DeanoL

Members
  • Content count

    1,489
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

200 Excellent

About DeanoL

  • Rank
    Festival Freak

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

1,693 profile views
  1. Glastonbury and Politics

    Well yeah, a UKIP/Tory coalition would have just had a guaranteed referendum as the concession to UKIP, because that's basically all they want. And we're having one anyway.
  2. Glastonbury and Politics

    Yeah but like you've said before, last election was fought under fear of creating a 'weak' coalition government. So votes moved from Labour to Tory under fear of the SNP... People would have voted differently under PR. The very campaigns run would have been different. I do find it interesting that everyone who claims FPTP is fairer is perfectly happy to throw it out for the referendum. If it's so fair why aren't we voting on the EU in constituencies, so each constituency casts one vote total, depending on if more people vote yes or no there. Try suggesting that to people and they'll think you're mad. Yet they're fine electing a government that way.
  3. Glastonbury and Politics

    Isn't it both? The knives out for Corbyn are pretty much about him being a bit shit (fair), not that he's too left wing. It's not like he's announced he wants a 60p tax rate if he gets in and the other half of the party think he's going too far. And in 2002 six people were arrested at the countryside alliance march against the hunting ban. There are plenty of c**ts on both sides. Also it was war memorial. Single. Just one (and one person). It's also weird how that march and plenty of the anti austerity campaigning get far more negative press than the actual riots we had over it not so long ago...
  4. Glastonbury and Politics

    That's a fair point. FPTP is designed to provide majority governments at the expense of representation. Maybe an argument along those lines wouldn't go down so well now as six years ago. But we've generally seen those campaigning for FPTP shy away from that idea in terms of other arguments. It's not about stupidity. It's just about the argument being made correctly and understandably. You're correct that's it's equally spread, I just don't see the electoral system as a party political issue. If it is then there's no hope because neither Labour or Conservative would benefit from it. I'm sure there are as many supporters of each party that don't get the implications of FPTP. My argument is just that a majority of them would favour PR if they did. The AV referendum is the best example I can think of for this. Do you truly think that what happened there is that people developed a solid understanding of each proposed system and it's merits and flaws, and picked the one they preferred? Wasn't the leading cry of the FPTP campaign "one person, one vote" with an argument that AV would give some people two votes, and some people one? Which sounds impressive and is technically correct but isn't the reality of how it works. It was a misdirection, a half truth designed to sound good. That the other side utterly failed to sensibly message against that claim, or to put out a solid, consistent message of their own is a huge part of why they failed so miserably. But that referendum was won (at least to such a degree) on strength of message, not strength of argument. Depends on if you see your vote counting as needing a voice in government or simply a voice in parliament. And we're not quite at the point yet where it's "get a majority government and the cabinet do whatever they want". With small majorities (coalition or otherwise) then controversial policies are difficult, you need to whip every single vote, the backbenchers don't have to vote with the government (and yes - PR lists would probably mean less rebellious backbenchers, which is a downside), but there's a balance there. Under PR, my vote would directly correspond to an MP (rounding errors aside). And that MP would have a vote on every single policy the government enact. There's a direct line there.
  5. Glastonbury and Politics

    Not stupid, but uninformed. Were you ever taught it at school? We weren't, at least not formally. And if you look at the mainstream media coverage of general elections: they're presented as essentially prime-ministerial races. My parents aren't stupid, both have run their own successful businesses. They had an interest in politics to a degree - they enjoyed the drama of elections and had solid views on what party they wanted to vote for. They even got that they were electing a local MP in the general election. And that the most MPs made a government. The basics. But they didn't get the "every vote past the post is wasted" concept. It's not just the understanding, it's getting the consequences. That Labour could win 299 seats by thousands of votes each, while the Tories could win 301 seats all by a single vote, and the Tories win. I genuinely think there's a belief that "it couldn't be that unfair". I consider myself fairly up on politics but I have to admit, the West Mids police commissioner vote threw me as it wasn't obvious from the ballot paper or instructions that you had the option of just casting a single vote.
  6. Glastonbury and Politics

    I think the general public want PR. The problem is the general public think we already have it. The mistake people make is assuming people understand first past the post and the U.K. Electoral system. The majority vote for the leader of the party they like most on TV and assume the system must be fair and that their vote counts, even if they don't understand it. They have faith in the current system. Because most people can't comprehend the idea that it could be as broken as it is. The path to PR starts with tearing down that faith. I swear all the AV referendum told us is that people would prefer PR to AV. After all, everyone was very much in favour of "one person, one vote" which the "no" campaign pushed. I'm fairly sure if you explained FPTP and PR and told people to pick the one they wanted, with no preconceptions, PR would win by a landslide.
  7. Next Announcement thread

    Do we actually know that though or is it just being assumed because nothing else makes sense? (Not followed the entire thread so genuine question) Because when you put together something like this you want a line up that "makes sense" but sometimes if certain acts can only do certain days you go with the line up that's possible.
  8. Brothers cider Bar

    I'd be fine with a limit on the amount that could be purchased- so no more than one bottle or four points per transaction if that's the issue. Price may have been a factor too- the bottles were cheaper than the pints, so it made it the most reasonably priced drink on site. Which meant people who wanted to get pissed for a reasonable amount of money would set up camp there and get very pissed.
  9. Next Announcement thread

    I'm not sure there's even legitimate information that there's a "missing" Pyramid sub. Just people looking at the acts announced and deciding they're not big enough to do that slot, so someone else must be on. I'd be the reality is the full line up will come out and the sub will just be someone from further down the line-up that people are surprised is playing that high.
  10. Mine was slow but far from unusable. Was able to check email/social networks fine, notifications were coming through. Was faster back at camp of an evening than in the centre.
  11. Brothers cider Bar

    Well the other common factor is that they were all seen with alcohol. I know you heart the WBC but it's not like they do anything that Brothers don't do to discourage underage drinking. Unless you subscribe to the barmy notion that selling 4 pints in a bottle somehow does that more than selling 4 pints in cups. Yes, the DPS could have shut down the entire bar had he wanted, but ask you keep pointing out, that person has full authority over all alcohol sales on the site, so could shut down any bar for any reason, so statements like that are utterly meaningless. Fair enough, just moronic idiocy on the part of MDC then.
  12. Brothers cider Bar

    Certainly possible, also possible the complaints came from someone other other WBC as there were other bar operators. I was the giving the DPS/MDC the benefit of the doubt for not being morons that didn't realise that 4 pints is approximately two litres. Same as the "sensible drinking" argument. If people were proxy buying, they'd be more likely to buy individual pints so everyone could have their own drinks receptacle... One issue with the bottles is that they were more visible - four cardboard pint cups coloured green crush down and blend into the grass easier than a plastic bottles. So in terms of 'keeping up appearances' it may have been a sensible move, but in terms of actually having any effect whatsoever.
  13. Brothers cider Bar

    The way I heard the Brothers story is that it was owners/runners of other bars getting pissed off at the bottles taking their trade away (because there's only one Brothers Bar on site, but the bottles let people essentially drink it all around the festival). The sensible drinking thing is obvious guff - you could still buy four pints in four cardboard cups - more alcohol, except you then had a drink it all at once as it was difficult to cart around the festival. The brilliance of the bottles was you drink some and keep the rest for later. If they were selling bottles without tops, that'd be a different story. All worked in out in the end though, as now you can buy it in cans from Tesco and take it in with you!
  14. Next Announcement thread

    I dunno, there are a lot of people in the dance village and Shangri-la all weekend. Those who go almost entirely for the dancy stuff have probably had a great two weeks.
  15. Would you like a fairer way to buy tickets?

    I think you could do a fair lotto, where people are prevented from getting more than one entry. But the cost and effort of enforcing that wouldn't be worth the marginal increase in fairness. But equally you could find a late night bar with wifi and pull an all nighter there. All I'm saying is that people in remote areas without broadband are no better off either way. And dial up would work. I think you would likely have a marginal disadvantage to those on broadband, but the amount of data gong back and forth is tiny. It's about hitting the server at the right time. Well an organised group have 20 people trying and need to succeed four times. So one in five people need to get through. You have four people and need to get through once. So your chances are lower. It's compounded by the fact that those 20 people can all keep trying after succeeding too.