My daughter is a better person than me. She thought it was sad too.
Me, I think he deserves everything he gets.
Should the very significant number of people who support him be completely without representation?
Surely that is the core here. At least 25% of the British public agree completely with Corbyn. The Electoral System wants their opinion excised from the debate.
The FPTP system is forcing politics where parties bend with the wind instead of taking a principle and trying to persuade and sell that to people. Multi-party politics is needed an Corbyn demonstrates that.
I call bull. Where do you get the idea that at least a quarter of the public agree "completely" with Corbyn?
A quarter of the public may not consider him completely crazy. A quarter may find him less repellant than they find Cameron. But a quarter agree "completely"? I don't think so.
Then let us be certain.
Let us offer the British people fully representative government instead of gerrymandered, broken voting where people get ignored even when tehy have a significant plurality of support.
AMS offers all the proportionality of a proper electoral system while maintaining the (apparently) valued "local representative". A perfect system. Give it to the United Kingdom.
Now.
But the Uk people have shown no desire for such a system - if they had they would have voted LD or another party that proposed it.
They have never been offered such a system
AV is a form of FPTP, it is neither proportional nor fair.
They haven't been offered free pizza and green parrots for all.
Free owls yes - but they rejected that too.
The list of things we haven't been offered but some think we want is endless.
My daughter is a better person than me. She thought it was sad too.
Me, I think he deserves everything he gets.
Should the very significant number of people who support him be completely without representation?
Surely that is the core here. At least 25% of the British public agree completely with Corbyn. The Electoral System wants their opinion excised from the debate.
The FPTP system is forcing politics where parties bend with the wind instead of taking a principle and trying to persuade and sell that to people. Multi-party politics is needed an Corbyn demonstrates that.
I call bull. Where do you get the idea that at least a quarter of the public agree "completely" with Corbyn?
A quarter of the public may not consider him completely crazy. A quarter may find him less repellant than they find Cameron. But a quarter agree "completely"? I don't think so.
Then let us be certain.
Let us offer the British people fully representative government instead of gerrymandered, broken voting where people get ignored even when tehy have a significant plurality of support.
AMS offers all the proportionality of a proper electoral system while maintaining the (apparently) valued "local representative". A perfect system. Give it to the United Kingdom.
Now.
But the Uk people have shown no desire for such a system - if they had they would have voted LD or another party that proposed it.
They have never been offered such a system
AV is a form of FPTP, it is neither proportional nor fair.
They have been offered it in the form of parties putting it in their manifestos. If people cared enough about changing the system, they could vote for one of those parties. I regret most people do not care about changing the system enough to make it their prime reason for voting, however.
I believe UKIP put it in their manifesto and they did pretty well, in percentage terms at least.
Thanks. I hadn't realised the redesign was that poor.
One Conservative minister wanted to sue BAe. He was dissuaded by the fact that idiotic civil servants had signed off on the lunatic design - crippling any case. Plus the Lib Dems (strangely) wanted to protect BAe as a UK "Champion".
That plus the carrier comedy has essentially killed alot BAe influence with the current government. Notice poor old Con Coughlin getting all upset in the Telegraph about their lost orders....
It makes absolutely no sense to me why Public Sector contracts place the ENTIRE risk on the taxpayer and none of the rick on the private company.
Surely all contracts should involve risk on both parties. When you see companies who bid low then "revise" the price and governments simply agree to pay the extra, the whole premise of Public Sector contracts is undermined.
If a private company offers to build something for £10bn in a Public Sector contract then it should deliver exactly what is required for exactly £10bn and if it needs to spend more and make a loss, it should be the private company that pays the difference.
I imagine that happens more often than you realise, it just doesn't get publicised that often as it isn't deemed newsworthy.
While it might happen, and might not be publicised, surely it could be found somewhere on the internet. I have never, as yet, found an example.
I have. The security for the 2012 Olympics.
I wonder.
G4S made a huge amount of money under Labour and lost money under the Tories. Would they have executives who are more associated with one party over another?
One last comment on the defense review. It occurs to me that many here don't realise exactly how disastrous the Nimrod MRA4 was.
The essential idea was to keep the old fuselage (heavily refurbished) and replace the wings.
The new wings famously didn't fit. This was laughed off as part and parcel of using a 1950s plane - fits where it touches. But this touched on (ha) the fact that the original Comets were in fact badly built by De Havilands and a poor design. Many of the early crashes weren't due to metal fatigue, but simple poor design.
Anyway, the other thing the new wings had was an increased sweep. This moved the centre of lift backwards. So the MRA4 would tend to dive unless corrected... So BAe installed a massive trim tab on the tail. In effect a permanent tip-the-nose-up.
The only slight problem with that is that it meant that the fuselage of the MRA4 would be permanently under a bending strain in flight - together with vibration from the trim tab.
The MOD air safety people discovered that BAe hadn't done proper fatigue calculations, or indeed proper stability calculations on the modified aircraft. The answer to those sums, when done was pretty horrifying. To add to the fun, the fuel system which caused an earlier Nimrod to explode in mid air was unchanged....
The air safety people came to the conclusion that the MRA4 was not just unsafe, but that no practical redesign would make it so.
I don't know why we just didn't start a new plane design from scratch.
We can build bespoke supercarriers but not aircraft?
Why bother, when we can buy a proven and working design off the shelf? In addition there is the possibility of diverting some P8's intended for the US military to the UK, to speed up delivery of the first few operational aircraft.
Always plumping for 'Home Grown' is normally how we got into such a mess over the procurement of equipment in the past. Time to move on.
My daughter is a better person than me. She thought it was sad too.
Me, I think he deserves everything he gets.
Should the very significant number of people who support him be completely without representation?
Surely that is the core here. At least 25% of the British public agree completely with Corbyn. The Electoral System wants their opinion excised from the debate.
The FPTP system is forcing politics where parties bend with the wind instead of taking a principle and trying to persuade and sell that to people. Multi-party politics is needed an Corbyn demonstrates that.
I call bull. Where do you get the idea that at least a quarter of the public agree "completely" with Corbyn?
A quarter of the public may not consider him completely crazy. A quarter may find him less repellant than they find Cameron. But a quarter agree "completely"? I don't think so.
Then let us be certain.
Let us offer the British people fully representative government instead of gerrymandered, broken voting where people get ignored even when tehy have a significant plurality of support.
AMS offers all the proportionality of a proper electoral system while maintaining the (apparently) valued "local representative". A perfect system. Give it to the United Kingdom.
Now.
But the Uk people have shown no desire for such a system - if they had they would have voted LD or another party that proposed it.
They have never been offered such a system
AV is a form of FPTP, it is neither proportional nor fair.
The list of things we haven't been offered but some think we want is endless.
The list of things we have been offered, and rejected, but some think we want is pretty endless too. See every time the Green party claims to speak for the people, for a start.
One last comment on the defense review. It occurs to me that many here don't realise exactly how disastrous the Nimrod MRA4 was.
The essential idea was to keep the old fuselage (heavily refurbished) and replace the wings.
The new wings famously didn't fit. This was laughed off as part and parcel of using a 1950s plane - fits where it touches. But this touched on (ha) the fact that the original Comets were in fact badly built by De Havilands and a poor design. Many of the early crashes weren't due to metal fatigue, but simple poor design.
Anyway, the other thing the new wings had was an increased sweep. This moved the centre of lift backwards. So the MRA4 would tend to dive unless corrected... So BAe installed a massive trim tab on the tail. In effect a permanent tip-the-nose-up.
The only slight problem with that is that it meant that the fuselage of the MRA4 would be permanently under a bending strain in flight - together with vibration from the trim tab.
The MOD air safety people discovered that BAe hadn't done proper fatigue calculations, or indeed proper stability calculations on the modified aircraft. The answer to those sums, when done was pretty horrifying. To add to the fun, the fuel system which caused an earlier Nimrod to explode in mid air was unchanged....
The air safety people came to the conclusion that the MRA4 was not just unsafe, but that no practical redesign would make it so.
I don't know why we just didn't start a new plane design from scratch.
We can build bespoke supercarriers but not aircraft?
The UK is a very corrupt state.
You've made this claim before, and possibly pernicious influence connections aside, truly corrupt nations, where the malaise seeps into most corners of public life openly, would probably look askance at the idea.
Politics is a bit odd at the moment. Both main party leaders are not going to be in charge at the time of the next general election, and their replacements are not obvious in either case.
Let us offer the British people fully representative government instead of gerrymandered, broken voting where people get ignored even when tehy have a significant plurality of support.
AMS offers all the proportionality of a proper electoral system while maintaining the (apparently) valued "local representative". A perfect system. Give it to the United Kingdom.
Now.
AMS is a terrible system that has non-local representatives and gives representatives to losers. No thanks why would we want such an appalling system?
Lets not keep with a merry-go-round of alternative proposals. For decades parties proposing changing the system have fought virtually every single seat in Parliament but the public have chosen NOT to elect them.
A change was put forward whether you like it or not an overwhelming majority re-affirmed their decades long spurning of change by rejecting it in a referendum.
If the public wants voting reform continue to put it in a manifesto and win an election on its basis. The option is there if the public ever chooses to do so.
FPTP is an excellent system for choosing a Parliament entirely made up of local representatives who are entirely the most popular in their locale. Which is why it is not just the fairest system it is globally the most popular voting system with billions of people casting ballots under FPTP.
My daughter is a better person than me. She thought it was sad too.
Me, I think he deserves everything he gets.
Should the very significant number of people who support him be completely without representation?
Surely that is the core here. At least 25% of the British public agree completely with Corbyn. The Electoral System wants their opinion excised from the debate.
The FPTP system is forcing politics where parties bend with the wind instead of taking a principle and trying to persuade and sell that to people. Multi-party politics is needed an Corbyn demonstrates that.
I call bull. Where do you get the idea that at least a quarter of the public agree "completely" with Corbyn?
A quarter of the public may not consider him completely crazy. A quarter may find him less repellant than they find Cameron. But a quarter agree "completely"? I don't think so.
Then let us be certain.
Let us offer the British people fully representative government instead of gerrymandered, broken voting where people get ignored even when tehy have a significant plurality of support.
AMS offers all the proportionality of a proper electoral system while maintaining the (apparently) valued "local representative". A perfect system. Give it to the United Kingdom.
Now.
But the Uk people have shown no desire for such a system - if they had they would have voted LD or another party that proposed it.
They have never been offered such a system
AV is a form of FPTP, it is neither proportional nor fair.
They have been offered it in the form of parties putting it in their manifestos. If people cared enough about changing the system, they could vote for one of those parties. I regret most people do not care about changing the system enough to make it their prime reason for voting, however.
I believe UKIP put it in their manifesto and they did pretty well, in percentage terms at least.
Manifestos are a jumble of crap represented by a political face.
The idea that an idea in a manifesto is being rejected because other parts of the manifesto are disgusting or the political leader is ghastly is an utterly nonsense.
Unless a referendum is offered, you cannot make your risible claim.
At no election in history has the Liberal manifesto been : -
"We will implement a proportional form of voting"
and nothing else.
If there is ANYTHING else in their manifesto, you cannot make your claim.
Yes I can. If the public cared about PR they can vote accordingly. They don't give a damn. Your attempts to gerrymander a different result by changing the voting system are pathetic and should be treated with all the contempt they deserve.
As I said...you CANNOT defeat IS from air strikes alone. Boots on the ground will defeat IS but politicians don't have the gumption to do it because it's electorally unpopular...politicians putting politics before lives
There are boots on the ground, not British (although there are some special forces in the region), but Iraqi, Iranian, Kurdish, Syrian, Hezbollah, and more.
THE SNP had to bail out the Yes campaign to the tune of £825,000 at the end of the independence referendum, it has emerged.
The party transferred the huge block of funding to Yes Scotland Ltd in three tranches straddling September 18, according to newly released Electoral Commission records.
The files show the SNP donated an initial £275,000 just eight days before the vote.
The party then donated another £100,000 on November 7 and a further £450,000 ten days later, when Yes Scotland was settling its invoices.
Without the cash, Yes Scotland, which also included the Scottish Greens and Scottish Socialists, could not have paid its bills, insiders admit.
Yes Scotland and the SNP previously insisted the campaign was "self-financing".
AV is a form of FPTP, it is neither proportional nor fair.
At no election in history has the Liberal manifesto been : -
"We will implement a proportional form of voting"
and nothing else.
If there is ANYTHING else in their manifesto, you cannot make your claim.
Er, what? So now people offering the policy doesn't count if it includes other stuff too? How is any party to make the offer to the people other than as part of a package of policy offers it is presenting?
People have been presented with parties offering PR. They have chosen, unfortunately, to consider that the negatives of the other things on offer outweighs any benefit PR might bring (or just outright disagree that it offers benefit). Honestly, I disagree with the public on this one, but you seem outright furious with the public, and scrambling to find a way to blame it on others by pretending people have never been given the option before.
But as much as I like a good rant about PR, it's an early morning for me, so a pleasant evening to all.
The composers of Tom Hark and Guantanamera must rue the fact that collecting royalties from football supporters is impossible.
Wouldn't the football rights holders have to pay at least a nominal PRS fee when fans use the tune on their broadcasts? The Piranhas may well be rolling in it.
@SamCoatesTimes 17s17 seconds ago YouGov: 57 per cent of Labour members think Mr Corbyn should take the party into the next election, against 28 per cent of the public.
@SamCoatesTimes 1m1 minute ago Fewer than one in five Labour members and supporters think Mr Corbyn should stand down now compared to three in five members of the public.
@SamCoatesTimes 17s18 seconds ago 49% of Labour members etc who voted for Burnham and 29% who voted for Cooper think he is diong well - not just Corbyn backers.
@SamCoatesTimes 38s38 seconds ago Tonight's figures underline the enormous challenge PLP opponents of Corbyn have. Inside SW1 they can revolt, but wd lose vote in wider party
@SamCoatesTimes 17s17 seconds ago YouGov: 57 per cent of Labour members think Mr Corbyn should take the party into the next election, against 28 per cent of the public.
@SamCoatesTimes 1m1 minute ago Fewer than one in five Labour members and supporters think Mr Corbyn should stand down now compared to three in five members of the public.
Labour are heading for a split. Between the MPs and everyone else in the party.
My daughter is a better person than me. She thought it was sad too.
Me, I think he deserves everything he gets.
Should the very significant number of people who support him be completely without representation?
Surely that is the core here. At least 25% of the British public agree completely with Corbyn. The Electoral System wants their opinion excised from the debate.
The FPTP system is forcing politics where parties bend with the wind instead of taking a principle and trying to persuade and sell that to people. Multi-party politics is needed an Corbyn demonstrates that.
I call bull. Where do you get the idea that at least a quarter of the public agree "completely" with Corbyn?
A quarter of the public may not consider him completely crazy. A quarter may find him less repellant than they find Cameron. But a quarter agree "completely"? I don't think so.
Then let us be certain.
Let us offer the British people fully representative government instead of gerrymandered, broken voting where people get ignored even when tehy have a significant plurality of support.
AMS offers all the proportionality of a proper electoral system while maintaining the (apparently) valued "local representative". A perfect system. Give it to the United Kingdom.
Now.
But the Uk people have shown no desire for such a system - if they had they would have voted LD or another party that proposed it.
They have never been offered such a system
AV is a form of FPTP, it is neither proportional nor fair.
They have been offered it in the form of parties putting it in their manifestos. If people cared enough about changing the system, they could vote for one of those parties. I regret most people do not care about changing the system enough to make it their prime reason for voting, however.
I believe UKIP put it in their manifesto and they did pretty well, in percentage terms at least.
Manifestos are a jumble of crap represented by a political face.
The idea that an idea in a manifesto is being rejected because other parts of the manifesto are disgusting or the political leader is ghastly is an utterly nonsense.
Unless a referendum is offered, you cannot make your risible claim.
No it is democracy. We don't live by having a referendum on every variation of every issue imaginable.
I have been in Oldham West today. Here are my thoughts: The trams are very good - but have messed up the town centre roads - my Satnav went bananas There will be a very low turnout - very little positive sign of activity The UKIP campaign is rough around the edges - where I was in Hollinwood they had been delivering but left a lot of leaflets sticking out of the letter boxes - I have quite a collection! I met a small group of Labour canvassers - just knocking on selected doors(presumably their supporters) - they were not happy The Tory campaign is very low key - and that is being positive The Lib Dems have gone back to having an HQ in a town centre shop rather than a unit in an industrial unit We all agreed that it is daft to have a by-election in December.
One last comment on the defense review. It occurs to me that many here don't realise exactly how disastrous the Nimrod MRA4 was.
The essential idea was to keep the old fuselage (heavily refurbished) and replace the wings.
The new wings famously didn't fit. This was laughed off as part and parcel of using a 1950s plane - fits where it touches. But this touched on (ha) the fact that the original Comets were in fact badly built by De Havilands and a poor design. Many of the early crashes weren't due to metal fatigue, but simple poor design.
Anyway, the other thing the new wings had was an increased sweep. This moved the centre of lift backwards. So the MRA4 would tend to dive unless corrected... So BAe installed a massive trim tab on the tail. In effect a permanent tip-the-nose-up.
The only slight problem with that is that it meant that the fuselage of the MRA4 would be permanently under a bending strain in flight - together with vibration from the trim tab.
The MOD air safety people discovered that BAe hadn't done proper fatigue calculations, or indeed proper stability calculations on the modified aircraft. The answer to those sums, when done was pretty horrifying. To add to the fun, the fuel system which caused an earlier Nimrod to explode in mid air was unchanged....
The air safety people came to the conclusion that the MRA4 was not just unsafe, but that no practical redesign would make it so.
I don't know why we just didn't start a new plane design from scratch.
We can build bespoke supercarriers but not aircraft?
The UK is a very corrupt state.
You've made this claim before, and possibly pernicious influence connections aside, truly corrupt nations, where the malaise seeps into most corners of public life openly, would probably look askance at the idea.
Open corruption nets a few hundred quid in Faki Laki.
British corruption nets BILLIONS. It is far deeper rooted, far more profitable and far more important to the elite.
I have been in Oldham West today. Here are my thoughts: The trams are very good - but have messed up the town centre roads - my Satnav went bananas There will be a very low turnout - very little positive sign of activity The UKIP campaign is rough around the edges - where I was in Hollinwood they had been delivering but left a lot of leaflets sticking out of the letter boxes - I have quite a collection! I met a small group of Labour canvassers - just knocking on selected doors(presumably their supporters) - they were not happy The Tory campaign is very low key - and that is being positive The Lib Dems have gone back to having an HQ in a town centre shop rather than a unit in an industrial unit We all agreed that it is daft to have a by-election in December.
Thanks. Do you think the result could be close between Labour and UKIP?
My daughter is a better person than me. She thought it was sad too.
Me, I think he deserves everything he gets.
Should the very significant number of people who support him be completely without representation?
Surely that is the core here. At least 25% of the British public agree completely with Corbyn. The Electoral System wants their opinion excised from the debate.
The FPTP system is forcing politics where parties bend with the wind instead of taking a principle and trying to persuade and sell that to people. Multi-party politics is needed an Corbyn demonstrates that.
I call bull. Where do you get the idea that at least a quarter of the public agree "completely" with Corbyn?
A o.
Th.
But the Uk people have shown no desire for such a system - if they had they would have voted LD or another party that proposed it.
They have never been offered such a system
AV is a form of FPTP, it is neither proportional nor fair.
They have been offered it in the form of parties putting it in their manifestos. If people cared enough about
Manifestos are a jumble of crap represented by a political face.
The idea that an idea in a manifesto is being rejected because other parts of the manifesto are disgusting or the political leader is ghastly is an utterly nonsense.
How fortunate then I did not make that claim (my other post about ideas the public have rejected was, funnily enough, a separate point, which is why it was in a different post, but some top quality dissembling there) what I claimed was that people don't care enough about changing voting systems to choose it when it is on offer, and can only assume either they don't support it or don't want the other things also on offer in order to get it. And if they make that balancing judgement, then clearly they are not desperate for a change, are they?
And seriously, only things offered in a referendum count as the public getting offered a choice? You've seriously gone overboard on this one. Honestly, I'm a supporter of PR, and you always seem to lose your rag at the idea that other people do not share the support of it that you and I have.
I can accept that and try to convince people to change their minds; you appear to think pretending if only the poor, oppressed people were given the option they would choose it, even though they bloody well have been offered it.
People, huh? They let us down so much, don't they, Dair.
1) Where the hell was the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party? He should have been there come what may. 2) Are the front benchers who failed to stand by Corbyn happy that their Constituency party are strongly behind them? 3) Will this it lead to attempts to deselect those who do not support the "great leader" ?
One last comment on the defense review. It occurs to me that many here don't realise exactly how disastrous the Nimrod MRA4 was.
The essential idea was to keep the old fuselage (heavily refurbished) and replace the wings.
The new wings famously didn't fit. This was laughed off as part and parcel of using a 1950s plane - fits where it touches. But this touched on (ha) the fact that the original Comets were in fact badly built by De Havilands and a poor design. Many of the early crashes weren't due to metal fatigue, but simple poor design.
Anyway, the other thing the new wings had was an increased sweep. This moved the centre of lift backwards. So the MRA4 would tend to dive unless corrected... So BAe installed a massive trim tab on the tail. In effect a permanent tip-the-nose-up.
The only slight problem with that is that it meant that the fuselage of the MRA4 would be permanently under a bending strain in flight - together with vibration from the trim tab.
The MOD air safety people discovered that BAe hadn't done proper fatigue calculations, or indeed proper stability calculations on the modified aircraft. The answer to those sums, when done was pretty horrifying. To add to the fun, the fuel system which caused an earlier Nimrod to explode in mid air was unchanged....
The air safety people came to the conclusion that the MRA4 was not just unsafe, but that no practical redesign would make it so.
I don't know why we just didn't start a new plane design from scratch.
We can build bespoke supercarriers but not aircraft?
The UK is a very corrupt state.
You've made this claim before, and possibly pernicious influence connections aside, truly corrupt nations, where the malaise seeps into most corners of public life openly, would probably look askance at the idea.
Open corruption nets a few hundred quid in Faki Laki.
British corruption nets BILLIONS. It is far deeper rooted, far more profitable and far more important to the elite.
@SamCoatesTimes 17s18 seconds ago 49% of Labour members etc who voted for Burnham and 29% who voted for Cooper think he is diong well - not just Corbyn backers.
I have been in Oldham West today. Here are my thoughts: The trams are very good - but have messed up the town centre roads - my Satnav went bananas There will be a very low turnout - very little positive sign of activity The UKIP campaign is rough around the edges - where I was in Hollinwood they had been delivering but left a lot of leaflets sticking out of the letter boxes - I have quite a collection! I met a small group of Labour canvassers - just knocking on selected doors(presumably their supporters) - they were not happy The Tory campaign is very low key - and that is being positive The Lib Dems have gone back to having an HQ in a town centre shop rather than a unit in an industrial unit We all agreed that it is daft to have a by-election in December.
Thanks. Do you think the result could be close between Labour and UKIP?
Let us offer the British people fully representative government instead of gerrymandered, broken voting where people get ignored even when tehy have a significant plurality of support.
AMS offers all the proportionality of a proper electoral system while maintaining the (apparently) valued "local representative". A perfect system. Give it to the United Kingdom.
Now.
AMS is a terrible system that has non-local representatives and gives representatives to losers. No thanks why would we want such an appalling system?
Lets not keep with a merry-go-round of alternative proposals. For decades parties proposing changing the system have fought virtually every single seat in Parliament but the public have chosen NOT to elect them.
A change was put forward whether you like it or not an overwhelming majority re-affirmed their decades long spurning of change by rejecting it in a referendum.
If the public wants voting reform continue to put it in a manifesto and win an election on its basis. The option is there if the public ever chooses to do so.
FPTP is an excellent system for choosing a Parliament entirely made up of local representatives who are entirely the most popular in their locale. Which is why it is not just the fairest system it is globally the most popular voting system with billions of people casting ballots under FPTP.
FPTP is the wrost possible system, limiting the voters to a choice of two alternatives which are both bland and almost identical. There is no difference between New Labour and Cameronism. They are both cheeks of the same arse.
AV is little better, it still promotes Straw In The Wind politics, denying voters a genuine choice, but now you get three indistinct, identical parties instead of two.
Any form of PR is preferable and allows the people of a nation a better say in what they believe. The reason for representative over absolute democracy is simply one of convenience but when you remove entire swathes of the population from proper representation then democracy DOES NOT EXIST.
The UK is not democratic, not because of the Monarchy, not because of the Lords but because the primary representation of the people allows a government to have an Absolute Majority on 35% of the vote and forces people to vote against their own choice.
I have been in Oldham West today. Here are my thoughts: The trams are very good - but have messed up the town centre roads - my Satnav went bananas There will be a very low turnout - very little positive sign of activity The UKIP campaign is rough around the edges - where I was in Hollinwood they had been delivering but left a lot of leaflets sticking out of the letter boxes - I have quite a collection! I met a small group of Labour canvassers - just knocking on selected doors(presumably their supporters) - they were not happy The Tory campaign is very low key - and that is being positive The Lib Dems have gone back to having an HQ in a town centre shop rather than a unit in an industrial unit We all agreed that it is daft to have a by-election in December.
Thanks. Do you think the result could be close between Labour and UKIP?
The constituency is a delight for campaigning - lots of terraced houses with doors right on the pavements. I think Labour will get enough of their vote out to hold on.
@SamCoatesTimes 38s38 seconds ago Tonight's figures underline the enormous challenge PLP opponents of Corbyn have. Inside SW1 they can revolt, but wd lose vote in wider party
One last comment on the defense review. It occurs to me that many here don't realise exactly how disastrous the Nimrod MRA4 was.
The essential idea was to keep the old fuselage (heavily refurbished) and replace the wings.
The new wings famously didn't fit. This was laughed off as part and parcel of using a 1950s plane - fits where it touches. But this touched on (ha) the fact that the original Comets were in fact badly built by De Havilands and a poor design. Many of the early crashes weren't due to metal fatigue, but simple poor design.
Anyway, the other thing the new wings had was an increased sweep. This moved the centre of lift backwards. So the MRA4 would tend to dive unless corrected... So BAe installed a massive trim tab on the tail. In effect a permanent tip-the-nose-up.
The only slight problem with that is that it meant that the fuselage of the MRA4 would be permanently under a bending strain in flight - together with vibration from the trim tab.
The MOD air safety people discovered that BAe hadn't done proper fatigue calculations, or indeed proper stability calculations on the modified aircraft. The answer to those sums, when done was pretty horrifying. To add to the fun, the fuel system which caused an earlier Nimrod to explode in mid air was unchanged....
The air safety people came to the conclusion that the MRA4 was not just unsafe, but that no practical redesign would make it so.
I don't know why we just didn't start a new plane design from scratch.
We can build bespoke supercarriers but not aircraft?
The UK is a very corrupt state.
You've made this claim before, and possibly pernicious influence connections aside, truly corrupt nations, where the malaise seeps into most corners of public life openly, would probably look askance at the idea.
Open corruption nets a few hundred quid in Faki Laki.
British corruption nets BILLIONS. It is far deeper rooted, far more profitable and far more important to the elite.
You could leave for the socialist utopia of er..
Tower Hamlets ?
Or Scotland where the government bungs £hundreds of thousands in 'aid' to millionaire pop stars and music promoters.
AV is a form of FPTP, it is neither proportional nor fair.
At no election in history has the Liberal manifesto been : -
"We will implement a proportional form of voting"
and nothing else.
If there is ANYTHING else in their manifesto, you cannot make your claim.
Er, what? So now people offering the policy doesn't count if it includes other stuff too? How is any party to make the offer to the people other than as part of a package of policy offers it is presenting?
People have been presented with parties offering PR. They have chosen, unfortunately, to consider that the negatives of the other things on offer outweighs any benefit PR might bring (or just outright disagree that it offers benefit). Honestly, I disagree with the public on this one, but you seem outright furious with the public, and scrambling to find a way to blame it on others by pretending people have never been given the option before.
But as much as I like a good rant about PR, it's an early morning for me, so a pleasant evening to all.
95% of Scotland voted for PR in Westminster elections.
1) Where the fuck was the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party? He should have been there come what may.
Too busy writing to the plod demanding they re-re-re-investigate more paedo claims?
Quite... but he should have been there. Watson is a political coward, and here it is writ LARGE.
If i was a member of the PLP, and i utterly disliked my party leader, I still wouldnt let him be humiliated like that, i would be on the messenger to my wing of the party telling them to get down around him and give him support.
A pretty pathetic comment on Labour generally as well as the lack of support for Corbyn. Hardly a Labourite in the chamber as Cameron speaks about our nations defences.
Arron Banks' Leave.EU referendum campaign launches formal bid to merge with rival Vote Leave
Exclusive The two campaigns – Leave.EU and Vote Leave – have been compared to the "Judean People’s Front" and the "People’s Front of Judea" from the Monty Python film 'Life of Brian'
1) Where the fuck was the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party? He should have been there come what may.
Too busy writing to the plod demanding they re-re-re-investigate more paedo claims?
Quite... but he should have been there. Watson is a political coward, and here it is writ LARGE.
If i was a member of the PLP, and i utterly disliked my party leader, I still wouldnt let him be humiliated like that, i would be on the messenger to my wing of the party telling them to get down around him and give him support.
Labour MP's will get the message when Momentum move in on them, and they're deselected.
FPTP is the wrost possible system, limiting the voters to a choice of two alternatives which are both bland and almost identical. There is no difference between New Labour and Cameronism. They are both cheeks of the same arse.
This is clearly wrong. Not only is there a major difference between New Labour and Cameronism, not only is there a major difference between Labour today and New Labout ... but how many seats did the SNP win from third or below last time? If a positive alternative arises it can win under FPTP.
AV is little better, it still promotes Straw In The Wind politics, denying voters a genuine choice, but now you get three indistinct, identical parties instead of two.
Also not true. In Australia AV leads to an even more two party choice than FPTP. 145/150 seats were won by the first two parties in 2013 and the third party won 1 seat. Oops.
Any form of PR is preferable and allows the people of a nation a better say in what they believe. The reason for representative over absolute democracy is simply one of convenience but when you remove entire swathes of the population from proper representation then democracy DOES NOT EXIST.
Once again untrue. Simply untrue.
Every single person in the UK has proper representation, that is their local representative. Just because their vote lost does not make them lose a representative. Elections have winners and losers, that is democracy.
The UK is not democratic, not because of the Monarchy, not because of the Lords but because the primary representation of the people allows a government to have an Absolute Majority on 35% of the vote and forces people to vote against their own choice.
Conversely in the UK 37% of voters have the government they voted for. In PR nations like Israel ZERO voters have the government they voted for. Oh sure the five parties that make up the government individually have supporters but no voter actually voted for all five.
I'd rather 37% of voters get the government they voted for than 0%.
1) Where the fuck was the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party? He should have been there come what may.
Too busy writing to the plod demanding they re-re-re-investigate more paedo claims?
Quite... but he should have been there. Watson is a political coward, and here it is writ LARGE.
If i was a member of the PLP, and i utterly disliked my party leader, I still wouldnt let him be humiliated like that, i would be on the messenger to my wing of the party telling them to get down around him and give him support.
.. and Watson will weasel out of it saying he was trying to persuade his colleagues to get into the Chamber of the HOC.. Even if that were true, I wouldn't trust a weasel like Watson...he has history, the giving of Xmas presents to Brown's children in 2007?, about as likely a dissembling as its possible to imagine.
AV is a form of FPTP, it is neither proportional nor fair.
At no election in history has the Liberal manifesto been : -
"We will implement a proportional form of voting"
and nothing else.
If there is ANYTHING else in their manifesto, you cannot make your claim.
Er, what? So now people offering the policy doesn't count if it includes other stuff too? How is any party to make the offer to the people other than as part of a package of policy offers it is presenting?
People have been presented with parties offering PR. They have chosen, unfortunately, to consider that the negatives of the other things on offer outweighs any benefit PR might bring (or just outright disagree that it offers benefit). Honestly, I disagree with the public on this one, but you seem outright furious with the public, and scrambling to find a way to blame it on others by pretending people have never been given the option before.
But as much as I like a good rant about PR, it's an early morning for me, so a pleasant evening to all.
95% of Scotland voted for PR in Westminster elections.
AV is a form of FPTP, it is neither proportional nor fair.
At no election in history has the Liberal manifesto been : -
"We will implement a proportional form of voting"
and nothing else.
If there is ANYTHING else in their manifesto, you cannot make your claim.
Er, what? So now people offering the policy doesn't count if it includes other stuff too? How is any party to make the offer to the people other than as part of a package of policy offers it is presenting?
People have been presented with parties offering PR. They have chosen, unfortunately, to consider that the negatives of the other things on offer outweighs any benefit PR might bring (or just outright disagree that it offers benefit). Honestly, I disagree with the public on this one, but you seem outright furious with the public, and scrambling to find a way to blame it on others by pretending people have never been given the option before.
But as much as I like a good rant about PR, it's an early morning for me, so a pleasant evening to all.
95% of Scotland voted for PR in Westminster elections.
But 55% of Scotland voted to stay in the UK so that is irrelevant.
I have been in Oldham West today. Here are my thoughts: The trams are very good - but have messed up the town centre roads - my Satnav went bananas There will be a very low turnout - very little positive sign of activity The UKIP campaign is rough around the edges - where I was in Hollinwood they had been delivering but left a lot of leaflets sticking out of the letter boxes - I have quite a collection! I met a small group of Labour canvassers - just knocking on selected doors(presumably their supporters) - they were not happy The Tory campaign is very low key - and that is being positive The Lib Dems have gone back to having an HQ in a town centre shop rather than a unit in an industrial unit We all agreed that it is daft to have a by-election in December.
Thanks. Do you think the result could be close between Labour and UKIP?
What is the record low turnout for a byelection??
Hilary Benn got 19.9% in the Central by-election in 1999 with just 6,361 votes.
One last comment on the defense review. It occurs to me that many here don't realise exactly how disastrous the Nimrod MRA4 was.
The essential idea was to keep the old fuselage (heavily refurbished) and replace the wings.
The new wings famously didn't fit. This was laughed off as part and parcel of using a 1950s plane - fits where it touches. But this touched on (ha) the fact that the original Comets were in fact badly built by De Havilands and a poor design. Many of the early crashes weren't due to metal fatigue, but simple poor design.
Anyway, the other thing the new wings had was an increased sweep. This moved the centre of lift backwards. So the MRA4 would tend to dive unless corrected... So BAe installed a massive trim tab on the tail. In effect a permanent tip-the-nose-up.
The only slight problem with that is that it meant that the fuselage of the MRA4 would be permanently under a bending strain in flight - together with vibration from the trim tab.
The MOD air safety people discovered that BAe hadn't done proper fatigue calculations, or indeed proper stability calculations on the modified aircraft. The answer to those sums, when done was pretty horrifying. To add to the fun, the fuel system which caused an earlier Nimrod to explode in mid air was unchanged....
The air safety people came to the conclusion that the MRA4 was not just unsafe, but that no practical redesign would make it so.
I don't know why we just didn't start a new plane design from scratch.
We can build bespoke supercarriers but not aircraft?
It can take many years to design, test and then put an aircraft into production. Buying the Boeings means we can have capability within a short time.
One last comment on the defense review. It occurs to me that many here don't realise exactly how disastrous the Nimrod MRA4 was.
The essential idea was to keep the old fuselage (heavily refurbished) and replace the wings.
The new wings famously didn't fit. This was laughed off as part and parcel of using a 1950s plane - fits where it touches. But this touched on (ha) the fact that the original Comets were in fact badly built by De Havilands and a poor design. Many of the early crashes weren't due to metal fatigue, but simple poor design.
Anyway, the other thing the new wings had was an increased sweep. This moved the centre of lift backwards. So the MRA4 would tend to dive unless corrected... So BAe installed a massive trim tab on the tail. In effect a permanent tip-the-nose-up.
The only slight problem with that is that it meant that the fuselage of the MRA4 would be permanently under a bending strain in flight - together with vibration from the trim tab.
The MOD air safety people discovered that BAe hadn't done proper fatigue calculations, or indeed proper stability calculations on the modified aircraft. The answer to those sums, when done was pretty horrifying. To add to the fun, the fuel system which caused an earlier Nimrod to explode in mid air was unchanged....
The air safety people came to the conclusion that the MRA4 was not just unsafe, but that no practical redesign would make it so.
I don't know why we just didn't start a new plane design from scratch.
We can build bespoke supercarriers but not aircraft?
BAe specialise in cultivating ludicrous requirements in the MOD - especially for solutions that no other country on the planet would try. In this case the idea that only a engine-in-wing design could possibly be suitable for an MPA.
One last comment on the defense review. It occurs to me that many here don't realise exactly how disastrous the Nimrod MRA4 was.
The essential idea was to keep the old fuselage (heavily refurbished) and replace the wings.
The new wings famously didn't fit. This was laughed off as part and parcel of using a 1950s plane - fits where it touches. But this touched on (ha) the fact that the original Comets were in fact badly built by De Havilands and a poor design. Many of the early crashes weren't due to metal fatigue, but simple poor design.
Anyway, the other thing the new wings had was an increased sweep. This moved the centre of lift backwards. So the MRA4 would tend to dive unless corrected... So BAe installed a massive trim tab on the tail. In effect a permanent tip-the-nose-up.
The only slight problem with that is that it meant that the fuselage of the MRA4 would be permanently under a bending strain in flight - together with vibration from the trim tab.
The MOD air safety people discovered that BAe hadn't done proper fatigue calculations, or indeed proper stability calculations on the modified aircraft. The answer to those sums, when done was pretty horrifying. To add to the fun, the fuel system which caused an earlier Nimrod to explode in mid air was unchanged....
The air safety people came to the conclusion that the MRA4 was not just unsafe, but that no practical redesign would make it so.
I don't know why we just didn't start a new plane design from scratch.
We can build bespoke supercarriers but not aircraft?
How have you found the SDSR? I know Defence is one of your litmus tests on the government.
I am pleased with it. Better than I expected. My only minor criticisms are on the Type 26s, the slow rate of introduction of the F35s and I (still) think the RAF is still a couple of squadrons short. The broader concern would be whether we simply have the manpower to staff all of it.
But a very important marker was put down today: defence retrenchment of the last 35 years is over, and we're serious about remaining a world player.
This is the Tory attack line, works even if Lab depose Corbyn
@DavidGauke: Labour is not a moderate party with a far-left leader. Corbyn represents what the Labour Party has become.
It is what the party has become, but importantly not what the PLP has become. The PLP choose who goes through for the party to vote for. There'll be no 'lending of support to widen the debate' next time.
Could you bear to listen to Cameron for more than 2 hours having to listen to his odious plummy old Etonian establishment accent without wanting to land a good right hook on the man? Going back to Keiran's previous thread,it's clear The Sun was following the islamophobic orders of its' proprietor.This image though has consequences in the permission it gives to those who would persecute hate crimes,just as the framing of disabled people as faking scroungers does for increasing hate crimes against disabled people.The Sun makes hatred acceptable and does not care about the consequences.
"Staff announcement....... Can a cleaner please proceed to thread 3 with mop and bucket as a customer has had a major spillage of green envy, thank you"
THE SNP had to bail out the Yes campaign to the tune of £825,000 at the end of the independence referendum, it has emerged.
The party transferred the huge block of funding to Yes Scotland Ltd in three tranches straddling September 18, according to newly released Electoral Commission records.
The files show the SNP donated an initial £275,000 just eight days before the vote.
The party then donated another £100,000 on November 7 and a further £450,000 ten days later, when Yes Scotland was settling its invoices.
Without the cash, Yes Scotland, which also included the Scottish Greens and Scottish Socialists, could not have paid its bills, insiders admit.
Yes Scotland and the SNP previously insisted the campaign was "self-financing".
These polls should be a call to arms for Labour MPs. They can oust Corbyn in a bloody coup now (and just maybe save their seats) or they can wait to be deselected by Momentum or voted out by the electorate.
The membership numbers don't matter in that equation.
The decision to give the activist at the centre of the Tory bullying scandal a formal role was approved by the party's senior management team.
BBC Newsnight has learned that both party chairmen and election chief Lynton Crosby were on the board which agreed to appoint Mark Clarke and fund his campaign.
It has also emerged that Grant Shapps, then Tory co-chair, personally read a highly critical report on Mr Clarke's behaviour during the 2010 election before agreeing to back Mr Clarke.
One last comment on the defense review. It occurs to me that many here don't realise exactly how disastrous the Nimrod MRA4 was.
The essential idea was to keep the old fuselage (heavily refurbished) and replace the wings.
The new wings famously didn't fit. This was laughed off as part and parcel of using a 1950s plane - fits where it touches. But this touched on (ha) the fact that the original Comets were in fact badly built by De Havilands and a poor design. Many of the early crashes weren't due to metal fatigue, but simple poor design.
Anyway, the other thing the new wings had was an increased sweep. This moved the centre of lift backwards. So the MRA4 would tend to dive unless corrected... So BAe installed a massive trim tab on the tail. In effect a permanent tip-the-nose-up.
The only slight problem with that is that it meant that the fuselage of the MRA4 would be permanently under a bending strain in flight - together with vibration from the trim tab.
The MOD air safety people discovered that BAe hadn't done proper fatigue calculations, or indeed proper stability calculations on the modified aircraft. The answer to those sums, when done was pretty horrifying. To add to the fun, the fuel system which caused an earlier Nimrod to explode in mid air was unchanged....
The air safety people came to the conclusion that the MRA4 was not just unsafe, but that no practical redesign would make it so.
I don't know why we just didn't start a new plane design from scratch.
We can build bespoke supercarriers but not aircraft?
First the QE2s are not supercarriers. Second ... The cost to design from scratch a bespoke plane with a run of say just 8 would be prohibitive. The Comet solution was alleged to mitigate this but proved to be baloney. The P-8 is up and running and proven and extending its production life brings down it's unit cost. The story behind this comet procurement is appalling. A shambles. But typical of the procurement delays which turned defence into a joke under labour.
Haven't quite worked out what sort of impact, UK air strikes in Syria will have on IS - they're being bombed by the US, Russia and France already? What happens if it doesn't work...more importantly, what happens if it does? Assad can then target his forces on the other groups opposing him.
There is no way our current level of commitment with 8 slightly elderly planes and our oh so careful rules of engagement is going to have a military impact. This is either a stepping stone to us being genuinely useful or buying a seat at the table for any denouement.
I just hope those who are in favour of it, have the stomach for the images of bombed civilians' body parts littering the streets that will inevitably be posted on social media.
Like already happens? That's why I'm in favour of it.
What bombing civilians/ It's a no win situation...if we go in it will have a negligible impact in the war against IS...it's little more than political gesturing...the only way to defeat IS is with boots on the ground. Everyone knows that...
Whether its negligible or not in your eyes it will have an impact. Bombing campaigns can and do make a major difference and given boots on the ground is a non-starter at the moment this is the next best option.
It could indeed be argued that we could just let others take the burden of the cost but that is a very selfish proposal and should be stated as such.
Bombing their front lines with the Kurds etc would lead to their rapid defeat. One GBU-39 per mortar and heavy machine gun turns a defensive line into a defeat in minutes - tested many a time..... Which is exactly why it is not being done. If ISIS/ISIL/whatever are over run by the locals the results will not make good television.
Also not true. In Australia AV leads to an even more two party choice than FPTP. 145/150 seats were won by the first two parties in 2013 and the third party won 1 seat. Oops.
Cannot be bothered with worrying about most of your drool but this one takees the biscuit.
Under FPTP, Scotland has 57/59 seats won by the first two parties. England has 557/565.
Australia 97% Scotland 97% England 99%
It's hardly surprising that AV makes such little difference BECAUSE IT IS NOT PROPORTIONAL.
One last comment on the defense review. It occurs to me that many here don't realise exactly how disastrous the Nimrod MRA4 was.
The essential idea was to keep the old fuselage (heavily refurbished) and replace the wings.
The new wings famously didn't fit. This was laughed off as part and parcel of using a 1950s plane - fits where it touches. But this touched on (ha) the fact that the original Comets were in fact badly built by De Havilands and a poor design. Many of the early crashes weren't due to metal fatigue, but simple poor design.
Anyway, the other thing the new wings had was an increased sweep. This moved the centre of lift backwards. So the MRA4 would tend to dive unless corrected... So BAe installed a massive trim tab on the tail. In effect a permanent tip-the-nose-up.
The only slight problem with that is that it meant that the fuselage of the MRA4 would be permanently under a bending strain in flight - together with vibration from the trim tab.
The MOD air safety people discovered that BAe hadn't done proper fatigue calculations, or indeed proper stability calculations on the modified aircraft. The answer to those sums, when done was pretty horrifying. To add to the fun, the fuel system which caused an earlier Nimrod to explode in mid air was unchanged....
The air safety people came to the conclusion that the MRA4 was not just unsafe, but that no practical redesign would make it so.
I don't know why we just didn't start a new plane design from scratch.
We can build bespoke supercarriers but not aircraft?
How have you found the SDSR? I know Defence is one of your litmus tests on the government.
I am pleased with it. Better than I expected. My only minor criticisms are on the Type 26s, the slow rate of introduction of the F35s and I (still) think the RAF is still a couple of squadrons short. The broader concern would be whether we simply have the manpower to staff all of it.
But a very important marker was put down today: defence retrenchment of the last 35 years is over, and we're serious about remaining a world player.
Thanks, I'm not an expert on Defence (apart from military history of course)
AV is a form of FPTP, it is neither proportional nor fair.
At no election in history has the Liberal manifesto been : -
"We will implement a proportional form of voting"
and nothing else.
If there is ANYTHING else in their manifesto, you cannot make your claim.
Er, what? So now people offering the policy doesn't count if it includes other stuff too? How is any party to make the offer to the people other than as part of a package of policy offers it is presenting?
People have been presented with parties offering PR. They have chosen, unfortunately, to consider that the negatives of the other things on offer outweighs any benefit PR might bring (or just outright disagree that it offers benefit). Honestly, I disagree with the public on this one, but you seem outright furious with the public, and scrambling to find a way to blame it on others by pretending people have never been given the option before.
But as much as I like a good rant about PR, it's an early morning for me, so a pleasant evening to all.
95% of Scotland voted for PR in Westminster elections.
FPTP is the wrost possible system, limiting the voters to a choice of two alternatives which are both bland and almost identical. There is no difference between New Labour and Cameronism. They are both cheeks of the same arse.
This is clearly wrong. Not only is there a major difference between New Labour and Cameronism, not only is there a major difference between Labour today and New Labout ... but how many seats did the SNP win from third or below last time? If a positive alternative arises it can win under FPTP.
AV is little better, it still promotes Straw In The Wind politics, denying voters a genuine choice, but now you get three indistinct, identical parties instead of two.
Also not true. In Australia AV leads to an even more two party choice than FPTP. 145/150 seats were won by the first two parties in 2013 and the third party won 1 seat. Oops.
Any form of PR is preferable and allows the people of a nation a better say in what they believe. The reason for representative over absolute democracy is simply one of convenience but when you remove entire swathes of the population from proper representation then democracy DOES NOT EXIST.
Once again untrue. Simply untrue.
Every single person in the UK has proper representation, that is their local representative. Just because their vote lost does not make them lose a representative. Elections have winners and losers, that is democracy.
The UK is not democratic, not because of the Monarchy, not because of the Lords but because the primary representation of the people allows a government to have an Absolute Majority on 35% of the vote and forces people to vote against their own choice.
Conversely in the UK 37% of voters have the government they voted for. In PR nations like Israel ZERO voters have the government they voted for. Oh sure the five parties that make up the government individually have supporters but no voter actually voted for all five.
I'd rather 37% of voters get the government they voted for than 0%.
Plus in many such countries (especially Isreal, by the way) the government is, in effect, controlled by some very small parties.
Also not true. In Australia AV leads to an even more two party choice than FPTP. 145/150 seats were won by the first two parties in 2013 and the third party won 1 seat. Oops.
Cannot be bothered with worrying about most of your drool but this one takees the biscuit.
Under FPTP, Scotland has 57/59 seats won by the first two parties. England has 557/565.
Australia 97% Scotland 97% England 99%
It's hardly surprising that AV makes such little difference BECAUSE IT IS NOT PROPORTIONAL.
The decision to give the activist at the centre of the Tory bullying scandal a formal role was approved by the party's senior management team.
BBC Newsnight has learned that both party chairmen and election chief Lynton Crosby were on the board which agreed to appoint Mark Clarke and fund his campaign.
It has also emerged that Grant Shapps, then Tory co-chair, personally read a highly critical report on Mr Clarke's behaviour during the 2010 election before agreeing to back Mr Clarke.
Comments
Free owls yes - but they rejected that too.
The list of things we haven't been offered but some think we want is endless.
I believe UKIP put it in their manifesto and they did pretty well, in percentage terms at least.
G4S made a huge amount of money under Labour and lost money under the Tories. Would they have executives who are more associated with one party over another?
Always plumping for 'Home Grown' is normally how we got into such a mess over the procurement of equipment in the past. Time to move on.
We've got Abramovich
You've got a drunken bitch
Back come Norwich with:
We've got a super cook
You've got a Russian crook
Back came Chelsea:
Down with the soufflé, you're going down with the soufflé
Best exchange at any match I've been to.
At no election in history has the Liberal manifesto been : -
"We will implement a proportional form of voting"
and nothing else.
If there is ANYTHING else in their manifesto, you cannot make your claim.
Lets not keep with a merry-go-round of alternative proposals. For decades parties proposing changing the system have fought virtually every single seat in Parliament but the public have chosen NOT to elect them.
A change was put forward whether you like it or not an overwhelming majority re-affirmed their decades long spurning of change by rejecting it in a referendum.
If the public wants voting reform continue to put it in a manifesto and win an election on its basis. The option is there if the public ever chooses to do so.
FPTP is an excellent system for choosing a Parliament entirely made up of local representatives who are entirely the most popular in their locale. Which is why it is not just the fairest system it is globally the most popular voting system with billions of people casting ballots under FPTP.
The idea that an idea in a manifesto is being rejected because other parts of the manifesto are disgusting or the political leader is ghastly is an utterly nonsense.
Unless a referendum is offered, you cannot make your risible claim.
Right...
https://twitter.com/scotnational/status/668904854019026944
Con 40% (+2)
Lab 29% (-4)
LD 8% (NC)
UKIP 11% (+1)
Green 3% (NC)
SNP 4% (+1)
Other 4% (NC)
Er, what? So now people offering the policy doesn't count if it includes other stuff too? How is any party to make the offer to the people other than as part of a package of policy offers it is presenting?
People have been presented with parties offering PR. They have chosen, unfortunately, to consider that the negatives of the other things on offer outweighs any benefit PR might bring (or just outright disagree that it offers benefit). Honestly, I disagree with the public on this one, but you seem outright furious with the public, and scrambling to find a way to blame it on others by pretending people have never been given the option before.
But as much as I like a good rant about PR, it's an early morning for me, so a pleasant evening to all.
YouGov: 57 per cent of Labour members think Mr Corbyn should take the party into the next election, against 28 per cent of the public.
@SamCoatesTimes 1m1 minute ago
Fewer than one in five Labour members and supporters think Mr Corbyn should stand down now compared to three in five members of the public.
49% of Labour members etc who voted for Burnham and 29% who voted for Cooper think he is diong well - not just Corbyn backers.
I really don't see how they can come back from this.
It's as though every hand of cards has been stacked against them since they let Mr Brown in unopposed.
Tonight's figures underline the enormous challenge PLP opponents of Corbyn have. Inside SW1 they can revolt, but wd lose vote in wider party
The trams are very good - but have messed up the town centre roads - my Satnav went bananas
There will be a very low turnout - very little positive sign of activity
The UKIP campaign is rough around the edges - where I was in Hollinwood they had been delivering but left a lot of leaflets sticking out of the letter boxes - I have quite a collection!
I met a small group of Labour canvassers - just knocking on selected doors(presumably their supporters) - they were not happy
The Tory campaign is very low key - and that is being positive
The Lib Dems have gone back to having an HQ in a town centre shop rather than a unit in an industrial unit
We all agreed that it is daft to have a by-election in December.
British corruption nets BILLIONS. It is far deeper rooted, far more profitable and far more important to the elite.
And seriously, only things offered in a referendum count as the public getting offered a choice? You've seriously gone overboard on this one. Honestly, I'm a supporter of PR, and you always seem to lose your rag at the idea that other people do not share the support of it that you and I have.
I can accept that and try to convince people to change their minds; you appear to think pretending if only the poor, oppressed people were given the option they would choose it, even though they bloody well have been offered it.
People, huh? They let us down so much, don't they, Dair.
1) Where the hell was the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party? He should have been there come what may.
2) Are the front benchers who failed to stand by Corbyn happy that their Constituency party are strongly behind them?
3) Will this it lead to attempts to deselect those who do not support the "great leader" ?
Tower Hamlets ?
Yes, I know, no change there then.
I'm still going to put up my "This can't go on much longer piece" this Sunday
AV is little better, it still promotes Straw In The Wind politics, denying voters a genuine choice, but now you get three indistinct, identical parties instead of two.
Any form of PR is preferable and allows the people of a nation a better say in what they believe. The reason for representative over absolute democracy is simply one of convenience but when you remove entire swathes of the population from proper representation then democracy DOES NOT EXIST.
The UK is not democratic, not because of the Monarchy, not because of the Lords but because the primary representation of the people allows a government to have an Absolute Majority on 35% of the vote and forces people to vote against their own choice.
They might do shortly in the Ukraine as well the way that show is bubbling.
Mail/ComRes:
89% oppose reducing police officers.
60% oppose cutting tax credits for people who are in work.
Yet Tory 11-point lead...
Exclusive The two campaigns – Leave.EU and Vote Leave – have been compared to the "Judean People’s Front" and the "People’s Front of Judea" from the Monty Python film 'Life of Brian'
http://bit.ly/1N4SKIn
@DPJHodges: Important tweet there from @DavidGauke. Thats the Tory attack line. And if Labour MP's can't find a way of rebutting it, Labour's done.
Every single person in the UK has proper representation, that is their local representative. Just because their vote lost does not make them lose a representative. Elections have winners and losers, that is democracy. Conversely in the UK 37% of voters have the government they voted for. In PR nations like Israel ZERO voters have the government they voted for. Oh sure the five parties that make up the government individually have supporters but no voter actually voted for all five.
I'd rather 37% of voters get the government they voted for than 0%.
Not sure how many seats that'd represent. But I could see the Tories taking 30-35 of these targets:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/conservative-targets/
@DavidGauke: Labour is not a moderate party with a far-left leader. Corbyn represents what the Labour Party has become.
I'm already getting stressed about it
But a very important marker was put down today: defence retrenchment of the last 35 years is over, and we're serious about remaining a world player.
Bing Bong !
*bored droning voice*
"Staff announcement....... Can a cleaner please proceed to thread 3 with mop and bucket as a customer has had a major spillage of green envy, thank you"
*Crackle click*
This is of course all lies and many, of a particular persuasion, will of course believe that it is.
The membership numbers don't matter in that equation.
BBC Newsnight has learned that both party chairmen and election chief Lynton Crosby were on the board which agreed to appoint Mark Clarke and fund his campaign.
It has also emerged that Grant Shapps, then Tory co-chair, personally read a highly critical report on Mr Clarke's behaviour during the 2010 election before agreeing to back Mr Clarke.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34901158
Questions to answer
Second ... The cost to design from scratch a bespoke plane with a run of say just 8 would be prohibitive. The Comet solution was alleged to mitigate this but proved to be baloney.
The P-8 is up and running and proven and extending its production life brings down it's unit cost.
The story behind this comet procurement is appalling. A shambles. But typical of the procurement delays which turned defence into a joke under labour.
Under FPTP, Scotland has 57/59 seats won by the first two parties. England has 557/565.
Australia 97%
Scotland 97%
England 99%
It's hardly surprising that AV makes such little difference BECAUSE IT IS NOT PROPORTIONAL.
"At what point does the public begin to notice all these goings on in Lab?"
Obvs 11pt lead gives some clue if the poll is to be believed..
You can't have it both ways. It happened.
Nah.... no one cares at the moment.. Might do for Schapps eventually but so what??? Corbyn is obscuring everything, however hard the media try.