Makom

Yes, obviously people would vote differently if the system was different, but most people are arguing for PR based on how many seats the small parties would have got on a simple vote-seat ratio. Chez, I have no idea what you think I'm not getting from your explanations, but I don't think anyone here can really be in any doubt that if the Tories wanted a coalition and the numbers were as they were above, then UKIP would hold all the cards - they would very easily be able to get some of their other major policies in return for what the Tories want, a majority. As far as I recall, stuff like scrapping foreign aid and HS2 were their other major policies. Of course, I suppose the Tories could say to UKIP, fuck you, we're not going to give you anything except a referendum, it's that or nothing, and therefore they would still say yes. This only goes to show another downside of PR - under FPTP we ended up with a Tory govt. who will hold an EU referendum, yet under the supposedly more democratic system we would still end up with the referendum and a largely Tory govt., but we would also have nutters like Farage sitting in the cabinet and a government totally hamstrung by needing the support of UKIP to pass anything (the other downside to whips not being able to control their party) And whatever it is people think PR does that FPTP doesn't, I'm sure they didn't have in mind producing coalitions like Lib-Lab-SNP-Green, as I think that would be crazy if the goal is to identify the majority view. How anyone could possibly know what their vote was for in that scenario is beyond me - obviously that coalition is left leaning, but there's massive areas of difference in it, both on social policy and environmental policy, not to mention the huge differences on basic constitutional issues (Lib Dems want a federal UK, SNP want independance, Lab are unionist). If the UK had a system which regularly produced govt.s like that, which must be the conclusion if PR meant even more people voted for minor parties, then I can't see how we wouldn't do the same as France and scrap it at the first available opportunity.

PITCH INVASION or GTFO. Let's do it Blackpool styleeeeeeee.........

Might even turn out to be beneficial move for him. I suspect it's not going to be the next leader who gets the chance to fundamentally change the party, it will be the one after that. As surely the same mistakes are going to be repeated one more time before it sinks in what's actually causing these failures to launch.

Aye, but if you're really like Ghandi you'd be full up after just a teaspoon of cocoa pops.

What on Earth are you talking about? The PR result would have been as as follows: Con 242 Lab 199 UKIP 82 Lib D 51 SNP 31 Green 24 Given those numbers, what possible outcome would there be, if not a Tory-UKIP coalition? And in that case, what possible leverage would the Tories have had to be able to refuse to accepting UKIPs main objectives (such as cancelling foreign aid)? It was already Tory policy to have a referendum, so UKIP would obviously be wanting more in return for going into coalition? And a party whip isn't much use if he can't get the party to vote in accordance with the coalition agreement reached, right? And sure, direct translation of votes to seats is not the only system, but if there's a system in the Jenkins report that comes up with any other result in an election like this than giving a disproportionate influence to UKIP, it shouldn't be hard to explain it here using the actual example of this election, right? As for a cursory examination of the facts of 70 years of European history, well, PR wasn't exactly a success for France, was it? It wasn't a surprise that the proportional system which gave the far right and far left 35 seats each, out of 573, was binned after just one election, and they decided to return to a system which favours outright winners, returning the National Front to a position more like UKIP's today (they're actually remarkably similar - UKIP got 1 seat of 650 for 12.6%, while in 2012 the National Front got 2 of 577 for 13.6%, the third by popular vote, by some margin). Other than the far right, is there anyone in France right now desperately calling for a more proportional system?

Yes, I got that. Obviously something happened later for them to decide to wipe us out after creating us. The issue was, why did their original star map direct us to that specific planet? The only way it makes sense is if they turned their home planet, the one they wanted us to find, into a weapons planet later (moving their entire civilization somewhere else). It contradicts the theory referenced in the film, that the weapons facility planet would be somewhere well away from their home planet.

Nice link, it just reminded me of about another 10 issues with the plot.

And there's me just had a lovely 'luxury' pizza from the Co-Op, which took all of 25 minutes to open, cook and eat. I say luxury because it has red onion and spinach on it, and smells of something that is presumably meant to be garlic.

The job would have been Carver's for a certainy had he managed a couple more wins. But the fact he hasn't, combined with his bafflingly stupid actions/comments these last two weeks have made it almost certain that he's a goner even if we survive. But whoever we end up with, he will be just as incompetent.

I heard this claim made the other day, but I very much doubt most neutrals out there are hoping we go down out of boredom/jealousy/schadenfreude. Those that do are probably the most ignorant of our situation - you can't call yourself a genuine or remotely knowledgeable football fan and not be horrified at what Ashley has turned this club into.

On what planet is that sentence even remotely true?

I'm not sure what you think I have misunderstood. I know full well that PR decides how many seats you get, and I know full well that, in theory at least, parties can choose not to go into coalition (although why you think they would when the inevitable result is power being handed to the people furthest from their position, is beyond me). It is not just distasteful to be having the government formed by post-ballot negotiation, it is extremely undemocratic if the meaning of democracy is representing the views of the majority (either or the electorate or of the partners). And it's very easy to prove that when you get down to practical realities - something which nobody here who supports PR seems to want to do. In this election, it's pretty obvious that PR would have resulted in a UKIP-Tory coalition, not least because, there would no other possible coalition to secure a majority except Tory-Labour, which would never happen. And it's pretty obvious that UKIP would be the relative winners in the ensuing negotiations. Which leaves advocates of PR having to explain how it's democratic, for, say, the foreign aid budget to disappear simply because 12.6.% of voters said it should, or because the minority partner in the coalition said it should. That wasn't in the Tory manifesto, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't in any of the others either. Why? Because it's an extremist policy. The same goes for any of the other big ticket supposedly populist items UKIP would demand. PR is undemocratic because it rewards extremists, precisely because it forces parties into coalitions, coalitions which can never failry represent the homologated view. The only time it doesn't, is if the partner is a centrist party, and I don't think you can really argue PR would be democratic if you built into it some kind of safety system that ensured it only worked for centrist votes.

It's getting rave reviews from the critics. I can't see why, without actually seeing it....

I'm trying really hard to think of a single thing a Con-UKIP coalition would do that better represented the majority of British voters, that wouldn't be done anyway by a Conservative government with a thin majority. It would actually be worse, under PR, you could see Con-UKIP doing disgraceful things like scrapping foreign aid entirely (a core policy of theirs), just to hold the government together, something Cameron won't have to do at all now because of FPTP, which keeps out extremists by design. At first glance it appears to be fairer, but frankly, it's actually really hard for anyone to successfully argue that coalitions are fair when you get down to it. It's really hard to argue that a coalition that has to pander to extremists like UKIP serves the majority will at all. Just like it was a really hard sell to Liberals that right wing nasty shit like the bedroom tax and ACAS is the price worth paying for supposed economic recovery. It patently wasn't, hence why they have been wiped out for doing so. The case for PR has holes all over it once it's actually critically examined against the majority will using practical examples of the day. Take HS2 - it has broad support amongst Con and Lab, ergo it is the will of the majority to see it built. Yet that too might have been completely scrapped as the price to pay for a PR generated Con-UKIP govt. Similarly, it might have gone as part of the cost cutting demanded by the SNP in a left wing coalition. FPTP however, is going to see it built, especially since FPTP by design gives strong support for things that have cross bench approval.

I'm saying it doesn't. It can actually do a worse job in some respects, as this election proved.

Is this the same Trooper from Newcastle-Online who called me a wind up merchant? Shirly not....

Prove it then. Let's see your working for how PR supposedly comes up with a better expression of what the majority wanted in this election, or the 2010 one for that matter. As far as I can tell, PR would have either forced the Conservatives into coalition with UKIP, or would have resulted in a left wing coalition of parties forming a government representing the views of 46.8% of voters (Lab-Lib-SNP-Grn), with Con/UKIP's share of 49.5% being in opposition. I can't think of any definition of the concept of majority will that makes either of those outcomes sustainable as either fair or democratic. The same issues exist for the 2010 election.

It will depend on whether the great British public believes what is written in the likes of the Mail or the Sun, and has the general time/ability/desire to do their own research before deciding. So that's a no/out then....

Electoral reform will happen as soon as someone proves it doesn't give disproportionate influence to extremists like UKIP, or proves it is better at identifying the will of the majority than the existing system. So basically, it will never happen.

I've no idea how it related to the NHS (the issue of private providers I'm guessing), but that would seem to be a rather narrow issue given this is about trade as a whole, easily dealt with by sector specific legislation, as is already the case.

I'm more than familiar with it, hence my criticism. Do you have any examples of it resulting in a better life for constituents?

Are you two outing yourselves as one of the 1,229 people in the whole country who voted Communist by any chance?

After relegation.....nope. Still not bothered. In order to care what happens, you have to still be under the illusion that this is still a football club worth caring about. I couldn't case less which player stays or goes, I only slightly prefer Carver staying for the pure comedy value. I won't be caring about it until the second the cheque is signed by whoever buys it off Ashley, and the whole roller coaster ride starts again. I quite literally will feel nothing either way, if we stay up or get relegated. I am numb to it.

I sincerely hope you're joking. Saying that at the best of times is a bit daft, but just after the VE day anniversary, is quite mad. Anyway, democracy is a nebulous concept, it means many things to many people. It's always worth bearing in mind that the Greeks, who supposedly invented this democracy lark, had a quite different idea of how it should operate - their system was literally the ad hoc random selection of enough people in order to make a collective decision by majority vote, whenever it was something they didn't trust an official to decide on the citizenry's behalf. No parties, no MPs, no elections, no campaigns, none of that shite. It was more like jury service than anything else we have today that's called democracy.

It struck me today that I know next to nothing about the person who is arguably having the biggest detrimental effect on the club's fortunes over the period that has seen us get into this mess, most notably the second half of this season. It's this guy whose job it is to find a new manager in the very rare instance that your existing one chooses to walk away, and it's this guy whose job it is to negotiate contracts, both existing and potential, in the transfer windows. Christ, it's even this guy's job to actually identify which players are surplus to requirements, when you're being directed by your superiors to sell any saleable assets. Ashley is a known quantity, we know what he's all about. Carver is just a turnip in a tracksuit. But this Charnley fucker, who he? Who is this man who is causing me so much pain and misery? (well, who would be if I cared any longer). In theory, it's this guy who should be able to come up with a decent plan to work around the miserly restrictions imposed on him by his boss, and come out of it with a club which does better than the basket cases and prayer-less minnows we now find ourselves amongst, fighting for survival. He's got no Wikipedia page, he gets no mention at all on the club's Wikipedia page, which is kind of strange if you were perhaps naively assuming that a top Premier League club would have a managing director with some background of notable achievement in the world of business or football, or even the football business. I'm honestly scared to Google the guy in case I confirm my suspicions based on his record, that he's got absolutely no right to be anywhere near this job at all.....