David wrote:
I'm finding it very hard to select a candidate to vote for.
The choice of party might be slightly easier ...

My standard advice if you can't pick a party is to pick a person,
but it seems you've already attempted that.

We don't have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper.
If I had started earlier (with the time, money, inclination) I could have
formed the None of the Above party.

The None of The Above Party has already been formed. It is not legal
to have a registered description "None of the above", so they are
called "Above and Beyond". Their sole policy is to have "None of the
above" placed on ballot papers.

jgh

Andrew wrote:
Clegg to be more accurate) totally reneged on his side of the coalition
agreement that they made in May 2010 to allow the electoral boundaries
commission to realign the constituency boundaries to take account of the
gradual movements in demographic groups since 1994.

That already happened in 2004-2006. How the hell has everybody forgetten
that absolutely every news report in the run up to 2010 started with
"on the new boundaries...."

Parliamentary boundaries are reviewd every 15 years already. The only problem
with the reviews is the data they use is so out of date. The boundaries
used in the 2010 election were drawn in 2004-2006 using the electoral
register from 2001.

In contrast, the local boundary review we've just had for council elections
in 2016 were drawn up in 2014-2015 using the electoral register from 2013
with projections to 2018.

jgh

On 05/05/15 19:04, wrote:
David wrote:
I'm finding it very hard to select a candidate to vote for.
The choice of party might be slightly easier ...

My standard advice if you can't pick a party is to pick a person,
but it seems you've already attempted that.

We don't have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper.
If I had started earlier (with the time, money, inclination) I could have
formed the None of the Above party.

The None of The Above Party has already been formed. It is not legal
to have a registered description "None of the above", so they are
called "Above and Beyond". Their sole policy is to have "None of the
above" placed on ballot papers.

By all estimations, we're heading for a hung parliament - which might be
a good thing as all politicians seem to do is break stuff.

Stamp duty aside which they finally fixed - but that took long enough...

On 05/05/15 21:10, Tim Watts wrote:
we're heading for a hung parliament - which might be a good thing

constitutional paralysis.

We need a monarch...


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 05/05/15 21:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/05/15 21:10, Tim Watts wrote:
we're heading for a hung parliament - which might be a good thing

constitutional paralysis.

We need a monarch...



Yay for Liz

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Watts wrote:

we're heading for a hung parliament - which might be a good thing

constitutional paralysis.
We need a monarch...

Maybe we should stop the buggers feeling the need to constantly churning
out laws just because they've been elected. Texas seems to make do with
no more than 140 days of law making every two years, they could then
serve their constituents the rest of the time ...

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Andrew wrote:
Clegg to be more accurate) totally reneged on his side of the
coalition agreement that they made in May 2010 to allow the electoral
boundaries commission to realign the constituency boundaries to take
account of the gradual movements in demographic groups since 1994.

That already happened in 2004-2006. How the hell has everybody forgetten
that absolutely every news report in the run up to 2010 started with
"on the new boundaries...."

Parliamentary boundaries are reviewd every 15 years already. The only
problem
with the reviews is the data they use is so out of date.

Thass right. With the result that the constituency boundaries
permanently favour Labour. It takes a lot fewer votes to elect a Labour
MP than a Tory one. The review made the new constituencies fairer, as
well as eliminating 50 MPs, a useful saving of money. I bet
Clegg/Millibean regret not reducing the number of Scottish seats, too.
Clegg threw his toys out of the pram and reneged on the promise. Seems
the LibDems don't believe in "fairness" after all.


The limpdems definitely believe in fairness, ie, more taxation!

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

Russia won't attack with nuclear, it doesn't need to with such a nuclear
deterent.
They'll go through the Ukrain into parts or Europe and from their set up
convental
weapons, making sure they don;t use nuclear, unless nuclear is used
against them.

So Trident is completely pointless and always has been.

On Tuesday, 5 May 2015 23:41:41 UTC+1, Simon Brown wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

Russia won't attack with nuclear, it doesn't need to with such a nuclear
deterent.
They'll go through the Ukrain into parts or Europe and from their set up
convental
weapons, making sure they don;t use nuclear, unless nuclear is used
against them.

So Trident is completely pointless and always has been.

Yep, just as usless as the American and russian nuclear deterents.
And because they are so useles we should sell them to ISS or perhaps North korea. After all perhaps we shoud do as the russian and build loads of useless tanks and do what russia does and waste 80 billion on defence.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 5 May 2015 23:41:41 UTC+1, Simon Brown wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

Russia won't attack with nuclear, it doesn't need to with such a
nuclear
deterent.
They'll go through the Ukrain into parts or Europe and from their set
up
convental
weapons, making sure they don;t use nuclear, unless nuclear is used
against them.

So Trident is completely pointless and always has been.

Yep, just as usless as the American and russian nuclear deterents.

Nope, those have much more than just one sub at sea at any one time.

On 05/05/15 21:10, Tim Watts wrote:


By all estimations, we're heading for a hung parliament - which might be
a good thing as all politicians seem to do is break stuff.

Hanging's too good for them :-)



Stamp duty aside which they finally fixed - but that took long enough...

Yay, might save me 4k when I finally get a viable buyer.

Tim Streater wrote:
Thass right. With the result that the constituency boundaries
permanently favour Labour. It takes a lot fewer votes to elect a Labour
MP than a Tory one.

That's nothing to do with boundaries, it's entirely due to the fact
Labour seats are won with low turnouts and non-Labour seats are won
woth high turnouts.

In Sheffield all six seats have 72,000 electors. In Hallam 50,000 of
them voted, with 30,000 voting LibDem, getting 1.00 LibDem MPs. In
Brightside only 38,000 of those 72,000 people voted, 20,000 voting
Labour and getting 1.00 Labour MPs. Wah wah! Not fair! Brightside
should only have 2/3 of an MP! Wah wah! Throws rattle out of pram.

jgh

On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 10:19:18 UTC+1, Simon Brown wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 5 May 2015 23:41:41 UTC+1, Simon Brown wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

Russia won't attack with nuclear, it doesn't need to with such a
nuclear
deterent.
They'll go through the Ukrain into parts or Europe and from their set
up
convental
weapons, making sure they don;t use nuclear, unless nuclear is used
against them.

So Trident is completely pointless and always has been.

Yep, just as usless as the American and russian nuclear deterents.

Nope, those have much more than just one sub at sea at any one time.

But still as useless, unless they use them, isn't that the case. If they aren't used and won't be used they are useless.

On Tue, 05 May 2015 11:04:22 -0700, jgh wrote:

David wrote:
I'm finding it very hard to select a candidate to vote for.
The choice of party might be slightly easier ...

My standard advice if you can't pick a party is to pick a person, but it
seems you've already attempted that.

We don't have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper.
If I had started earlier (with the time, money, inclination) I could
have formed the None of the Above party.

The None of The Above Party has already been formed. It is not legal to
have a registered description "None of the above", so they are called
"Above and Beyond". Their sole policy is to have "None of the above"
placed on ballot papers.


Well, not exactly - from their web site their policy stretches a lot
further than that including major constitutional reform.

Far more ambitious than anything that I was considering.

Cheers


Dave R

--
Windows 8.1 on PCSpecialist box

In article ,
writes
Tim Streater wrote:
Thass right. With the result that the constituency boundaries
permanently favour Labour. It takes a lot fewer votes to elect a Labour
MP than a Tory one.

That's nothing to do with boundaries, it's entirely due to the fact
Labour seats are won with low turnouts and non-Labour seats are won
woth high turnouts.

It's everything to do with boundaries. Inner city constituencies now
have smaller electoral rolls than others. The fact that most return
Labour MPs is nothing to do with it. The commission was tasked with
trying to make constituencies more equal in terms of size of electoral
roll. Whether they vote or not is irrelevant.
Lib-Dems came up with a half-baked scheme to reform the House of Lords
and when it was (rightly) thrown out they threw there toys out of the
pram.
Snip
jgh

--
bert

In article , Tim Watts
writes
On 05/05/15 19:04, wrote:
David wrote:
I'm finding it very hard to select a candidate to vote for.
The choice of party might be slightly easier ...

My standard advice if you can't pick a party is to pick a person,
but it seems you've already attempted that.

We don't have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper.
If I had started earlier (with the time, money, inclination) I could have
formed the None of the Above party.

The None of The Above Party has already been formed. It is not legal
to have a registered description "None of the above", so they are
called "Above and Beyond". Their sole policy is to have "None of the
above" placed on ballot papers.

By all estimations, we're heading for a hung parliament - which might
be a good thing as all politicians seem to do is break stuff.

Stamp duty aside which they finally fixed - but that took long enough...

Given the number of laws already in existence one could ask why do we
need a parliament constantly passing even more.
--
bert

In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Andy
Burns wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Watts wrote:

we're heading for a hung parliament - which might be a good thing

constitutional paralysis.
We need a monarch...

Maybe we should stop the buggers feeling the need to constantly
churning out laws just because they've been elected. Texas seems to
make do with no more than 140 days of law making every two years, they
could then serve their constituents the rest of the time ...

Yeah and look at Texas. A place where you can get off murder if you can
demonstrate that "the son of a bitch deserved to die".

If our MPs only made laws for 70 days a year, you'd all be whinging
about how they only work 70 days a year.

That's nearly a grand a day - almost as much as a contract A&E
consultant.
--
bert

On 07/05/15 11:49, bert wrote:
In article , Tim Watts
writes
On 05/05/15 19:04, wrote:
David wrote:
I'm finding it very hard to select a candidate to vote for.
The choice of party might be slightly easier ...

My standard advice if you can't pick a party is to pick a person,
but it seems you've already attempted that.

We don't have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper.
If I had started earlier (with the time, money, inclination) I could
have
formed the None of the Above party.

The None of The Above Party has already been formed. It is not legal
to have a registered description "None of the above", so they are
called "Above and Beyond". Their sole policy is to have "None of the
above" placed on ballot papers.

By all estimations, we're heading for a hung parliament - which might
be a good thing as all politicians seem to do is break stuff.

Stamp duty aside which they finally fixed - but that took long enough...

Given the number of laws already in existence one could ask why do we
need a parliament constantly passing even more.

The ought to repeal two for every one they pass.

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 07/05/15 11:49, bert wrote:
In article , Tim Watts
writes
On 05/05/15 19:04, wrote:
David wrote:
I'm finding it very hard to select a candidate to vote for.
The choice of party might be slightly easier ...

My standard advice if you can't pick a party is to pick a person,
but it seems you've already attempted that.

We don't have a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper.
If I had started earlier (with the time, money, inclination) I could
have
formed the None of the Above party.

The None of The Above Party has already been formed. It is not legal
to have a registered description "None of the above", so they are
called "Above and Beyond". Their sole policy is to have "None of the
above" placed on ballot papers.

By all estimations, we're heading for a hung parliament - which might
be a good thing as all politicians seem to do is break stuff.

Stamp duty aside which they finally fixed - but that took long enough...

Given the number of laws already in existence one could ask why do we
need a parliament constantly passing even more.

They did delete a few a while back...