"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 07/06/15 22:11, John Chance wrote:

Unlikely given the pathetic result UKIP got in the most recent elections,
just one MP elected, and that one a refugee from the Tories that who
wouldnt even do what UKIP wanted him to do about putting his snout
in the HoC trough on staff. Nothing to be scared of there.


And yet:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Ordered by share of the votes

Party Vote share Seats
Cons 36.9% 331
Lab 30.4% 232
UKIP 12.6% 1
LibDem 7.9% 8

Which was completely useless as far as the number of
MPs that UKIP has and couldnt even get Farage elected.

And tell me again why we still used this broken arsed voting system?

Because the alternative makes coalition governments inevitable
and mostly produces very unstable government as well. In some
cases like Belgium, they couldnt even manage to form govt at all
for nearly two years.

On 08/06/2015 07:47, Tim Watts wrote:
On 07/06/15 22:11, John Chance wrote:

Unlikely given the pathetic result UKIP got in the most recent elections,
just one MP elected, and that one a refugee from the Tories that who
wouldnt even do what UKIP wanted him to do about putting his snout
in the HoC trough on staff. Nothing to be scared of there.


And yet:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Ordered by share of the votes

Party Vote share Seats
Cons 36.9% 331
Lab 30.4% 232
UKIP 12.6% 1
LibDem 7.9% 8


And tell me again why we still used this broken arsed voting system?

Because if we went proportional representation we would have governments
resembling the EU.
Its odd that UKIP want out of the EU but are prepared to put the country
into the same political state if it benefits themselves. On second
thoughts its just "I'm alright stuff everyone else".

On 08/06/15 07:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/06/15 07:47, Tim Watts wrote:
On 07/06/15 22:11, John Chance wrote:

Unlikely given the pathetic result UKIP got in the most recent
elections,
just one MP elected, and that one a refugee from the Tories that who
wouldnt even do what UKIP wanted him to do about putting his snout
in the HoC trough on staff. Nothing to be scared of there.


And yet:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Ordered by share of the votes

Party Vote share Seats
Cons 36.9% 331
Lab 30.4% 232
UKIP 12.6% 1
LibDem 7.9% 8


And tell me again why we still used this broken arsed voting system?

Because it produces a clear winner usually.

Why not cut out the middle man - and just have a dictator?

And clear winners are held to be better than endless coalitions.

Even if 12.6% of the electorate get 0.15% representation?

On 08/06/15 08:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/06/2015 07:47, Tim Watts wrote:
On 07/06/15 22:11, John Chance wrote:

Unlikely given the pathetic result UKIP got in the most recent
elections,
just one MP elected, and that one a refugee from the Tories that who
wouldnt even do what UKIP wanted him to do about putting his snout
in the HoC trough on staff. Nothing to be scared of there.


And yet:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Ordered by share of the votes

Party Vote share Seats
Cons 36.9% 331
Lab 30.4% 232
UKIP 12.6% 1
LibDem 7.9% 8


And tell me again why we still used this broken arsed voting system?

Because if we went proportional representation we would have governments
resembling the EU.
Its odd that UKIP want out of the EU but are prepared to put the country
into the same political state if it benefits themselves. On second
thoughts its just "I'm alright stuff everyone else".

And yet equally strange that the 3 main parties who benefit most from
the FPTP system don't want to change it...

On 08/06/15 08:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/06/2015 07:47, Tim Watts wrote:
On 07/06/15 22:11, John Chance wrote:

Unlikely given the pathetic result UKIP got in the most recent
elections,
just one MP elected, and that one a refugee from the Tories that who
wouldnt even do what UKIP wanted him to do about putting his snout
in the HoC trough on staff. Nothing to be scared of there.


And yet:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Ordered by share of the votes

Party Vote share Seats
Cons 36.9% 331
Lab 30.4% 232
UKIP 12.6% 1
LibDem 7.9% 8


And tell me again why we still used this broken arsed voting system?

Because if we went proportional representation we would have governments
resembling the EU.
Its odd that UKIP want out of the EU but are prepared to put the country
into the same political state if it benefits themselves. On second
thoughts its just "I'm alright stuff everyone else".

No. I would rather UKIP lost the election than have proportional
representation.

UKIP having some kind of half hearted mandate from a minority does not
accomplish the changes UKIP thinks need to be accomplished.

It needs a broad consensus of people to understand and decide that in
fact their and their nation's interests are best served by terminating a
particular relationship with a corrupt and dysfunctional organisation.

Election results are irrelevant against that aim: If enough people think
Brexit is important enough, then UKIP will get its mandate, and its MPs,
or it will happen anyway.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 08/06/15 08:07, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 07:47:57 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

And tell me again why we still used this broken arsed voting system?

Because we don't vote nationally. Never have done. We vote for our
representative for our area, just as we have for centuries since
parliament became democratically voted-for.


Therein lies the problem.

I don't really care who my MP is. I care more about who's running the
country.

I do accept that people like having a local man to who they can write,
but clearly we do have a very broken arsed voting system and we need to
find a better one.

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 09:13:07 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

And tell me again why we still used this broken arsed voting system?

Because we don't vote nationally. Never have done. We vote for our
representative for our area, just as we have for centuries since
parliament became democratically voted-for.

Therein lies the problem.

I don't really care who my MP is. I care more about who's running the
country.

And your MP goes towards determining who that is.

I do accept that people like having a local man to who they can write,

Your MP should be a LOT more than that.

Sure, some of them don't do their job very well - but perhaps that's
because a lot of people blindly vote for the party rather than thinking
about who might actually do the job they're being hired to do. If more
people did that, perhaps we might actually have effective
representatives, rather than apparatchiks handed down from somewhere
nationally?

but clearly we do have a very broken arsed voting system and we need to
find a better one.

Do we? It does exactly what it's intended to do. That might not be what
you think it should be intended to do, but yours is just one voice in
nearly 47m registered voters.

I know. Maybe what's needed is a referendum to see if people want to
change the electoral system? After all, surely such a referendum wouldn't
see the current system preferred by nearly 70% of those who voted, would
it? Oh. Right.

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 09:09:32 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

And clear winners are held to be better than endless coalitions.

Even if 12.6% of the electorate get 0.15% representation?

Every single constituency has the single most popular candidate as their
MP. In Clacton, 28.4% of the electorate get 100% representation.

Well, actually, no - 100% of the electorate get 100% of the
representation, both in Clacton and nationally - because an MPs job is to
represent ALL of the electorate in his constituency, not just those who
agree with him.

On 08/06/15 09:43, Huge wrote:
On 2015-06-08, John Chance wrote:

[28 lines snipped]

Because the alternative makes coalition governments inevitable
and mostly produces very unstable government as well. In some
cases like Belgium, they couldnt even manage to form govt at all
for nearly two years.

And no-one noticed.


Because its all run by the EU anyway.

And that is the point: there are only two things a UK national
government can do.

What they EU tells it to, or leave the EU.

The rest is sheer flummery.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/06/15 09:43, Huge wrote:
On 2015-06-08, John Chance wrote:

[28 lines snipped]

Because the alternative makes coalition governments inevitable
and mostly produces very unstable government as well. In some
cases like Belgium, they couldn‘t even manage to form govt at all
for nearly two years.

And no-one noticed.


Because its all run by the EU anyway.

And that is the point: there are only two things a UK national
government can do.

What they EU tells it to, or leave the EU.

The rest is sheer flummery.

so Westminster does nothing? Total waste of money, then. Abolish it.


--

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 08/06/15 09:59, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/06/15 09:43, Huge wrote:
On 2015-06-08, John Chance wrote:

[28 lines snipped]

Because the alternative makes coalition governments inevitable
and mostly produces very unstable government as well. In some
cases like Belgium, they couldn€˜t even manage to form govt at all
for nearly two years.

And no-one noticed.


Because its all run by the EU anyway.

And that is the point: there are only two things a UK national
government can do.

What they EU tells it to, or leave the EU.

The rest is sheer flummery.

so Westminster does nothing? Total waste of money, then. Abolish it.



Good plan.

--



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 09:59:28 +0100, charles wrote:

Because the alternative makes coalition governments inevitable and
mostly produces very unstable government as well. In some cases like
Belgium, they couldn‘t even manage to form govt at all for nearly
two years.

And no-one noticed.

Because its all run by the EU anyway.

And that is the point: there are only two things a UK national
government can do.

What they EU tells it to, or leave the EU.

The rest is sheer flummery.

so Westminster does nothing? Total waste of money, then. Abolish it.

Well, quite.

If Westminster really _could_ only do what the EU tells it, then there'd
be no difference at all between policy and decisions in London, Athens,
Warsaw, Berlin, Madrid, Rome etc - never mind between a Conservative or
Labour or coalition government in London.

Which is clearly utter nonsense.

Mind you, anybody who thinks "nobody noticed" in Belgium is a bit
clueless about the reality of Belgium.

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 09:30:38 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

And clear winners are held to be better than endless coalitions.

Even if 12.6% of the electorate get 0.15% representation?

Every single constituency has the single most popular candidate as their
MP. In Clacton, 28.4% of the electorate get 100% representation.

Well, actually, no - 100% of the electorate get 100% of the
representation, both in Clacton and nationally - because an MPs job is
to represent ALL of the electorate in his constituency, not just those
who agree with him.

Quite. And where there's PR, you have no representative you can go to
and present your problem to.

You can take your problem to your MEP - well, to any one of my seven MEPs
- but, of course, because there's seven of them, they could each play
party politics or even just ignore me in the hope that one of the others
would deal with me.

On 08/06/15 10:04, Adrian wrote:
If Westminster really_could_ only do what the EU tells it, then there'd
be no difference at all between policy and decisions in London, Athens,
Warsaw, Berlin, Madrid, Rome etc - never mind between a Conservative or
Labour or coalition government in London.

Exactly. And its beginning to show..



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 08/06/15 09:25, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 09:09:32 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

And clear winners are held to be better than endless coalitions.

Even if 12.6% of the electorate get 0.15% representation?

Every single constituency has the single most popular candidate as their
MP. In Clacton, 28.4% of the electorate get 100% representation.

Well, actually, no - 100% of the electorate get 100% of the
representation, both in Clacton and nationally - because an MPs job is to
represent ALL of the electorate in his constituency, not just those who
agree with him.


You know perfectly well what I meant...

On Mon, 8 Jun 2015 17:17:01 +1000 John Chance wrote :
Because the alternative makes coalition governments inevitable
and mostly produces very unstable government as well. In some
cases like Belgium, they couldn’t even manage to form govt at all
for nearly two years.

There are two alternatives (with variants), often confused. One is
straight PR which more or less guarantees permanent coalitions, the
other AV - the subject of your last referendum - as used for lower
house elections here. Far from delivering unstable governments,
what is notable is that it tends to produce a house with very few
minor party candidates: our Victorian lower house splits 47/38/2,
Federal lower house 90/55/1/1.

That said, a couple of weeks ago there was a press story on what
effect AV would have had on the UK result, and IIRC the conclusion
was not a lot.

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

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 10:23:04 +0000, Huge wrote:

€œThe most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the
apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the
Soviet Union in Western Europe.€� €• Mikhail Gorbachev

A lot of alleged quotes of him saying that, but is there any actual
source or date or context? A year, even?

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 10:54:26 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Well, actually, no - 100% of the electorate get 100% of the
representation, both in Clacton and nationally - because an MPs job is
to represent ALL of the electorate in his constituency, not just those
who agree with him.

Quite. And where there's PR, you have no representative you can go to
and present your problem to.

You can take your problem to your MEP - well, to any one of my seven
MEPs

who are all elected by the List PR system - the worst of the lot, where
it's more or less impossible to get rid of them. So remind me of their
incentive to help you.

Quite.

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 10:59:06 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

And clear winners are held to be better than endless coalitions.

Even if 12.6% of the electorate get 0.15% representation?

Every single constituency has the single most popular candidate as
their MP. In Clacton, 28.4% of the electorate get 100% representation.

Well, actually, no - 100% of the electorate get 100% of the
representation, both in Clacton and nationally - because an MPs job is
to represent ALL of the electorate in his constituency, not just those
who agree with him.

You know perfectly well what I meant...

Yes, I do.

Just as you really, deep down, know perfectly well why your statement is
complete and utter ********.

Here's a clue :- Even if I was a UKIP supporter - one of the 10% in this
constituency - Douglas Carswell doesn't represent me in any way
whatsoever. But I _do_ have a representative at Westminster, whose job is
to do exactly that, without any political spin or favour.

And, FWIW, I happen to know that my local MP (re-elected last month) took
that responsibility very seriously in a migration/child-custody case in
my village recently. Good for him. I still didn't vote for him, though.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 08/06/2015 07:47, Tim Watts wrote:
On 07/06/15 22:11, John Chance wrote:

Unlikely given the pathetic result UKIP got in the most recent
elections,
just one MP elected, and that one a refugee from the Tories that who
wouldnt even do what UKIP wanted him to do about putting his snout
in the HoC trough on staff. Nothing to be scared of there.


And yet:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Ordered by share of the votes

Party Vote share Seats
Cons 36.9% 331
Lab 30.4% 232
UKIP 12.6% 1
LibDem 7.9% 8


And tell me again why we still used this broken arsed voting system?

Because if we went proportional representation we would have governments
resembling the EU.

More accurately resembling Israel, Italy etc.

Its odd that UKIP want out of the EU but are prepared to put the country
into the same political state if it benefits themselves.

Nothing like the same political state, just the same voting system.

On second thoughts its just "I'm alright stuff everyone else".

More that they have realised that they haven't got a hope in
hell of ever getting more than a tiny handful of MPs with the
current voting system.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 08/06/15 08:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/06/2015 07:47, Tim Watts wrote:
On 07/06/15 22:11, John Chance wrote:

Unlikely given the pathetic result UKIP got in the most recent
elections,
just one MP elected, and that one a refugee from the Tories that who
wouldnt even do what UKIP wanted him to do about putting his snout
in the HoC trough on staff. Nothing to be scared of there.


And yet:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Ordered by share of the votes

Party Vote share Seats
Cons 36.9% 331
Lab 30.4% 232
UKIP 12.6% 1
LibDem 7.9% 8


And tell me again why we still used this broken arsed voting system?

Because if we went proportional representation we would have governments
resembling the EU.
Its odd that UKIP want out of the EU but are prepared to put the country
into the same political state if it benefits themselves. On second
thoughts its just "I'm alright stuff everyone else".

And yet equally strange that the 3 main parties who benefit most from the
FPTP system don't want to change it...

The voters didnt want to either.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 08/06/15 08:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/06/2015 07:47, Tim Watts wrote:
On 07/06/15 22:11, John Chance wrote:

Unlikely given the pathetic result UKIP got in the most recent
elections,
just one MP elected, and that one a refugee from the Tories that who
wouldnt even do what UKIP wanted him to do about putting his snout
in the HoC trough on staff. Nothing to be scared of there.


And yet:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Ordered by share of the votes

Party Vote share Seats
Cons 36.9% 331
Lab 30.4% 232
UKIP 12.6% 1
LibDem 7.9% 8


And tell me again why we still used this broken arsed voting system?

Because if we went proportional representation we would have governments
resembling the EU.
Its odd that UKIP want out of the EU but are prepared to put the country
into the same political state if it benefits themselves. On second
thoughts its just "I'm alright stuff everyone else".

No. I would rather UKIP lost the election than have proportional
representation.

UKIP having some kind of half hearted mandate from a minority does not
accomplish the changes UKIP thinks need to be accomplished.

It needs a broad consensus of people to understand and decide that in fact
their and their nation's interests are best served by terminating a
particular relationship with a corrupt and dysfunctional organisation.

That isn't going to happen.

Election results are irrelevant against that aim: If enough people think
Brexit is important enough,

They dont and won't.

then UKIP will get its mandate, and its MPs,

That won't happen either.

or it will happen anyway.

Not a chance.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 08/06/15 08:07, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 07:47:57 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

And tell me again why we still used this broken arsed voting system?

Because we don't vote nationally. Never have done. We vote for our
representative for our area, just as we have for centuries since
parliament became democratically voted-for.


Therein lies the problem.

I don't really care who my MP is. I care more about who's running the
country.

I do accept that people like having a local man to who they can write, but
clearly we do have a very broken arsed voting system and we need to find a
better one.

The voters felt otherwise.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Care to guess how often you've mentioned the Nazis in the last month?

less than the lies you have uttered about UKIP...

Can you give one example of those? Just the one will do.

...are you just SCARED of democracy?

It's something else you don't seem to know the meaning of.

But where BNUKIP gets one MP? No.

--
*Ham and Eggs: Just a day's work for a chicken, but a lifetime commitment

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

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 07/06/15 22:11, John Chance wrote:

Unlikely given the pathetic result UKIP got in the most recent elections,
just one MP elected, and that one a refugee from the Tories that who
wouldn‘t even do what UKIP wanted him to do about putting his snout
in the HoC trough on staff. Nothing to be scared of there.


And yet:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Ordered by share of the votes

Party Vote share Seats
Cons 36.9% 331
Lab 30.4% 232
UKIP 12.6% 1
LibDem 7.9% 8


And tell me again why we still used this broken arsed voting system?

And each time there is any form of vote to change, it loses.

And if you want somethings more based on the views of everyone, you'd need
to make sure everyone voted.

Strange the way the Tories want a clear majority of all when it comes to
strike action. But not for parliamentiary elections.

--
*I used to be a banker, but then I lost interest.*

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

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
And clear winners are held to be better than endless coalitions.

Even if 12.6% of the electorate get 0.15% representation?

It's your local MP who represents you in parliament. Regardless of your
political leanings.

--
*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy.

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

In article ,
Huge wrote:
immigration is not about racism.

It is for many UKIP supporters and bloggers.

"Straw man" is a pretty pathetic debating technique.

In this case it's not.

It shows - as much as anything can - where the grass roots of UKIP support
comes from.

--
*When did my wild oats turn to prunes and all bran?

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

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 13:23:27 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Strange the way the Tories want a clear majority of all when it comes to
strike action. But not for parliamentiary elections.

They aren't exactly comparable.

A clear majority in a yes/no referendum? Absolutely. That's comparable -
but only just over 40% of the electorate bothered to vote in the last
referendum, so even if it'd been 100% "Yes", it wouldn't have met that
test.

On 08/06/15 13:01, John Chance wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 08/06/15 08:07, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 07:47:57 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

And tell me again why we still used this broken arsed voting system?

Because we don't vote nationally. Never have done. We vote for our
representative for our area, just as we have for centuries since
parliament became democratically voted-for.


Therein lies the problem.

I don't really care who my MP is. I care more about who's running the
country.

I do accept that people like having a local man to who they can write,
but clearly we do have a very broken arsed voting system and we need
to find a better one.

The voters felt otherwise.

I do not know why they voted that way - the AV at least does away with
"wasted vote" syndrome.

It does not change the fact that a system that gives the seats vs votes
above is broken.

On 08/06/15 13:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Strange the way the Tories want a clear majority of all when it comes to
strike action. But not for parliamentiary elections.

Isn't it...

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 08/06/15 13:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Strange the way the Tories want a clear majority of all when it comes
to strike action. But not for parliamentiary elections.

Isn't it...

Of course it was Thatcher who initiated the majority of the trades union
reforms. Things like postal ballots and so on.

In the union I was in, it made not a scrap of difference to the outcome of
any ballot. The results were always as predicted.

Which just showed the likes of Thatcher and her advisors were totally out
of touch with the real world of trades unions. In other words they
believed what they read in the gutter press, rather than doing their own
research.

--
*I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory*

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

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 15:34:21 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Which just showed the likes of Thatcher and her advisors were totally
out of touch with the real world of trades unions.

Or, perhaps, the "real world" of the unions of the '70s and early '80s
was different to the REAL real world?

On 08/06/2015 09:10, Tim Watts wrote:
On 08/06/15 08:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/06/2015 07:47, Tim Watts wrote:
On 07/06/15 22:11, John Chance wrote:

Unlikely given the pathetic result UKIP got in the most recent
elections,
just one MP elected, and that one a refugee from the Tories that who
wouldnt even do what UKIP wanted him to do about putting his snout
in the HoC trough on staff. Nothing to be scared of there.


And yet:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Ordered by share of the votes

Party Vote share Seats
Cons 36.9% 331
Lab 30.4% 232
UKIP 12.6% 1
LibDem 7.9% 8


And tell me again why we still used this broken arsed voting system?

Because if we went proportional representation we would have governments
resembling the EU.
Its odd that UKIP want out of the EU but are prepared to put the country
into the same political state if it benefits themselves. On second
thoughts its just "I'm alright stuff everyone else".

And yet equally strange that the 3 main parties who benefit most from
the FPTP system don't want to change it...

It would appear you are in a very small minority of people that want to
change it. Just as well we don't have to listen to such a small minority
unlike if we had proportional representation where little voices hold a
lot of power.

On 08/06/2015 15:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 08/06/15 13:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Strange the way the Tories want a clear majority of all when it comes
to strike action. But not for parliamentiary elections.

Isn't it...

Of course it was Thatcher who initiated the majority of the trades union
reforms. Things like postal ballots and so on.

In the union I was in, it made not a scrap of difference to the outcome of
any ballot. The results were always as predicted.

So why did the unions fight so hard to keep a system that invited
intimidation?


Which just showed the likes of Thatcher and her advisors were totally out
of touch with the real world of trades unions. In other words they
believed what they read in the gutter press, rather than doing their own
research.


My father suffered intimidation by union "reps" over strike ballots.

The real world still has union "reps" intimidating people, even with so
called secret postal votes.

If you think there wasn't intimidation then you must have been one of
the ones doing it.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 15:34:21 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Which just showed the likes of Thatcher and her advisors were totally
out of touch with the real world of trades unions.

Or, perhaps, the "real world" of the unions of the '70s and early '80s
was different to the REAL real world?

Could be. But the Thatcher reforms simply didn't achieve what they set out
to do. Nor were the root and branch members (in my union at least)
particularly against them - although they did involve considerable
additional work for unpaid local officials.

What did make the big difference was casualising my industry. Far more
difficult to organise the workforce. And cost the government dearly in
lower income tax payments.

--
*A bicycle can't stand alone because it's two tyred.*

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

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
In the union I was in, it made not a scrap of difference to the outcome of
any ballot. The results were always as predicted.

So why did the unions fight so hard to keep a system that invited
intimidation?

Dunno. Mine didn't. Except of course to speak out against any legislation
from a goverment which was so right wing.

Which just showed the likes of Thatcher and her advisors were totally out
of touch with the real world of trades unions. In other words they
believed what they read in the gutter press, rather than doing their own
research.


My father suffered intimidation by union "reps" over strike ballots.

Either they were union reps or they weren't. Reps are elected by the
members.

The real world still has union "reps" intimidating people, even with so
called secret postal votes.

How can you intimidate someone who has a secret vote? Isn't even trying to
likely to prove counter effective?

If you think there wasn't intimidation then you must have been one of
the ones doing it.

That's the sort of insult I'd expect from the likes of you.

In all my many years of membership I never saw any intimidation. Nor would
there have been any need for it anyway - the vast majority supported any
action. It wouldn't have been proposed unless the majority wanted it.

I was always amused by the idea of the majority of hairy arsed miners
being intimidated by a handful of activists.

--
*In some places, C:\ is the root of all directories *

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

On 08/06/15 17:08, dennis@home wrote:

It would appear you are in a very small minority of people that want to
change it. Just as well we don't have to listen to such a small minority
unlike if we had proportional representation where little voices hold a
lot of power.

Does not change the assertion that a party with less vote share gets 8
times the seats of another.

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 17:28:17 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Which just showed the likes of Thatcher and her advisors were totally
out of touch with the real world of trades unions.

Or, perhaps, the "real world" of the unions of the '70s and early '80s
was different to the REAL real world?

Could be. But the Thatcher reforms simply didn't achieve what they set
out to do.

I remember the strikes of the '70s, Dave...

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 08/06/15 13:01, John Chance wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 08/06/15 08:07, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 07:47:57 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

And tell me again why we still used this broken arsed voting system?

Because we don't vote nationally. Never have done. We vote for our
representative for our area, just as we have for centuries since
parliament became democratically voted-for.


Therein lies the problem.

I don't really care who my MP is. I care more about who's running the
country.

I do accept that people like having a local man to who they can write,
but clearly we do have a very broken arsed voting system and we need
to find a better one.

The voters felt otherwise.

I do not know why they voted that way - the AV at least does away with
"wasted vote" syndrome.

Yes, but the voters decided that they didnt want it.

It does not change the fact that a system that gives the seats vs votes
above is broken.

Any voting system has advantages and disadvantages.

The voters decided which one they want.

On 08/06/15 20:42, John Chance wrote:
Any voting system has advantages and disadvantages.

The voters decided which one they want.

This is why I despair of this country...