Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Alternative Vote


Guest doogie

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 206
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Admin

France uses a run off election to elect its president, not a million miles away from AV.

it's exactly the same as AV, but done in multiple processes rather than in one go.

There's a huge number of countries that use this format, which makes the 'no' campaign's claims of "AV only being used in 3 countries in the world" as laughable.

But really, few electoral systems are exactly the same anyway. They should be tailored to what each country needs to properly elect their politicians. FPTP did this in Britain a few decades ago but not now.

FPTP has never properly elected our politicians. It exists as it does only because it was as far as 'the establishment' would go with political reform at the times we've had minor political reforms (and we've only ever had minor reforms!), because it ensured that those who traditionally have their hands on the levers of power kept their hands on the levers of power.

Exactly the same thing has gone on here with this AV referendum. There's little call by the public for AV, what people who want change really want is PR; we are having a vote on AV only because that's as far as the tories - the establishment - are prepared to go with reform, because it doesn't marginalise them.

The clearest indicator that this opportunity of 'reform' is really political gerrymandering comes from this: Dave Moron wants to reduce the number of MPs by 50, saying there's too many MPs. Yet before that reduction of 50 has even taken place, he's appointed 117 new "lords" to the unelected House of Lords, to ensure that whatever the democratically-elected chamber might do will be undermined by his stooges in the Lords.

I've been quite amused when watching senior tories on TV talking about the AV vote recently. For example, Hague said the other day that a better case can be made for PR than it can for AV ... so why the f**k hasn't he and his cronies allowed a vote on PR? Much

the same was said last night by the tory they had on Newsnight. About the only other 'sensible' argument they're able to make against AV is that it might cost more, as tho reaching the best implementation of democracy should be decided on cost and not on reaching the best implementation of democracy. :lol:

And so it turns out that the tories who are so very kindly allowing us this referendum on our electoral system - which should be the electorate's right to decide and not for politicians to dictate to us - are only able to sustain an argument for FPTP by saying "it's not PR, but we wouldn't let you vote on that, we'll only let you vote on a shit idea", and that all ideas of democracy should be deferred to the costs of a system.

The tories are a f**king bad joke. They're still the same anti-democratic tory scum as they've always been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who don't vote shouldn't complain afterwards about the results of elections. Given what so many people in so many countries have gone through, and are still going through, to get the right to vote I find the level of complacency about elections in this country saddening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I want to see the collapse of capitalism. Who do you suggest i vote for? I find it amusing the level of importance people attach to voting when the only things you're voting on are very minor differences to the same failed system. Voting because other countries cant? Thats some complacent thinking that

I want to see the collapse of capitalism too (mine is not a recent conversion). But at the same time I recognise I've no right to insist on it above the views of others.

And along with the collapse of capitalism, I also want to see the collapse of self-interest, where the needy lose out to the wants of those self-interested - in fact, it's a pre-requisite for the collapse of capitalism outside of dictatorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to see the collapse of capitalism too (mine is not a recent conversion). But at the same time I recognise I've no right to insist on it above the views of others.

And along with the collapse of capitalism, I also want to see the collapse of self-interest, where the needy lose out to the wants of those self-interested - in fact, it's a pre-requisite for the collapse of capitalism outside of dictatorship.

Edited by llcoolphil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Im not sure your recommendation to vote lib dem did much to assist your not recent conversion nor any post i can find since. I can find plenty that advocate minor tinkering with the existing system but not much under collapse of capitalism.

it's precisely because the available options were only tinkering that I suggested people vote LibDem - if people had done in the required numbers at least we'd have proper representative govt and not the corruption of it that FPTP gives.

As for anything I've said that you've interpreted as tinkering, you've failed to appreciate that I've been talking within where we are and not pointlessly advocating an ideal that has no hope of being achieved at the current time.

I'll file your latest claim next to your soon to sky rocket interest rates claim (12 months and not even a hint)

Are the BoE adhering to the remit, or are they doing different to their remit?

It's because they're doing different to their remit - and so proving themselves as not an independent committee but as an operational arm of govt the same as they were pre-97 - that rates haven't changed. The reason why slimy Gideon has asked them to do what they're doing is because the govt is trying to inflate the country's way out of debt - which is rather amusing, given how often the tories have slagged Labour off over decades for doing just that.

All the same, the tide is turning towards higher interest rates - and a part of what I've said will hold true, that they'll be at around 8% by 2015.

and that Browne report that only you ever read and google has never heard of. Oh and that other website you still cant find a link to.

but far better than your claims of no institutional bias, given that the top performing Cambridge Uni (Emmanuel) is the one with the highest intake of state school pupils. :lol::lol:

If those top-Uni academics are as smart as you've claimed, you have to now wonder why they give preference to public school kids when they drag down the results of those unis. :)

Eta

After seeing your definition elsewhere, are you sure you should be bandying that wingnut thing about quite so much?

as that wing-nut would say himself over what you're raising if I'd have raised it - "sementics". :rolleyes:

While the game of football they might refer to their rules as 'laws', they are not literally 'laws', but they are literally rules. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to see the collapse of capitalism too (mine is not a recent conversion). But at the same time I recognise I've no right to insist on it above the views of others.

And along with the collapse of capitalism, I also want to see the collapse of self-interest, where the needy lose out to the wants of those self-interested - in fact, it's a pre-requisite for the collapse of capitalism outside of dictatorship.

Edited by worm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to see the collapse of capitalism. Who do you suggest i vote for? I find it amusing the level of importance people attach to voting when the only things you're voting on are very minor differences to the same failed system. Voting because other countries cant? Thats some complacent thinking that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Which is, of course, a projection of your self-interest.

I can't remember who said it now, but whoever it was got it right in that 'it is the social duty of every individual to experess their self-interest for without it society cannot function'.

Yeah, it's in my self interest to put the interests of others before my own. :lol:

We should be empowering people's individuality, not repressing it.

and here lies the reason why this country is so f**ked up. Some of us have experienced a very different country to the only one that you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to see the collapse of capitalism. Who do you suggest i vote for? I find it amusing the level of importance people attach to voting when the only things you're voting on are very minor differences to the same failed system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

The one neil cited as supporting a point he was making until several people who had actually read it pointed out it did no such tbing. It turned out neil was referring to a report only he had read, didnt have a link to and no amount of searching on google (inc. Scholar) could find - but it definitely backed his point up!

I clearly read far more on such subjects than you do, hence my confusion over where it had come from, and my knowledge that the best performing Cambridge college is the one with the highest proportion of state school educated students .... which funnily enough, backs up the point I was making. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Self interest is almost genetic - like the survival instinct. So we have to almost start by recognising that many people act (or vote) from a point of view of self-interest.

If you can bring about enlightened self interest by widening people's perspectives then you're getting somewhere.

An example would be the continuation of the Glastonbury Festival. If numbers on site had continued to spiral with fence jumping or pollution continued with pissing in hedges then the licence would have been revoked. By erecting The Fence and introducing the Green Police GFL made a start. But if we can get people to realise that by paying for tickets and using the toilets they are continuing to ensure the future of the festival then hopefully they will act out of enlightened self-interest.

If you want to bring about wider social change you have to get people to understand the benefits of the change so that again they will act out of enlightened self interest.

An example might be Nestle now introducing a range of FairTrade coffee. I don't believe for one moment that Nestle were concerned about the conditions of workers on coffee plantations. But they realised that their sales might actually benefit from having a FairTrade range. So they acted from a point of view of enlightened self-interest.

Edited by grumpyhack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

interestingly the first bank bailout was effectively in 1998

I think you need to read up on financial history. Just about every bank that's ever failed in the last 60-ish years - and there's been loads just within the UK - has been bailed out in some manner. Nick Leeson's doings with Barings is one example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you need to read up on financial history. Just about every bank that's ever failed in the last 60-ish years - and there's been loads just within the UK - has been bailed out in some manner. Nick Leeson's doings with Barings is one example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

incorrect Barings wasn't bailed out by the state it was bought by ING for £1 who took on all their liabilities

You didn't say you were talking specifically about state bailouts.

But anyway, 'private' bailouts such as happened with Barings - and, more recently, with HBOS - are ones where the govt gets the banking sector by the short and curlies and tells them "one or more of you WILL save this bank, else we're going to screw around with the lot of you and cost you far more than the cost of saving this bank".

Whether a bailout is done by the state or in that 'private' manner, the result is the same - the rich get to keep their money, and the losses they've clocked up get put upon the rest of us. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't say you were talking specifically about state bailouts.

But anyway, 'private' bailouts such as happened with Barings - and, more recently, with HBOS - are ones where the govt gets the banking sector by the short and curlies and tells them "one or more of you WILL save this bank, else we're going to screw around with the lot of you and cost you far more than the cost of saving this bank".

Whether a bailout is done by the state or in that 'private' manner, the result is the same - the rich get to keep their money, and the losses they've clocked up get put upon the rest of us. ;)

Edited by lost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...