Royal Wedding, Electoral Reform, and Royal Babies thread
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Reply


That's some good looky-liking.
Trooper wrote:
Zardoz wrote:
Kern wrote:
Katie tightens her ring.

She has old looking hands.


You should see the picture in her attic...


Do you think she's secretly some kind of evil witch or something? That would be awesome.
Mr Russell wrote:
Hopefully I'm down to work on this day so I don't have to see any of it.
Amusingly, I am in an actual wedding that day, so will be spared.
DavPaz wrote:
I for one will delight in the fact that it's not mandatory and will be exercising my right to do something else.

I might sit around depressively contemplating British peoples' unfortunate and negative habit of bowing and scraping to an aristocratic überclass that despises them, whilst telling my girlfriend how lucky she is to be citizen of a republic. Whilst she tries to concentrate on writing her MSc dissertation. Or perhaps it'll be a nice day and we'll actually leave the house and do something pleasant. Who knows?!
Anonymous X wrote:
I might sit around depressingly contemplating British peoples' unfortunate and negative habit of bowing and scraping to an aristocratic überclass that despises them


Yeah, I'm not sure that there's actually anyone in the country that does this. Unless they work at the palace and are, like, paid to.
Christine wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:
I might sit around depressingly contemplating British peoples' unfortunate and negative habit of bowing and scraping to an aristocratic überclass that despises them


Yeah, I'm not sure that there's actually anyone in the country that does this. Unless they work at the palace and are, like, paid to.

I meant figuratively rather than literally, natch.
I always enjoy the articles you get in the 'Grauniad' from time to time where life-long ardent socialists who have spent their life raging against the system write about how they decided to accept a gong despite their beliefs. cf Lord Prescott.
Anonymous X wrote:
Christine wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:
I might sit around depressingly contemplating British peoples' unfortunate and negative habit of bowing and scraping to an aristocratic überclass that despises them


Yeah, I'm not sure that there's actually anyone in the country that does this. Unless they work at the palace and are, like, paid to.

I meant figuratively rather than literally, natch.


Then I'm not sure what 'figuratively bowing and scraping' means. Other than that it doesn't mean 'bowing and scraping'.
Christine wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:
Christine wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:
I might sit around depressingly contemplating British peoples' unfortunate and negative habit of bowing and scraping to an aristocratic überclass that despises them


Yeah, I'm not sure that there's actually anyone in the country that does this. Unless they work at the palace and are, like, paid to.

I meant figuratively rather than literally, natch.


Then I'm not sure what 'figuratively bowing and scraping' means. Other than that it doesn't mean 'bowing and scraping'.

Well, not being in favour of a republic, then, if you want simpler, more direct language.

Yeah, I'm shit at writing prose, get over it.
I wouldn't worry - James Joyce made a career out of it.
sinister agent wrote:
I wouldn't worry - James Joyce made a career out of it.


:DD


Except for 'the Dubliners', which is awesome (but don't begin with the first story as it's rather odd and a bit off-putting until you've got the hang of the style of the work).
Anonymous X wrote:
Well, not being in favour of a republic, then, if you want simpler, more direct language.

Yeah, I'm shit at writing prose, get over it.


Well, that was my point. You're equating 'not being in favour of a republic' with some weird perception of a negative 'untermensch' attitude. Which is nonsense.
People do still seem to actually and not figuratively bow and curtsey when confronted by the queen.
sinister agent wrote:
I wouldn't worry - James Joyce made a career out of it.


It really, really, fucks some people off when you remind them he isn't Irish.
I find the tone of this article in the 'Observer' a tad patronising, both to the Missourians and to us:

Quote:
Crowds in Missouri flock to an exhibition about Princess Diana and parties are planned for William and Kate's wedding day. It's like the war of independence never happened…
Referendum campaign material received so far:

1. Official booklet from the Electoral Commission with silhouettes of the public which reminds me of 'Protect and Survive' for some reason. Thanks for telling me that 'campaginers in the referendum will explain why they think you should vote yes (to use the 'alternative vote' system') or no...'.

2. Leaflet from NotoAV saying that 'none of your taxes have been used to print this leaflet'. Its headline, 'Keep One person, one vote' is misleading: AV is an instant run-off system, so each recount is, in effect, a new poll with readjusted preferences so each person still has one vote. Big picture of Nasty Nick Clegg on the back cover.

I'm eagerly (?) awaiting the 'Yes' campaign stuff.
The 'No' leaflet came through with the Conservative councillor's election conspectus. It says "Your first choice could count as much as someone's fifth choice".
MaliA wrote:
The 'No' leaflet came through with the Conservative councillor's election conspectus. It says "Your first choice could count as much as someone's fifth choice".


Which is only really bad for the guy whose previous choices had little support. But wouldn't you be happy if someone, deep down, preferred your candidate to your opponents? Bit of an odd argument.

By the way, remember that you don't have to rank all of the candidates.
Kern wrote:
MaliA wrote:
The 'No' leaflet came through with the Conservative councillor's election conspectus. It says "Your first choice could count as much as someone's fifth choice".


Which is only really bad for the guy whose previous choices had little support. But wouldn't you be happy if someone, deep down, preferred your candidate to your opponents? Bit of an odd argument.


The problem I have with the arrangement is (which ties into your other comment) as follows:

There are 5 parties with manifestos policies which, in your opinion, range from the awesome to the terrible.

You vote for Candidate A, who, in your view best represents your views, beliefs and outlook, as a first preference.
Candidate B is pretty much 80% of Candidate A, so you mark him down as second choice, however there exists something in the manifesto that really doesn't sit right with you, but the rest of it is OK.
Candidate C, the same, and so on and so forth, but decrease the level of what you consider to be 'acceptable' as regards policies and whatnot.

My fear is, and I consider it to be a proper one, is that people will rank all candidates, from 1-5 and then candidate 3 gets in through being the third best choice "If we can't have X or Y, then we might as well have Z". And I don't think that is an accurate representation of democracy. I'll probably be able to articulate this to you better come next week or so, but the hang-up I have over the whole thing is that those that want to change the system stand most to benefit from such a change.
MaliA wrote:
My fear is, and I consider it to be a proper one, is that people will rank all candidates, from 1-5 and then candidate 3 gets in through being the third best choice "If we can't have X or Y, then we might as well have Z". And I don't think that is an accurate representation of democracy. I'll probably be able to articulate this to you better come next week or so, but the hang-up I have over the whole thing is that those that want to change the system stand most to benefit from such a change.


That's not how it works. Your third place choice is only counted if your first and second choices are eliminated from the race as a result of them not getting enough votes.

AV isn't a compromise vote. It's a vote that allows you to support minority candidates without losing all ability to express a preference between majority candidates.
Christine wrote:
MaliA wrote:
My fear is, and I consider it to be a proper one, is that people will rank all candidates, from 1-5 and then candidate 3 gets in through being the third best choice "If we can't have X or Y, then we might as well have Z". And I don't think that is an accurate representation of democracy. I'll probably be able to articulate this to you better come next week or so, but the hang-up I have over the whole thing is that those that want to change the system stand most to benefit from such a change.


That's not how it works. Your third place choice is only counted if your first and second choices are eliminated from the race as a result of them not getting enough votes.


Apologies, I didn't articulate that terribly well. My fear is that people will say "Well, if Candidate A doesn't get in, then I think Candidate B would be the next best option, and if not them, then Candidate C". I suppose my problem lies within people, rather than the system.

Christine wrote:
AV isn't a compromise vote. It's a vote that allows you to support minority candidates without losing all ability to express a preference between majority candidates.


I'm completely on board with that, just somewhat suspicious of it.

What would happen if Party A stood 2 candidates for election in a constituency, with an instruction of "Vote for A, then B"?
But with AV you don't HAVE to express a preference for 2nd choice, do you?
Mr Russell wrote:
But with AV you don't HAVE to express a preference for 2nd choice, do you?


My fear is that people will.
MaliA wrote:
Mr Russell wrote:
But with AV you don't HAVE to express a preference for 2nd choice, do you?


My fear is that people will.


Insofar as

"i'd like A, but B wouldn't be so bad, would it, and C as a third"

Where B and C are quite the opposite of A.
But people are doing that now, except by tactical voting. They're saying "I really like A, but let's face it, he'll never get in. Same for B, really. So I guess I vote C to stop D getting in."

And voila: the two-party system.
Christine wrote:
But people are doing that now, except by tactical voting. They're saying "I really like A, but let's face it, he'll never get in. Same for B, really. So I guess I vote C to stop D getting in."

And voila: the two-party system.


But because everyone thinks that, the same old people kept getting in. I mean turnout is about what, 20-25%?

It was only through those fucking EXCELLENT live TV debates that we got anything close to a change this time around.
Mr Russell wrote:
It was only through those fucking EXCELLENT live TV debates that we got anything close to a change this time around.


I'm going to side with Baron Mandelson, of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and of Hartlepool in the County of Durham and agree with him that the TV debates did really take valuable time and energy away from the real campaign of going door to door and what-not. I think they were a waste of time.
MaliA wrote:
I think they were a waste of time.


Not as a big a waste of time as the 90 minutes I spent in a Virginian motel watching the US Vice-Presidential debates in 2008. Other than that, the politics geek in me was loving touring that state during the last month of the US election campaign. I'll never forget the huge crowds in Petersburg around the Democrats' stand, and the more or less complete lack of interest in the Republicans.

As for our ones, I only saw one and I can't actually remember much about it. I suppose it helped raise interest in the campaign in a way that party political broadcasts fail to do so.
MaliA wrote:
The 'No' leaflet came through with the Conservative councillor's election conspectus. It says "Your first choice could count as much as someone's fifth choice".


Oursfrom the 'no' people came through a few weeks ago. It was basically "NICK GCLEGG IS SATAN ALL IS HIS DOING AV IS WHAT HE WANTS OOGA BOOGA SAY NO".

Quite pathetic. Even the BNP leaflets that come around in election years are more mature and rational.
I know someone who is going to vote 'yes' on basis that they don't like David Cameron and as Mr Cameron doesn't like AV it must therefore be right to support it. Oh dear.
Kern wrote:
I know someone who is going to vote 'yes' on basis that they don't like David Cameron and as Mr Cameron doesn't like AV it must therefore be right to support it. Oh dear.
Who the fuck likes him? I've always assumed that even the staunchest of Tory supporters feel sick when they look at him. Same with George Osborne, although that might just be because he looks like a babyfaced Gordon Brown :spew:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Image
The conversation around that on b3ta was very useful & insightful funny as fuck :DD
http://www.b3ta.com/board/10391777

EDIT: In fact most of the challenge entries are amusing. http://www.b3ta.com/challenge/yesornotoav/popular
Zardoz wrote:
Is Kate Middleton fit or do the Royal low breeds she stands next to make her appear fit by comparison?

She's quite fit, but a bit skinny for my liking. She needs a bit more meat in on her. I just hope that the Windsors don't drive her potty like the others.

There's too much talk about the merits of Audio Visual in here - I think that AV and Kate's fitness should have been given separate threads.
Warhead wrote:
There's too much talk about the merits of Audio Visual in here - I think that AV and Kate's fitness should have been given separate threads.


It's a joint thread because I can't decide which Event of National Importance I'm most excited by. I'm hoping to be drying my dishes with my commemorative tea towels listing the proof of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem for years to come, not to mention telling my grandchildren where I was on these two grand state occasions.
Wullie wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Image
The conversation around that on b3ta was very useful & insightful funny as fuck :DD
http://www.b3ta.com/board/10391777

EDIT: In fact most of the challenge entries are amusing. http://www.b3ta.com/challenge/yesornotoav/popular


Megalol on this image.
Is it just me, or outside of forum people and the odd person interested in politics, is nobody really interested or even aware of what all this means?

A fair few people don't even seem to have any idea that there's a referendum coming. Which wouldn't be that surprising given the indifference most people have to politics beyond blaming everything on blacks/poors/bankers/[insert party], but this isn't exactly a little thing we're referendumating about.
sinister agent wrote:
Is it just me, or outside of forum people and the odd person interested in politics, is nobody really interested or even aware of what all this means?


Not just you.
I think the problem is that the question isn't seen as critical enough by the majority of the populace, in the way that a vote on the EU would be.

I still think that we ought to have a vote on any reformed House of Lords, because that would be a substantial change in our legislative process which really shouldn't be just left to the Commons to decide upon.
The Conservative canvasser who knock on our door to big up the local candidate could barely be bothered to talk about the referendum - either she didn't care, or it was seen as lower priority than getting their guy on the district council, or so many other people didn't care she didn't bother with me.

I wonder if a lot of people see it as a fairly "theoretical" question that won't really affect them.
Squirt wrote:
The Conservative canvasser who knock on our door to big up the local candidate could barely be bothered to talk about the referendum - either she didn't care, or it was seen as lower priority than getting their guy on the district council, or so many other people didn't care she didn't bother with me.


I had that experience to. After a rather empty conversation with a young Tory canvasser, I thought I'd ask him about the referendum. He looked flummoxed, stuttered something about the need for 'strong government' but really wasn't prepared for it at all.
How can I place my vote in the referendum?
sinister agent wrote:
Is it just me, or outside of forum people and the odd person interested in politics, is nobody really interested or even aware of what all this means?

Most people seem to think it's a referendum on Nick Clegg, which is horribly depressing. Must be even worse for him: he's elected leader of his party, manages to steer against the tide of FPTP to coalition government and—somehow—wring an AV referendum out of the Tories, and now he's the reason FPTP is going to remain in place for at least another two decades.
I got a glass tankard today to celebrate the upcowing nuptials. I only had to drink 5 pints of beer to get it, so, onoccasion, it was time to up the ante. Thing was, I only found out about the five pint thing after the third. Hic.
CraigGrannell wrote:
sinister agent wrote:
Is it just me, or outside of forum people and the odd person interested in politics, is nobody really interested or even aware of what all this means?

Most people seem to think it's a referendum on Nick Clegg, which is horribly depressing. Must be even worse for him: he's elected leader of his party, manages to steer against the tide of FPTP to coalition government and—somehow—wring an AV referendum out of the Tories, and now he's the reason FPTP is going to remain in place for at least another two decades.



Part of the problem is that we've not had a coalition government for decades (the Lib-Lab pact in the 1970s was more of a confidence-and-supply agreement) so the usual commentators are struggling to understand the internal dynamics of a coalition. Those who think that the Lib Dems could have got their entire programme view are utterly naive but surely it's better for their supporters that they are in office having influence than being a minority party on the opposition benches?

But yes, vote on the issue, not because of your views on the government.
Kern wrote:
Part of the problem is that we've not had a coalition government for decades (the Lib-Lab pact in the 1970s was more of a confidence-and-supply agreement) so the usual commentators are struggling to understand the internal dynamics of a coalition. Those who think that the Lib Dems could have got their entire programme view are utterly naive but surely it's better for their supporters that they are in office having influence than being a minority party on the opposition benches?

Also, they had no choice anyway. Had the Lib Dems not gone into government, they would have been seen as the party that wouldn't take the chance when it had it, a weak party not worth voting for every again. Instead, the party joined up with the Tories (not least because loads of Labour MPs said they'd vote against coalition, and the numbers weren't there anyway), and have taken a little (although, in my opinion, not enough) edge off of a vicious Tory administration.

People seem angry by a couple of things. First, the Lib Dems have broken manifesto pledges and other promises, like EVERY OTHER PARTY IN HISTORY. But—shock!—they are also the junior partner. They're in government, but they do not lead government. People should be more angry with the Tories, but their polling's remained fairly stable. By comparison, the Lib Dems are on 8–17%, depending on who you believe, and Labour's grabbed most of those who now hate the Lib Dems, because, clearly, none of the UK's current problems are anything to do with Labour. (Personally, I think the Libs have capitulated too much and too often, but some people seem to think they should have already met every promise.) Secondly, people misunderstood what the Liberal Democrats stand for, in part due to our outdated left/right political spectrum. In terms of left/right, the Libs aren't a million miles away from the Tories. They're not socialist, and they are capitalists. They're not as rabid as the Tories in those areas, but they're also not entirely for safeguarding things like the NHS anywhere near to the level of the Labour party. But stick the three major parties on a compass (economic left/right and authoritarian north to anarchist south) and you have Labour and the Tories pretty much together near the top and the Libs down south, showing where their main differentiator is.

But even with people hating the Lib Dems, it's insane how anti-coalition people are. My Icelandic wife is finding the entire situation mind-boggling, because Iceland only ever has coalitions, and they lead to a modicum of continuity between governments. They (and other countries with coalition) can easily enough vote out MPs, but they don't get Party A having a few terms in charge and then Party B winning, wading in and scrapping everything, having a few terms in charge, only for Party A to win, wade in (and so on).

Still, it's pretty academic anyway. The no guys have way more money, far more effective scare tactics, and the backing of the Tories and the Tory-backed press. The yes polling is plummeting, and, frankly, I think it has no chance of getting through. And there was me a few weeks back hopeful that my vote might at least mean something by the next election.
CraigGrannell wrote:
I think it has no chance of getting through. And there was me a few weeks back hopeful that my vote might at least mean something by the next election.
Don't worry, according to Davie Cameramoron us lot up here are going to ensure it passes because the referendum is being held on the same day as our elections & we already have a funny voting system.
I've seen lots of campaign material from the Tories no to AV camp. The misrepresentations and outright bullshit are staggering, but they'll pull a lot of people in. Not least as I've seen absolutely fuck all from the yes camp.

The Tories played the last year incredibly well. They suggested this shitty system, knowing they could shoot it down because it's crap, and they knew that by waiting this long, they'd have had a year to shit all over parliament and let the public blame the Lib Dems for the mess.

Clegg got played like a flute.
sinister agent wrote:
I've seen lots of campaign material from the Tories no to AV camp. The misrepresentations and outright bullshit are staggering, but they'll pull a lot of people in. Not least as I've seen absolutely fuck all from the yes camp.

That's because the yes camp is primarily weedy lefty liberals who aren't stonkingly rich. There's been grass-roots campaigning by the yes lot, including town centre demos, but no mass mailouts yet. Maybe they're going to do one closer to the day—here's hoping.

Quote:
The Tories played the last year incredibly well. They suggested this shitty system, knowing they could shoot it down because it's crap

Oddly enough, having heard a number of viewpoints on this, I'm actually warming a little to it now. I'd sooner have PR, but I don't hate AV nearly as much as I did. Interestingly, some people I know—notably those who aren't of a very specific political bent—like the idea of 'those guys are OK, those guys are OK, but not really those or those' as a voting system.

Quote:
and they knew that by waiting this long, they'd have had a year to shit all over parliament and let the public blame the Lib Dems for the mess.

Clegg got played like a flute.

Yup, but it shows how fucking stupid the public is. Yes, it's all Clegg's fault, despite the Tories being the senior partners in the coalition. Oh, and let's look at the vote, shall we?

Party :: FPTP :: AV :: STV

Tories :: 307 :: 281 :: 246
Labour :: 258 :: 262 :: 207
Lib Dem :: 57 :: 79 :: 162
Others :: 28 :: 28 :: 35

So under AV, we'd have a 281:79 ratio instead of 307:57—a bit more clout for the Libs and therefore a less Tory government. (Or, possibly, we'd have gotten a Lab/Lib coalition, since Labour might have argued they only won 19 fewer seats and therefore still had enough of a mandate.) But under STV, everything wildly changes, and we'd have had a 5:3 Tory:Lib coalition, or an even closer split for Lab:Lib, either of which would have resulted in a radically different government.

But, no, best everyone screams how awful coalitions are and buries electoral reform, so we in 2015 head increasingly towards the US system, because, as we all know, THAT WORKS WELL!
Page 3 of 17 [ 822 posts ]