes that I regret, the first being restructuring the NHS. The rest are minor.”
One insider said the plans, which were drawn up by Mr Lansley, were “unintelligible gobbledygook” and an ally of Chancellor George Osborne said: “George kicks himself for not having spotted it and stopped it. He had the opportunity then and he didn’t take it.”
A former No 10 adviser also told The Times: “No one apart from Lansley had a clue what he was really embarking on, certainly not the Prime Minister. He [Lansley] kept saying his grand plans had the backing of the medical establishment and we trusted him. In retrospect it was a mistake.”
Same senior cabinet minisister that said there would be a Nat currency union ?
is the line "But one MP said Mr Miliband is “bunkerised” are unaware of how poorly he is regarded by colleagues." written in proper English? Doesn't it miss something?
"are" should be "and". Misprint, most likely...
who do they think they're? The Guardian? Shameful!
You disagree with Dave and George that it was a big mistake?
I agree with them that it's a good reform - perhaps an indispensable one. As I said at the time, it was probably a political battle too far in a parliament where there were lots of other things to address; in politics you have to choose your time for taking on vested interests, and this was a battle I'd have pencilled in for the second term.
So why are they briefing it was a big mistake. Perhaps because its brought the NHS to its financial knees.
If they thought its a good reform dont think they would describe it as in todays briefing do you?
What briefing? It's a journalist writing an article. Are you so ignorant of politics that you don't know journalists pick juicy bits from stuff they've heard in order to make a story?
In any case, there's nothing in the article which contradicts what I said. The reforms are good (and would have been better without the LibDem wobbles), but may still have been a political mistake.
Having said that, the moaning about the NHS is rather muted at the moment. All governments get moaning from the vested interests:
A senior Cabinet minister told The Times newspaper: “We’ve made three mistakes that I regret, the first being restructuring the NHS. The rest are minor.”
One insider said the plans, which were drawn up by Mr Lansley, were “unintelligible gobbledygook” and an ally of Chancellor George Osborne said: “George kicks himself for not having spotted it and stopped it. He had the opportunity then and he didn’t take it.”
A former No 10 adviser also told The Times: “No one apart from Lansley had a clue what he was really embarking on, certainly not the Prime Minister. He [Lansley] kept saying his grand plans had the backing of the medical establishment and we trusted him. In retrospect it was a mistake.”
Same senior cabinet minisister that said there would be a Nat currency union ?
No idea perhaps the police could access the Times sources phone records.
You mean like raping children? 81% of victims of clerical child abuse in the USA were boys.
Actually reading your link, I find:
The document said the question warranted “serious reflection” on how to educate people on the Roman Catholic position on sex and confirmed that the Church cannot consider gay marriage “on the same footing” as heterosexual partnerships.
The document also discussed non-religious marriages and cohabitation between straight couples, saying the Church must recognise the modern reality while “clearly presenting the ideal” of Catholic marriage.
Gays exist. Whoopee.
To end on a positive note; not many gays have abortions, an infinitely greater evil.
You disagree with Dave and George that it was a big mistake?
I agree with them that it's a good reform - perhaps an indispensable one. As I said at the time, it was probably a political battle too far in a parliament where there were lots of other things to address; in politics you have to choose your time for taking on vested interests, and this was a battle I'd have pencilled in for the second term.
So why are they briefing it was a big mistake. Perhaps because its brought the NHS to its financial knees.
If they thought its a good reform dont think they would describe it as in todays briefing do you?
What briefing? It's a journalist writing an article. Are you so ignorant of politics that you don't know journalists pick juicy bits from stuff they've heard in order to make a story?
In any case, there's nothing in the article which contradicts what I said. The reforms are good (and would have been better without the LibDem wobbles), but may still have been a political mistake.
Having said that, the moaning about the NHS is rather muted at the moment. All governments get moaning from the vested interests:
You mean like raping children? 81% of victims of clerical child abuse in the USA were boys.
Actually reading your link, I find:
The document said the question warranted “serious reflection” on how to educate people on the Roman Catholic position on sex and confirmed that the Church cannot consider gay marriage “on the same footing” as heterosexual partnerships.
The document also discussed non-religious marriages and cohabitation between straight couples, saying the Church must recognise the modern reality while “clearly presenting the ideal” of Catholic marriage.
Gays exist. Whoopee.
To end on a positive note; not many gays have abortions, an infinitely greater evil.
Apparently there wasn't any child abuse carried out by Catholic priests, it was all am invention of the BBC
You disagree with Dave and George that it was a big mistake?
I agree with them that it's a good reform - perhaps an indispensable one. As I said at the time, it was probably a political battle too far in a parliament where there were lots of other things to address; in politics you have to choose your time for taking on vested interests, and this was a battle I'd have pencilled in for the second term.
Ozzy doesn't appear to agree with you, that it was a good reform. Not according to the reports this morning.
Things I have learnt today : there are a great many academic economists in the US who blame Britain leaving the gold standard for the depression of the 1930s.
You mean like raping children? 81% of victims of clerical child abuse in the USA were boys.
Actually reading your link, I find:
The document said the question warranted “serious reflection” on how to educate people on the Roman Catholic position on sex and confirmed that the Church cannot consider gay marriage “on the same footing” as heterosexual partnerships.
The document also discussed non-religious marriages and cohabitation between straight couples, saying the Church must recognise the modern reality while “clearly presenting the ideal” of Catholic marriage.
Gays exist. Whoopee.
To end on a positive note; not many gays have abortions, an infinitely greater evil.
Lavender mafia.
Of course it's ok for some people to discriminate and promote their own in some institutions like the media, Hollywood, politics, women's fashion, the Catholic church...
A former number 10 advisor BRIEFED the Times that "No one apart from Lansley had a clue what he was really embarking on, certainly not the prime minister.“
We’ve made three mistakes that I regret, the first being restructuring the NHS. The rest are minor,” a CABINET MINISTER TELLS the Times.
But that was when the City was bankrolling Labour profligacy.
The only consolation we will get from a Miliband government if, God forbid, it happens, will be the grim amusement of watching all this load of manure land in his lap.
But that was when the City was bankrolling Labour profligacy.
The only consolation we will get from a Miliband government if, God forbid, it happens, will be the grim amusement of watching all this load of manure land in his lap.
"Gave in" being a somewhat inflammatory way of presenting what others might call "agreeing a deal". God forbid the government capitulates to the nurses.
You mean like raping children? 81% of victims of clerical child abuse in the USA were boys.
Actually reading your link, I find:
The document said the question warranted “serious reflection” on how to educate people on the Roman Catholic position on sex and confirmed that the Church cannot consider gay marriage “on the same footing” as heterosexual partnerships.
The document also discussed non-religious marriages and cohabitation between straight couples, saying the Church must recognise the modern reality while “clearly presenting the ideal” of Catholic marriage.
Gays exist. Whoopee.
To end on a positive note; not many gays have abortions, an infinitely greater evil.
Apparently there wasn't any child abuse carried out by Catholic priests, it was all am invention of the BBC
I am getting seriously concerned at the rising tide of homophobia on this site.
Admittedly it is restricted to a small number of posters - but it is creating a very unpleasant atmosphere.
There is always going to be a certain level of 'banter' and abuse going on - but this is something that the moderation team should be tackling.
If it was racist language being used, action would be taken. Why should homophobic language be permitted?
I will no doubt be called a liberal bigot again or some of the more colourful terms of abuse that were hurled my way a day or two ago when I raised the topic of homophobia before. But I will continue to flag it up when it happens - as it really should never be tolerated.
"Gave in" being a somewhat inflammatory way of presenting what others might call "agreeing a deal". God forbid the government capitulates to the nurses.
Well, any fool can stop a strike by giving in to the demands. Many fools did, 1965-1979, with absolutely disastrous results - amongst which were an ever-increasing number of strikes of course.
Since public sector workers are hugely better paid than their private-sector equivalents, at a time of very, very tight public finances, it would be irresponsible to increase pay even further.
But that was when the City was bankrolling Labour profligacy.
The only consolation we will get from a Miliband government if, God forbid, it happens, will be the grim amusement of watching all this load of manure land in his lap.
First ever strike by Midwives
First national strike by NHS staff over payfor 32 years
We have your Pope and he's going to do what we want.
From,
The Gays
xx
(Those kisses were with tongue)
Nope. But thanks for our concise theological analysis.
The key doctrine is contained in Humanae Vitae - where contraception was confirmed as sinful. There will be no change to that under this Pope. Thus no change to regarding homosexual acts as sinful.
What you must remember is that there is a large and fast growing church in Africa and they make my views on homosexuality look positively liberal. This is (I think) what the synod is addressing.
I am getting seriously concerned at the rising tide of homophobia on this site.
Admittedly it is restricted to a small number of posters - but it is creating a very unpleasant atmosphere.
There is always going to be a certain level of 'banter' and abuse going on - but this is something that the moderation team should be tackling.
If it was racist language being used, action would be taken. Why should homophobic language be permitted?
I will no doubt be called a liberal bigot again or some of the more colourful terms of abuse that were hurled my way a day or two ago when I raised the topic of homophobia before. But I will continue to flag it up when it happens - as it really should never be tolerated.
A non-binding motion that means absolutely nothing.
What a great use of parliamentary time...
Let's wait until Her Majesty actually receives the High Commissioner from Palestine.
Would Palestine join the Commonwealth?
According to Sunil, all countries should ;-)
Not exactly
All current Commonwealth members The former members (all of which have English as an official language): Ireland Zimbabwe Gambia
The nine other countries with English as an official language: USA USA! Philippines Eritrea Liberia Sudan South Sudan Palau Marshall Islands Micronesia
And Hong Kong (in spite if its return to China, still using English officially!)
And the other 24 non-Commonwealth EU nations, man! English is an official language of the EU, of course!
Beith, rh Sir Alan Blackman, Bob Djanogly, Mr Jonathan Dodds, rh Mr Nigel Freer, Mike McCrea, Dr William Mills, Nigel Offord, Dr Matthew Paisley, Ian Shannon, Jim Simpson, David Syms, Mr Robert
Now let's look who showed up for yes...or rather who didn't show up
I am getting seriously concerned at the rising tide of homophobia on this site.
Admittedly it is restricted to a small number of posters - but it is creating a very unpleasant atmosphere.
There is always going to be a certain level of 'banter' and abuse going on - but this is something that the moderation team should be tackling.
Yeah, and more generally the endless squabbling about race and sex is at best tedious. Bring back AV and Scottish referendums.
The problem is with ukip doing so well it brings out lots of trolls who smear us as BNP or racist, then the denials kick off a row
Roger keeps linking to pictures of hitler, Carlotta quotes interviewers rather than Farage, logical song links to spoofs from dick Delingpole, tonight hugh has called ukip racist
You can't really expect people not to respond when they're constantly trolled
Bacon Baker Benyon Bottomley Bridgen Crouch Davies from Monmouth Dinky Fuller Garnier Gillan Grieve Hollobone Holloway Jones David Latham Leigh Leslie Charlotte Lumley Main McCartney Menzies Ollerenshaw Robathan Robertson, both Hugh and Laurence Soames Bob Stewart Stephenson Turner from Isle of Wight Wharton Wollaston Yeo
I am getting seriously concerned at the rising tide of homophobia on this site.
Admittedly it is restricted to a small number of posters - but it is creating a very unpleasant atmosphere.
There is always going to be a certain level of 'banter' and abuse going on - but this is something that the moderation team should be tackling.
Yeah, and more generally the endless squabbling about race and sex is at best tedious. Bring back AV and Scottish referendums.
The problem is with ukip doing so well it brings out lots of trolls who smear us as BNP or racist, then the denials kick off a row
Roger keeps linking to pictures of hitler, Carlotta quotes interviewers rather than Farage, logical song links to spoofs from dick Delingpole, tonight hugh has called ukip racist
You can't really expect people not to respond when they're constantly trolled
I am getting seriously concerned at the rising tide of homophobia on this site.
Admittedly it is restricted to a small number of posters - but it is creating a very unpleasant atmosphere.
There is always going to be a certain level of 'banter' and abuse going on - but this is something that the moderation team should be tackling.
Yeah, and more generally the endless squabbling about race and sex is at best tedious. Bring back AV and Scottish referendums.
The problem is with ukip doing so well it brings out lots of trolls who smear us as BNP or racist, then the denials kick off a row
Roger keeps linking to pictures of hitler, Carlotta quotes interviewers rather than Farage, logical song links to spoofs from dick Delingpole, tonight hugh has called ukip racist
You can't really expect people not to respond when they're constantly trolled
Aw the poor wee lambs...
Just explaining why race gets mentioned so much, I'd be very surprised if ukip posters were the ones instigating it
Don't see why you are always so provocative to be honest, I can't remember ever even responding to anything you said
I am getting seriously concerned at the rising tide of homophobia on this site.
Admittedly it is restricted to a small number of posters - but it is creating a very unpleasant atmosphere.
There is always going to be a certain level of 'banter' and abuse going on - but this is something that the moderation team should be tackling.
Yeah, and more generally the endless squabbling about race and sex is at best tedious. Bring back AV and Scottish referendums.
The problem is with ukip doing so well it brings out lots of trolls who smear us as BNP or racist, then the denials kick off a row
Roger keeps linking to pictures of hitler, Carlotta quotes interviewers rather than Farage, logical song links to spoofs from dick Delingpole, tonight hugh has called ukip racist
You can't really expect people not to respond when they're constantly trolled
And Sunil keeps tweeting about UKIP's strong by-election performance in 2014
You can't really expect people not to respond when they're constantly trolled
I know the temptation to respond to provocation, but it's unwise to give in. SeanT has trolled me for years (sometimes he's even right) - I reply now and then, but mostly I just chuckle and move on. Otherwise it goes round in circles, doesn't it?
You disagree with Dave and George that it was a big mistake?
I agree with them that it's a good reform - perhaps an indispensable one. As I said at the time, it was probably a political battle too far in a parliament where there were lots of other things to address; in politics you have to choose your time for taking on vested interests, and this was a battle I'd have pencilled in for the second term.
So why are they briefing it was a big mistake. Perhaps because its brought the NHS to its financial knees.
If they thought its a good reform dont think they would describe it as in todays briefing do you?
What briefing? It's a journalist writing an article. Are you so ignorant of politics that you don't know journalists pick juicy bits from stuff they've heard in order to make a story?
In any case, there's nothing in the article which contradicts what I said. The reforms are good (and would have been better without the LibDem wobbles), but may still have been a political mistake.
Having said that, the moaning about the NHS is rather muted at the moment. All governments get moaning from the vested interests:
Three parties all have a quota, so all seats are filled, 1 for each party. If these parties ran more than one candidate, the second preferences of voters for eliminated parties would come into play to decide which would be elected. 1 seat would be deducted from the national total for the three parties.
Bolton PR^2 constituency (3 seats) 2010, quotas
Con 1.35 Lab 1.75 LD 0.62
Two parties have a quota, with one seat indeterminate at this point. After comparing the relative performance of the parties across constituencies, Labour would probably get a second seat. Proceed with 1,2,3 to discriminate between candidates, as necessary.
Note that the Tories would win seats in areas they didn't under FPTP.
Taking England 2010 as an example.
Entitlement PR^2
Con 283 Lab 142 LD 106 UKIP 2
Quotas obtained across the constituencies (seats remaining to be assigned)
Con 184 (99) Lab 106 (36) LD 52 (54) UKIP 0 (2)
To assign the remainders you could start with the smallest party (UKIP) and scan the (unfilled) constituencies to find its two best results, giving it seats there, and so on in order of size. Or you could use Buhagiar's Priority Queue, or some other method...
The PR^2 would be performed separately in the 4 nations, giving an overall UK (2010) result of:-
Con 302 (inc. 2 UCUNF) Lab 201 LD 119 SNP 8 SF 7 DUP 6 SDLP 3 PC 2 UKIP 2
thought this was quite interesting. clearly from a liberal left point of view, but maybe a bit more nuanced than the usual
It would be if it wasn't such a selective piece written for effect (loads of urban liberal dog whistles all over the place). However he doesn't mention that it suffered 13 years of decline under a Labour MP 1997-2010 (Westminster ignored it for 40 years) whilst its neighbouring seat survived better under a Tory MP. He doesn't mention that Thanet has a single council so as ever Margate's gain (the Turner Gallery) is Ramsgate's loss. Margate always was the wealthier town. He omits to mention Ramsgate once had a small fishing industry which disappeared because of the CFP and had a lot more agriculture around it but the CAP has seen to that or that it had a significant mining community until first Labour and then the Tories closed all the Kent pits. Thanet and Ramsgate in particular has been up against it since the late 1960's
Still for the former chief of the Guardian's Moscow bureau, I suppose it must count for as factual as it can get even if it is as bleak as mid-winter in a Gulag in Siberia.
Tell me how PR^2 maintains a constituency-candidate link, as you've claimed recently. Surely a big chunk of MPs would have to be top-ups?
I hope you can see from my examples that the implementation of PR^2 I have designed is intended to avoid:-
i) two classes of MP, constituency and list (top-ups) ii) the confusing 2 votes, one for the constituency, one for the list iii) lists altogether
although it would be perfectly possible to have a PR^2 system which included these, or a list only system (shudder), or various other electoral paraphernalia...
Comments
Alan Duncan deserves a great deal of credit tackling this issue, courageous.
We do have a historic responsibility.
A senior Cabinet minister told The Times newspaper: “We’ve made three mistakes that I regret, the first being restructuring the NHS. The rest are minor.”
One insider said the plans, which were drawn up by Mr Lansley, were “unintelligible gobbledygook” and an ally of Chancellor George Osborne said: “George kicks himself for not having spotted it and stopped it. He had the opportunity then and he didn’t take it.”
A former No 10 adviser also told The Times: “No one apart from Lansley had a clue what he was really embarking on, certainly not the Prime Minister. He [Lansley] kept saying his grand plans had the backing of the medical establishment and we trusted him. In retrospect it was a mistake.”
"I missed the Farage documentary. Was it worth watching?"
Yes very good if you detest Farage as much as I do
Others:
Scot Gnats
Camoron
Cameroons
Harriet Harperson I never liked because it replaced 'man' with 'son' which undermined the joke.
I know a few from computing:
Crapple
Windoze
If they thought its a good reform dont think they would describe it as in todays briefing do you?
amol rajan ✔ @amolrajan
+++ BREAKING: North Korean news agency says Kim Jong Un makes first public appearance in 40 days http://apne.ws/1tXnGRr +++
In any case, there's nothing in the article which contradicts what I said. The reforms are good (and would have been better without the LibDem wobbles), but may still have been a political mistake.
Having said that, the moaning about the NHS is rather muted at the moment. All governments get moaning from the vested interests:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4943596.stm
And that was when money was pouring into the coffers from the City at a rate never seen before or since.
Actually reading your link, I find: Gays exist. Whoopee.
To end on a positive note; not many gays have abortions, an infinitely greater evil.
It is clear Dave and George are trying to neutralise the issue by blaming Lansley
At least thats what Tory PBers who saw the article were saying this morning.
Very muted moaning on the first strike for 32 years
You really are incredible no wonder the NHS is so toxic for your party
To end on a positive note; not many gays have abortions, an infinitely greater evil.
Apparently there wasn't any child abuse carried out by Catholic priests, it was all am invention of the BBC
Andrew Pierce @toryboypierce
The new Mrs Clooney is in Greece campaigning for Britain to give back Elgin Marbles. What's it got to do with her.
To end on a positive note; not many gays have abortions, an infinitely greater evil.
Lavender mafia.
Of course it's ok for some people to discriminate and promote their own in some institutions like the media, Hollywood, politics, women's fashion, the Catholic church...
We’ve made three mistakes that I regret, the first being restructuring the NHS. The rest are minor,” a CABINET MINISTER TELLS the Times.
You are right nobody is briefing LOL
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/sep/22/uk.health
Nor is it the first dispute over pay - the only difference is that Labour gave in:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/jun/07/nhs.health
http://metro.co.uk/2007/07/23/last-bid-to-halt-mass-nhs-strike-561971/
But that was when the City was bankrolling Labour profligacy.
The only consolation we will get from a Miliband government if, God forbid, it happens, will be the grim amusement of watching all this load of manure land in his lap.
Nothing comes close to Dave Chameleon for me. So contrived a pun no one could ever stoop as low again.
To end on a positive note; not many gays have abortions, an infinitely greater evil.
Apparently there wasn't any child abuse carried out by Catholic priests, it was all am invention of the BBC
I guess the Boy's Scouts didn't work out.
NAMBLA.
I don't remember the Tories making an ad featuring Miliband the millipede, but maybe I missed it?
We have your Pope and he's going to do what we want.
From,
The Gays
xx
(Those kisses were with tongue)
49,598,035
(1980 census; self reported)[1]
27,657,961
(2010 census; self reported)[2]
9.0% of the U.S. population (2010)
I am getting seriously concerned at the rising tide of homophobia on this site.
Admittedly it is restricted to a small number of posters - but it is creating a very unpleasant atmosphere.
There is always going to be a certain level of 'banter' and abuse going on - but this is something that the moderation team should be tackling.
If it was racist language being used, action would be taken. Why should homophobic language be permitted?
I will no doubt be called a liberal bigot again or some of the more colourful terms of abuse that were hurled my way a day or two ago when I raised the topic of homophobia before. But I will continue to flag it up when it happens - as it really should never be tolerated.
Since public sector workers are hugely better paid than their private-sector equivalents, at a time of very, very tight public finances, it would be irresponsible to increase pay even further.
The Coalition does have the enviable record of getting both the Midwives and Headteachers to strike for the first time in history.
First national strike by NHS staff over payfor 32 years
As you say very muted
What's that got to do with how the church treats a young boy or girl who is brave enough to be honest about their sexuality?
The key doctrine is contained in Humanae Vitae - where contraception was confirmed as sinful. There will be no change to that under this Pope. Thus no change to regarding homosexual acts as sinful.
What you must remember is that there is a large and fast growing church in Africa and they make my views on homosexuality look positively liberal. This is (I think) what the synod is addressing.
An apology, please.
Do you honestly expect a Catholic to ignore it? Not to take on board some lessons?
To be blunt, homosexual Catholics were welcomed into the highest positions in the Catholic Church in America and, boy, did they let us down.
I think you'd better clarify your position.
All current Commonwealth members
The former members (all of which have English as an official language):
Ireland
Zimbabwe
Gambia
The nine other countries with English as an official language:
USA USA!
Philippines
Eritrea
Liberia
Sudan
South Sudan
Palau
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
And Hong Kong (in spite if its return to China, still using English officially!)
And the other 24 non-Commonwealth EU nations, man! English is an official language of the EU, of course!
The Nos were
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Blackman, Bob
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Freer, Mike
McCrea, Dr William
Mills, Nigel
Offord, Dr Matthew
Paisley, Ian
Shannon, Jim
Simpson, David
Syms, Mr Robert
Now let's look who showed up for yes...or rather who didn't show up
You're projecting your own... Actually I'd better stop before I get banned.
Wouldnt have been many 'Nos' without the DUP!
Dougie
Benn
Burnham
Coaker
Yvette
Cruddas
Curran
De Piero
the 2 Eagles
Flint
Harriet
Khan
Leslie
EdM
Reynolds
Smith
Thornberry
Trickett
Umunna
Rosie
rest of shadow cabinet absent
Roger keeps linking to pictures of hitler, Carlotta quotes interviewers rather than Farage, logical song links to spoofs from dick Delingpole, tonight hugh has called ukip racist
You can't really expect people not to respond when they're constantly trolled
Bacon
Baker
Benyon
Bottomley
Bridgen
Crouch
Davies from Monmouth
Dinky
Fuller
Garnier
Gillan
Grieve
Hollobone
Holloway
Jones David
Latham
Leigh
Leslie Charlotte
Lumley
Main
McCartney
Menzies
Ollerenshaw
Robathan
Robertson, both Hugh and Laurence
Soames
Bob Stewart
Stephenson
Turner from Isle of Wight
Wharton
Wollaston
Yeo
Don't see why you are always so provocative to be honest, I can't remember ever even responding to anything you said
Part of your job will be to clear up the mess in Rotherham, so you'd better get used to it.
Or find alternative employment.
Do go on .....
Is this now the official PB way?
I do sympathise, though.
http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDIQFjAC&url=http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/rp14-32.pdf&ei=H_3gU-K0Gei47AaNt4GwAQ&usg=AFQjCNFIlwpk8zLGWNbDVCxjpcBT2MsnuA&sig2=NdAFb1guaRI6dNCF24boJw&bvm=bv.72197243,d.ZGU
A true intellectual giant.
Anyway, g'night all.
G'night all ^_~
thought this was quite interesting. clearly from a liberal left point of view, but maybe a bit more nuanced than the usual
Or just pure racism.
Entitlement PR^2
Con 283
Lab 142
LD 106
UKIP 2
Quotas obtained across the constituencies (seats remaining to be assigned)
Con 184 (99)
Lab 106 (36)
LD 52 (54)
UKIP 0 (2)
To assign the remainders you could start with the smallest party (UKIP) and scan the (unfilled) constituencies to find its two best results, giving it seats there, and so on in order of size. Or you could use Buhagiar's Priority Queue, or some other method...
The PR^2 would be performed separately in the 4 nations, giving an overall UK (2010) result of:-
Con 302 (inc. 2 UCUNF)
Lab 201
LD 119
SNP 8
SF 7
DUP 6
SDLP 3
PC 2
UKIP 2
Lab 35.1
Con 31.3
UKIP 13.3
LD 11.2
UKIP should really be 13%, not 14%.
Likewise, for Lord Ashcroft's 32, 28, 19, 8, I get:
Lab 32.0
Con 27.8
UKIP 18.2
LD 9.6
UKIP should really be 18%, not 19%, and LD 10%, not 8%!
And on that bombshell, good night!
Still for the former chief of the Guardian's Moscow bureau, I suppose it must count for as factual as it can get even if it is as bleak as mid-winter in a Gulag in Siberia.
i) two classes of MP, constituency and list (top-ups)
ii) the confusing 2 votes, one for the constituency, one for the list
iii) lists altogether
although it would be perfectly possible to have a PR^2 system which included these, or a list only system (shudder), or various other electoral paraphernalia...