I expect once all the ******** is over, it will all be demolished.
The council round here wants to close the swimming pool so no chance for
that lot.

The government may well intervene to save face on a lot of it, who knows.
they need some kind of smoke screen to try to hide the fact that they want
to reduce the number of mps so its easier for a conservative vote to get
them elected, and need some diversionary measures.


Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harryagain" wrote in message
...
I expect once all the ******** is over, it will all be demolished.
The council round here wants to close the swimming pool so no chance for
that lot.

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ...

The government may well intervene to save face on a lot of it, who knows.
they need some kind of smoke screen to try to hide the fact that they want
to reduce the number of mps so its easier for a conservative vote to get
them elected, and need some diversionary measures.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reduction in MP's is not to make it easier for them to get elected, it
is to save money for the economy.

(Admittedly, the associated boundary changes are to make it easier for them
to get elected, but they only need to do that because the previous
incumbents gerrymandered the constituencies to make it easier for *them* to
get elected. At least the new Tory proposals are objectively fair for both
sides.)

tim

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:35:49 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
"tim....." wrote:

The reduction in MP's is not to make it easier for them to get elected, it
is to save money for the economy.

Correct.

(Admittedly, the associated boundary changes are to make it easier for them
to get elected, but they only need to do that because the previous
incumbents gerrymandered the constituencies to make it easier for *them* to
get elected. At least the new Tory proposals are objectively fair for both
sides.)

This is also essentially true, although to be fair we've never had
active gerrymandering in this country (unlike in the US). What has
happened is that in recent years there's been a drift of population from
the old urban centres (typically Labour-held [1]) into the countryside
(typically Tory-held [1]). The Boundary Commission (BC) is tasked with
making changes to even out the constituency sizes, based on the most
recent census. This is quite a slow process, so the changes that came in
for the 2010 election were based on the 2001 census.

When I was living in Cambridgeshire, there were 85000 electors in SE
Cambs, compared to 70000 in some urban ones. Thus it was that the Tories
in 2005 got more votes than Labour in England IIRC but still less seats.

All that can be said that Labour did was to drag its feet slightly in
putting the 2010 changes through Parliament. Usually all sides accept
the Boundary Commission changes as fair (there's lots of consultation)
and they go through on the nod. This whole process can be seen as being
part of the way our Constitution works. [2]

I find it amusing that the LibDems, usually so keen on making the
electoral system "fairer", are going to oppose these changes when
finally proposed by the Boundary Commission.

It's a prime case of cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. But if
they didn't put their foot down with a firm hand over this they
wouldn't be able to demonstrate how much influence they really hold in
this coalition. (Insert witty remark here --- )



[1] but not always, obviously.

[2] Anyone who says we haven't got one is invited to read the Wikipedia
article on my .sig.

Nick

On 08/08/2012 12:10, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Nick Odell wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:35:49 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

I find it amusing that the LibDems, usually so keen on making the
electoral system "fairer", are going to oppose these changes when
finally proposed by the Boundary Commission.

It's a prime case of cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. But if
they didn't put their foot down with a firm hand over this they
wouldn't be able to demonstrate how much influence they really hold in
this coalition. (Insert witty remark here --- )

Especially when you read the coalition agreement. All it does is to say
that a committee will examine and bring forward proposals for an elected
upper house. AFAIK this has been done.

Did anyone really believe that the Olympics would benefit anyone except
glory seekers? Supposedly London (after all it is the London Olympics)
were to benefit, but in reality even London has lost out. Normally we
have a couple of days every Summer in London, but not this year,
shudder. In fact I have had three emails from the hotel we normally stay
at offering reduced tariffs.

--
Residing on low ground in North Staffordshire

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:35:49 +0100 Tim Streater wrote :
When I was living in Cambridgeshire, there were 85000 electors in SE
Cambs, compared to 70000 in some urban ones. Thus it was that the Tories
in 2005 got more votes than Labour in England IIRC but still less seats.

It's not necessarily anything to do with constituency size. Suppose in a
two party system A wins six seats 6:4 votes and B wins four 3:7. In total
A has got 48 votes, B 52 but A has the majority of seats. Much the same as
happened in the 1951 general election which brought Churchill back as PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_1951

"In the event, despite Labour polling almost a quarter of a million votes
more than the Conservative Party (and its National Liberal allies) - and
more votes than in the 1950 election - it was the Conservatives who went
on to form the next government." I suspect the Conservatives weren't
complaining at the unfairness of this!

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:35:49 +0100 Tim Streater wrote :
When I was living in Cambridgeshire, there were 85000 electors in SE
Cambs, compared to 70000 in some urban ones. Thus it was that the Tories
in 2005 got more votes than Labour in England IIRC but still less seats.

It's not necessarily anything to do with constituency size. Suppose in a
two party system A wins six seats 6:4 votes and B wins four 3:7. In total
A has got 48 votes, B 52 but A has the majority of seats. Much the same as
happened in the 1951 general election which brought Churchill back as PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_1951

"In the event, despite Labour polling almost a quarter of a million votes
more than the Conservative Party (and its National Liberal allies) - and
more votes than in the 1950 election - it was the Conservatives who went
on to form the next government." I suspect the Conservatives weren't
complaining at the unfairness of this!

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

All this talk about reducing the number of MPs and yet they are
considering
Having two MPs for the Isle of Wight. Deciding where the boundary will be
will cause real trouble.
Robbie

harryagain wrote:
I expect once all the ******** is over, it will all be demolished.
The council round here wants to close the swimming pool so no chance
for that lot.

I wonder if they will do that before or after it hosts the 2017 World
Athletic Championships?

--
Adam

harryagain wrote:
I expect once all the ******** is over, it will all be demolished.
The council round here wants to close the swimming pool so no chance
for that lot.

On the plus side. the Aussies were not commissioned to build the Olympic
Stadium or you would still be waiting for the 2013 London Olympics.

--
Adam

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 19:17:24 +0100 ARWadsworth wrote :
On the plus side. the Aussies were not commissioned to build the Olympic
Stadium or you would still be waiting for the 2013 London Olympics.

Multiplex built Wembley - though the delay in completion might just confirm
your opinion.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Roberts" wrote:

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:35:49 +0100 Tim Streater wrote :
When I was living in Cambridgeshire, there were 85000 electors in SE
Cambs, compared to 70000 in some urban ones. Thus it was that the
Tories
in 2005 got more votes than Labour in England IIRC but still less
seats.

It's not necessarily anything to do with constituency size. Suppose in a
two party system A wins six seats 6:4 votes and B wins four 3:7. In
total
A has got 48 votes, B 52 but A has the majority of seats. Much the same
as
happened in the 1951 general election which brought Churchill back as PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_1951

"In the event, despite Labour polling almost a quarter of a million
votes
more than the Conservative Party (and its National Liberal allies) - and
more votes than in the 1950 election - it was the Conservatives who went
on to form the next government." I suspect the Conservatives weren't
complaining at the unfairness of this!

All this talk about reducing the number of MPs and yet they are
considering
Having two MPs for the Isle of Wight. Deciding where the boundary will be
will cause real trouble.

I think each will have a chunk of the mainland too.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, that's exactly what the islanders (successfully) spent 18 months
campaigning against. It's excluded from the general rules as are the
Western Isle, Orkney and Shetland.

Though the islanders would have been more than happy with a single
constituency, so will I accept the charge of Tory gerrymandering by giving
it two

tim

In message , ARWadsworth
writes
harryagain wrote:
I expect once all the ******** is over, it will all be demolished.
The council round here wants to close the swimming pool so no chance
for that lot.

I wonder if they will do that before or after it hosts the 2017 World
Athletic Championships?


Indeed, and quite a bit is temporary anyway (such as the basketball
arena and the water polo arena, some of the others I think - hockey
probably for another)) And velodromes and Olympic standard pool/diving
aren't exactly thick on the ground so I imagine they will get used.
--
Chris French

In message , Moonraker
writes
On 08/08/2012 12:10, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Nick Odell wrote:

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:35:49 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

I find it amusing that the LibDems, usually so keen on making the
electoral system "fairer", are going to oppose these changes when
finally proposed by the Boundary Commission.

It's a prime case of cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. But if
they didn't put their foot down with a firm hand over this they
wouldn't be able to demonstrate how much influence they really hold in
this coalition. (Insert witty remark here --- )

Especially when you read the coalition agreement. All it does is to say
that a committee will examine and bring forward proposals for an elected
upper house. AFAIK this has been done.

Did anyone really believe that the Olympics would benefit anyone except
glory seekers?

And all the people who have enjoyed having them in this country, because
they attended an event, or because they were a volunteer, or feel they
have benefited because they worked there. Or maybe just because they
liked them being here.

Supposedly London (after all it is the London Olympics) were to
benefit, but in reality even London has lost out. Normally we have a
couple of days every Summer in London, but not this year, shudder. In
fact I have had three emails from the hotel we normally stay at
offering reduced tariffs.

You should have taken advantage of the offer. From what I can see,
central London wasn't really any busier than normal, other than maybe
on some bits of the transport system at times.
--
Chris French

chris French wrote:
In message , ARWadsworth
writes
harryagain wrote:
I expect once all the ******** is over, it will all be demolished.
The council round here wants to close the swimming pool so no chance
for that lot.

I wonder if they will do that before or after it hosts the 2017 World
Athletic Championships?


Indeed, and quite a bit is temporary anyway (such as the basketball
arena and the water polo arena, some of the others I think - hockey
probably for another)) And velodromes and Olympic standard pool/diving
aren't exactly thick on the ground so I imagine they will get used.

The Velodrome will be used as a national cycling centre, and the pool
will also be used as a national training/ competition centre, both after
the removal of most of the seating.

They're still arguing the toss over which (Or indeed any,) football club
will take over the main stadium, which will be reduced from its current
size to 20,000 seats. The problem is, if they put a standard size
football pitch in there, the fans will need binoculars to see the
players due to the size of the arena. It's not quite big enough for two
pitches for shorter tournaments.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"chris French" wrote in message
...

In message , ARWadsworth
writes
harryagain wrote:
I expect once all the ******** is over, it will all be demolished.
The council round here wants to close the swimming pool so no chance
for that lot.

I wonder if they will do that before or after it hosts the 2017 World
Athletic Championships?


Indeed, and quite a bit is temporary anyway (such as the basketball
arena and the water polo arena, some of the others I think - hockey
probably for another)) And velodromes and Olympic standard pool/diving
aren't exactly thick on the ground so I imagine they will get used.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I presume you mean for holding competitions in?

That's not what happened in Montreal, though AIH the swimming arena is the
only venue that is still used for sport, but not competitive sport.

It's just a municipal pool that residents can swim for 5 dollars (or
whatever) a time

tim

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
The Velodrome will be used as a national cycling centre, and the pool
will also be used as a national training/ competition centre, both after
the removal of most of the seating.

IIRC, the buildings were designed to have the 'wings' containing the
majority of the seating removed after the games.

--
*Why isn't 11 pronounced onety one? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
The Velodrome will be used as a national cycling centre, and the pool
will also be used as a national training/ competition centre, both after
the removal of most of the seating.

IIRC, the buildings were designed to have the 'wings' containing the
majority of the seating removed after the games.

Correct. At least according to the dozen or so guided tours I've driven
round the park over the last few years. ;-)

The system for the main arena is similar, with most of the seating in a
removable "doughnut".

One or two of the other arenas were designed to be re-usable in other
locations, but I believe that those plans have now fallen through,
though I could be wrong.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.