http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-country.html

Socialist scum thrown out.

"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-country.html

Socialist scum thrown out.

Only because they are stupid enough to have a PR system.

On 20/06/2015 20:12, John Chance wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-country.html


Socialist scum thrown out.

Only because they are stupid enough to have a PR system.




aka democracy

"stuart noble" wrote in message
...
On 20/06/2015 20:12, John Chance wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-country.html


Socialist scum thrown out.

Only because they are stupid enough to have a PR system.




aka democracy

It's just one way of doing a democracy and one that produces
inevitable coalitions and one which gives tiny little single issue
political parties a lot more say on policy than the number who
vote for them warrants.

And won't see Denmark leaving the EU, you watch.

On 20/06/2015 20:33, John Chance wrote:


"stuart noble" wrote in message
...
On 20/06/2015 20:12, John Chance wrote:


Only because they are stupid enough to have a PR system.




aka democracy

It's just one way of doing a democracy and one that produces
inevitable coalitions and one which gives tiny little single issue
political parties a lot more say on policy than the number who
vote for them warrants.

Like the Scot Nats?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 20/06/2015 20:33, John Chance wrote:


"stuart noble" wrote in message
...
On 20/06/2015 20:12, John Chance wrote:


Only because they are stupid enough to have a PR system.




aka democracy

It's just one way of doing a democracy and one that produces
inevitable coalitions and one which gives tiny little single issue
political parties a lot more say on policy than the number who
vote for them warrants.

Like the Scot Nats?

Nothing like the SNP. They got almost all the seats in Scotland because
so many voted for them. Labour got very few seats because far fewer
voted for them in Scotland.

On Saturday, 20 June 2015 20:12:16 UTC+1, John Chance wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-country.html

Socialist scum thrown out.

Only because they are stupid enough to have a PR system.

Another country where socialism has failed.
The population realised it.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 20 June 2015 20:12:16 UTC+1, John Chance wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-country.html

Socialist scum thrown out.

Only because they are stupid enough to have a PR system.

Another country where socialism has failed.

Just like all the socialism in Britain with all the
public roads, airports, ports, schools, the NHS,
cops etc etc etc have clearly failed so dismally.

The population realised it.

Just another of your silly little pig ignorant fantasys.

Well we tried that one, um, and those over there, um, so lets try this lot
over here. Oh God they are all the same, ****.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-country.html

Socialist scum thrown out.

On 20/06/2015 20:33, John Chance wrote:


"stuart noble" wrote in message
...
On 20/06/2015 20:12, John Chance wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-country.html



Socialist scum thrown out.

Only because they are stupid enough to have a PR system.




aka democracy

It's just one way of doing a democracy and one that produces
inevitable coalitions and one which gives tiny little single issue
political parties a lot more say on policy than the number who
vote for them warrants.


But, for all its faults, it's the system that most accurately reflects
what people want. One could be excused for thinking that GB is run by
just half a dozen rich people.

In article ,
harry wrote:
On Saturday, 20 June 2015 20:12:16 UTC+1, John Chance wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-country.html

Socialist scum thrown out.

Only because they are stupid enough to have a PR system.

Another country where socialism has failed.
The population realised it.

And they'll likely find out that 'UKIP style' government will fail in an
even bigger way.

--
*DOES THE LITTLE MERMAID WEAR AN ALGEBRA?

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

On 21/06/15 10:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
On Saturday, 20 June 2015 20:12:16 UTC+1, John Chance wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-country.html

Socialist scum thrown out.

Only because they are stupid enough to have a PR system.

Another country where socialism has failed.
The population realised it.

And they'll likely find out that 'UKIP style' government will fail in an
even bigger way.

From the bowels of your bigotry...



--
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.

"stuart noble" wrote in message
...
On 20/06/2015 20:33, John Chance wrote:


"stuart noble" wrote in message
...
On 20/06/2015 20:12, John Chance wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-country.html



Socialist scum thrown out.

Only because they are stupid enough to have a PR system.




aka democracy

It's just one way of doing a democracy and one that produces
inevitable coalitions and one which gives tiny little single issue
political parties a lot more say on policy than the number who
vote for them warrants.

But, for all its faults, it's the system that most accurately reflects
what people want.

Yes, but does produce very unstable governments and even when
it doesn’t, those who vote for the minor parties get a lot more say
on policy than the number who vote for them warrants.

One could be excused for thinking that GB is run by
just half a dozen rich people.

Hard to substantiate that when Labor is in govt.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harry wrote:
On Saturday, 20 June 2015 20:12:16 UTC+1, John Chance wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-country.html

Socialist scum thrown out.

Only because they are stupid enough to have a PR system.

Another country where socialism has failed.
The population realised it.

And they'll likely find out that 'UKIP style' government will fail in an
even bigger way.

No country has actually been stupid enough to end up with a UKIP style govt.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 21/06/15 10:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
On Saturday, 20 June 2015 20:12:16 UTC+1, John Chance wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-country.html

Socialist scum thrown out.

Only because they are stupid enough to have a PR system.

Another country where socialism has failed.
The population realised it.

And they'll likely find out that 'UKIP style' government will fail in an
even bigger way.

From the bowels of your bigotry...

Just common sense

"first time in power" governments almost always **** up.

It simply isn't as easy as they expect it to be

tim

On 21/06/15 11:02, tim..... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 21/06/15 10:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
On Saturday, 20 June 2015 20:12:16 UTC+1, John Chance wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-country.html


Socialist scum thrown out.

Only because they are stupid enough to have a PR system.

Another country where socialism has failed.
The population realised it.

And they'll likely find out that 'UKIP style' government will fail in an
even bigger way.

From the bowels of your bigotry...

Just common sense

"first time in power" governments almost always **** up.

Another totally unsubstantiated statement.

All governments are 'first time in government' governments by definition.


It simply isn't as easy as they expect it to be

tim








--
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.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 21/06/15 11:02, tim..... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 21/06/15 10:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
On Saturday, 20 June 2015 20:12:16 UTC+1, John Chance wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-country.html


Socialist scum thrown out.

Only because they are stupid enough to have a PR system.

Another country where socialism has failed.
The population realised it.

And they'll likely find out that 'UKIP style' government will fail in
an
even bigger way.

From the bowels of your bigotry...

Just common sense

"first time in power" governments almost always **** up.

Another totally unsubstantiated statement.

Have fun listing any that haven't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour...rnment.2C_1924

All governments are 'first time in government' governments by definition.

Not when most governments are one of the
two majors currently in government for a while.

It simply isn't as easy as they expect it to be

John Chance posted
"stuart noble" wrote in message
...

But, for all its faults, it's the system that most accurately
reflects what people want.

Yes, but does produce very unstable governments and even when
it doesnt, those who vote for the minor parties get a lot more say
on policy than the number who vote for them warrants.

Do they? What is the evidence for this claim?

And even if true, would that be better or worse than their getting *no*
say on policy - which under FPTP is what happens even to parties that
get a substantial share of the vote, like UKIP.

--
Les

On 21/06/2015 00:27, John Chance wrote:


"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 20/06/2015 20:33, John Chance wrote:


"stuart noble" wrote in message
...
On 20/06/2015 20:12, John Chance wrote:


Only because they are stupid enough to have a PR system.




aka democracy

It's just one way of doing a democracy and one that produces
inevitable coalitions and one which gives tiny little single issue
political parties a lot more say on policy than the number who
vote for them warrants.

Like the Scot Nats?

Nothing like the SNP. They got almost all the seats in Scotland because
so many voted for them. Labour got very few seats because far fewer
voted for them in Scotland.

Yes, but compare their seats (and hence influence) per million votes
with those of UKIP. FPTP gives undue influence to those parties which
can muster high concentrations of votes as opposed to high overall numbers.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 21/06/2015 10:50, John Chance wrote:


"stuart noble" wrote in message
...


One could be excused for thinking that GB is run by
just half a dozen rich people.

Hard to substantiate that when Labo(u)r is in govt.


I don't remember Blair et al being on the bread line!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/06/15 10:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
On Saturday, 20 June 2015 20:12:16 UTC+1, John Chance wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-country.html

Socialist scum thrown out.

Only because they are stupid enough to have a PR system.

Another country where socialism has failed.
The population realised it.

And they'll likely find out that 'UKIP style' government will fail in
an even bigger way.

From the bowels of your bigotry...

Yup. You are certainly an expert on both ****e and bigotry.

--
*Why is a boxing ring square?

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

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2015-06-21, Roger Mills wrote:
On 21/06/2015 10:50, John Chance wrote:


"stuart noble" wrote in message
...


One could be excused for thinking that GB is run by
just half a dozen rich people.

Hard to substantiate that when Labo(u)r is in govt.


I don't remember Blair et al being on the bread line!

"John Chance" (who is a Rob Speed sock puppet) has swallowed the Labour
propaganda hook, line & sinker. They too are, in the main, a bunch of
trust funded, privately educated, Oxbridge graduates.

Speed simply disagrees with everything. Standard troll behaviour.

--
*I know a guy who's addicted to brake fluid. He says he can stop any time.*

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

On 21/06/2015 10:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/06/15 10:24, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


8

And they'll likely find out that 'UKIP style' government will fail in an
even bigger way.

From the bowels of your bigotry...




Well probably see it before there is another general election here.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-06-21, Roger Mills wrote:
On 21/06/2015 10:50, John Chance wrote:


"stuart noble" wrote in message
...


One could be excused for thinking that GB is run by
just half a dozen rich people.

Hard to substantiate that when Labo(u)r is in govt.


I don't remember Blair et al being on the bread line!

He has swallowed the Labour propaganda hook, line & sinker.

Nothing to do with any propaganda.

They too are, in the main, a bunch of
trust funded, privately educated, Oxbridge graduates.

But nothing like three of just half a dozen rich people.

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 21/06/2015 00:27, John Chance wrote:


"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 20/06/2015 20:33, John Chance wrote:


"stuart noble" wrote in message
...
On 20/06/2015 20:12, John Chance wrote:


Only because they are stupid enough to have a PR system.




aka democracy

It's just one way of doing a democracy and one that produces
inevitable coalitions and one which gives tiny little single issue
political parties a lot more say on policy than the number who
vote for them warrants.

Like the Scot Nats?

Nothing like the SNP. They got almost all the seats in Scotland because
so many voted for them. Labour got very few seats because far fewer
voted for them in Scotland.

Yes, but compare their seats (and hence influence) per million votes with
those of UKIP. FPTP gives undue influence to those parties which can
muster high concentrations of votes as opposed to high overall numbers.

Sure, there are advantages and disadvantages in all all approaches.
If there weren't we wouldn’t see both approaches used, everyone
would just use the best approach like we do now with royalty
which has no power on anything that matters anymore.

The big advantage with FPP is that it doesn’t make coalitions
inevitable and generally produces much more stable government
and many consider that is more important that accurately reflecting
what those who are in a small minority of the voters want policy wise.

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 21/06/2015 10:50, John Chance wrote:


"stuart noble" wrote in message
...


One could be excused for thinking that GB is run by
just half a dozen rich people.

Hard to substantiate that when Labo(u)r is in govt.


I don't remember Blair et al being on the bread line!

It isn't that binary. He clearly isn't one of half a dozen rich
people who run the entire country and wasn’t anything
like that when he put one hell of a bomb under Labour
and made them electable to government again.

On 21/06/2015 21:22, John Chance wrote:



The big advantage with FPP is that it doesn’t make coalitions
inevitable and generally produces much more stable government
and many consider that is more important that accurately reflecting
what those who are in a small minority of the voters want policy wise.

That may be ok when you've mainly got just two parties which get the
lion's share of the vote between them. But when you've got multiple
parties all getting a lot of votes, it's very likely that a seat can be
won by a party which gets significantly less than 50% of then total
votes cast. That's hardly democracy!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 21/06/2015 21:22, John Chance wrote:



The big advantage with FPP is that it doesn’t make coalitions
inevitable and generally produces much more stable government
and many consider that is more important that accurately reflecting
what those who are in a small minority of the voters want policy wise.

That may be ok when you've mainly got just two parties which get the
lion's share of the vote between them.

That is what most countries with FPP or close end up with.

But when you've got multiple
parties all getting a lot of votes,

You only really get that with PR systems.

it's very likely that a seat can be
won by a party which gets significantly less than 50% of then total votes
cast. That's hardly democracy!

Yes, that is the major downside with FPP, but it does produce
much more stable government and doesn’t see coalitions
almost inevitable and the british voters have clearly decided
that is what they want and that is real democracy in any sense.

"Big Les Wade" wrote in message
...
John Chance posted
"stuart noble" wrote in message
...

But, for all its faults, it's the system that most accurately reflects
what people want.

Yes, but does produce very unstable governments and even when
it doesnt, those who vote for the minor parties get a lot more say
on policy than the number who vote for them warrants.

Do they?

Yep.

What is the evidence for this claim?

The stupid green policy on alternative energy crap in Germany,
and the exemption the rabid fundies in Israel get from conscription
and a number of other fundie issues in Israel, like settlements.

And even if true, would that be better or worse than their getting *no*
say on policy

Much better when its the sort of policy that parties who only
get a derisory percentage of the national vote in an election.

- which under FPTP is what happens even to parties that get a substantial
share of the vote, like UKIP.

Yes, but it makes no sense for a party that gets only 12%
of the national vote to have any say on what they care
about like leaving the EU. The only sensible way to
decide on something like that is a referendum.

The stupid Greens dont get anything like that percentage
of the vote so it makes no sense for them to have any say
on government policy either.

The only time it does make sense for those tiny parties
to have any say on policy is when the issue has considerable
support in many of the parties and in that case it is much
better to deal with that with a referendum than by have
PR which guarantees coalitions most of the time and
much less stable government and the tiny little parties
having a lot more say on government policy when they
get to demand that or they will leave the coalition etc.

Yes, that is the major downside with FPP, but it does produce
much more stable government and doesn’t see coalitions
almost inevitable and the british voters have clearly decided
that is what they want and that is real democracy in any sense.

Stability was what Iraq had under Sadam. Didn't make it right and it
certainly wasn't democratic. Germany's coalitions seem to work well
enough for them
How have British voters shown their acceptance of FPP? Did I miss something?

"stuart noble" wrote in message
...


Yes, that is the major downside with FPP, but it does produce
much more stable government and doesn’t see coalitions
almost inevitable and the british voters have clearly decided
that is what they want and that is real democracy in any sense.

Stability was what Iraq had under Sadam.

Its also what the US, Britain, Australia all had government wise.

Didn't make it right

There is no 'right' with political systems which
have real advantages and disadvantages.

and it certainly wasn't democratic.

Irrelevant to whether FPP is democratic or not. Of course it is.

Germany's coalitions seem to work well enough for them

No they do not. The Greens have a lot more say on govt policy
than the number who actually vote for them warrants and that
is why they have their stupid alternative energy policy that has
delivered by far the highest electricity prices in western europe.

How have British voters shown their acceptance of FPP?

When they just recently voted to not change to anything else.

Did I miss something?

Yes you clearly did.

On 22/06/2015 08:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , stuart noble
wrote:


Yes, that is the major downside with FPP, but it does produce
much more stable government and doesn€št see coalitions
almost inevitable and the british voters have clearly decided
that is what they want and that is real democracy in any sense.

Stability was what Iraq had under Sadam. Didn't make it right and it
certainly wasn't democratic. Germany's coalitions seem to work well
enough for them

I suspect the Iraqis might take stability under Saddam to what they
have now.
How have British voters shown their acceptance of FPP? Did I miss
something?

How did you vote in the AV referendum?


Do you think he did?

On Sunday, 21 June 2015 11:02:35 UTC+1, tim..... wrote:

Just common sense
"first time in power" governments almost always **** up.
It simply isn't as easy as they expect it to be

Its one thing to criticise. Its another to come up with some good policies. Its yet another to deal with all issues that come along well.


NT

On 21/06/15 21:24, John Chance wrote:


"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 21/06/2015 10:50, John Chance wrote:


"stuart noble" wrote in message
...


One could be excused for thinking that GB is run by
just half a dozen rich people.

Hard to substantiate that when Labo(u)r is in govt.


I don't remember Blair et al being on the bread line!

It isn't that binary. He clearly isn't one of half a dozen rich
people who run the entire country and wasnt anything
like that when he put one hell of a bomb under Labour
and made them electable to government again.


Shame they had no idea what to do when they got there.



--
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.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 21/06/15 21:24, John Chance wrote:


"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 21/06/2015 10:50, John Chance wrote:


"stuart noble" wrote in message
...


One could be excused for thinking that GB is run by
just half a dozen rich people.

Hard to substantiate that when Labo(u)r is in govt.


I don't remember Blair et al being on the bread line!

It isn't that binary. He clearly isn't one of half a dozen rich
people who run the entire country and wasnt anything
like that when he put one hell of a bomb under Labour
and made them electable to government again.


Shame they had no idea what to do when they got there.

Sure, but that's true of almost all new parties and is what
happened with Labour when they were first the government too.

And would happen in spades if UKIP was ever the govt, which it never will
be.

On 22/06/2015 23:34, John Chance wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 21/06/15 21:24, John Chance wrote:


"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 21/06/2015 10:50, John Chance wrote:


"stuart noble" wrote in message
...


One could be excused for thinking that GB is run by
just half a dozen rich people.

Hard to substantiate that when Labo(u)r is in govt.


I don't remember Blair et al being on the bread line!

It isn't that binary. He clearly isn't one of half a dozen rich
people who run the entire country and wasnt anything
like that when he put one hell of a bomb under Labour
and made them electable to government again.


Shame they had no idea what to do when they got there.

Sure, but that's true of almost all new parties and is what
happened with Labour when they were first the government too.

And would happen in spades if UKIP was ever the govt, which it never
will be.

Never say never. If you deny large sections of the electorate a voice,
they may decode to abandon the ballot box altogether

"stuart noble" wrote in message
...
On 22/06/2015 23:34, John Chance wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 21/06/15 21:24, John Chance wrote:


"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
On 21/06/2015 10:50, John Chance wrote:


"stuart noble" wrote in message
...


One could be excused for thinking that GB is run by
just half a dozen rich people.

Hard to substantiate that when Labo(u)r is in govt.


I don't remember Blair et al being on the bread line!

It isn't that binary. He clearly isn't one of half a dozen rich
people who run the entire country and wasnt anything
like that when he put one hell of a bomb under Labour
and made them electable to government again.


Shame they had no idea what to do when they got there.

Sure, but that's true of almost all new parties and is what
happened with Labour when they were first the government too.

And would happen in spades if UKIP was ever the govt, which it never
will be.

Never say never.

Never ever in fact.

If you deny large sections of the electorate a voice,

They haven't been denied a voice, they will get
to vote in the referendum on leaving the EU
and will lose that referendum, you watch.

they may decode to abandon the ballot box altogether

Doesnt matter a damn if they do, there aren't enough of them to matter.

Vastly more than the pathetic 12% who do
vote UKIP dont even bother to vote at all
and the system carrys on regardless and
chucks them into jail when they are actually
stupid enough to set fire to stuff that matters.

On 23/06/15 10:48, John Chance wrote:
they will get
to vote in the referendum on leaving the EU
and will lose that referendum, you watch.

Indeed. If there is one thing that is clear, it is that the British
electorate will lose the referendum no matter what they vote.

Its designed to be that way.


In states with ambitions to be totalitarian (for all the *best* possible
reasons) they always are...


--
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.

John Chance wrote:

Shame they had no idea what to do when they got there.

Sure, but that's true of almost all new parties and is what
happened with Labour when they were first the government too.

I don't think that is true.
The Labour Party had done a huge amount of research and preparation
during the war years, and the Attlee goverment had policies in place
in most areas.

And would happen in spades if UKIP was ever the govt,
which it never will be.

I agree.
I don't think UKIP had well-thought-out policies in any area,
even immigration.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

On 23/06/15 13:41, Timothy Murphy wrote:
John Chance wrote:

Shame they had no idea what to do when they got there.

Sure, but that's true of almost all new parties and is what
happened with Labour when they were first the government too.

I don't think that is true.
The Labour Party had done a huge amount of research and preparation
during the war years, and the Attlee goverment had policies in place
in most areas.

And would happen in spades if UKIP was ever the govt,
which it never will be.

I agree.
I don't think UKIP had well-thought-out policies in any area,
even immigration.

Actually you can remove everything in that sentence after t5he word
think, and it makes much more sense.



--
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.