On 15/10/2021 02:32 pm, Norman Wells wrote:

> On 15/10/2021 14:07, JNugent wrote:
>> On 14/10/2021 10:22 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> In article <sk6vha$u8q$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> On 13/10/2021 16:12, critcher wrote:

>>>>> you all know proportional representation is coming, and the sooner the
>>>>> better
>
>>>> Not in England, there seems littl danger of the Liberals or even
>>>> Greenies getting any sort of power.  No one else wants it.
>
>>> "I keep telling people: There's no call for it!", eh? 8-]
>>> Now that the UK has become a State where referenda are acceptable, maybe
>>> we should have one on PR for Westminster... Oh, sorry, I forgot. A party
>>> that relies on NOT having PR to get into power isn't keen on that
>>> particular 'voice of the people', eh?

>> We had a referendum on the possibility of PR for Parliamentary elections.
>> It was defeated handsomely (circa 75:25) by the electorate.
>
> So it may have been, but it was a rigged question asking only about a
> specific type of different, and hardly proportional, representation
> namely alternative vote:
> "At present, the UK uses the "first past the post" system to elect MPs
> to the House of Commons. Should the "alternative vote" system be used
> instead?"
> For fairness and impartiality, the question should simply have been
> whether *a* proportional system should be used instead.
> It's sadly a common tactic to give just one option out of many, which of
> course cuts down the number of people who would vote for change.
> The same grubby manoeuvre was used in the Australian republic referendum
> in 1999:
> "A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth
> of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being
> replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the
> members of the Commonwealth Parliament. Do you approve this proposed
> alteration?"
> There are many who wanted change to a republic, but not that particular
> one, who could not therefore vote for it.

What happens in Australia is none of my business.

> Now, of course, there are those who, with the passage of time and quite
> likely deliberately, forget all the shady nuances and maintain (a) that
> we rejected proportional representation and (b) that the Australians
> rejected the idea of becoming a republic, full stop.
> It's rather dishonest.

The referendum proposition had the full support of the LibDems, the most
rabid of PR supporters.

I would have expected them to all* support it. I also would have
expected most of the malcontent minority parties (the malodorous Greens,
especially) to support it, even if only as a stepping stone to getting
what they really wanted, by at first denying a majority to the
Conservatives or Labour and being able, via a hung Parliament, to
legislate for permanently-rigged voting of whichever variety they could
agree on.

But it didn't happen. A large majority of the electorate saw the dangers
and refused to come into the spider's parlour. A much larger proportion
than ever vote for Labour or the Conservatives.

[* Of course, there's a difference between LibDems and LibDem voters.
The latter group are much more numerous and cannot all be relied upon to
support every left-wing policy of the actual LibDems. The party has been
described as a left-wing party deceitfully seeking right-wing votes.]

On 13/10/2021 11:40, Robin wrote:

> Let's take a specific example. For a long time "The Professionals"
> could not be broadcast on TV. Would your legislation have allowed
> repeats without the permission of Martin Shaw?

There was a court case in the press not long ago, where Disney wanted to
produce a series based on based on the memoir by Steve Jones the
guitarist from the Sex Pistols ("Lonely Boy: Tales from a Sex Pistol")
and Steve Jones and Paul Cook, the band's drummer, were happy for the
band's music to be used, but John Lydon (the singer, stage name Johnny
Rotten) insisted he had a veto.

It went to court, and Lydon lost.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/23/johnny-rotten-loses-battle-former-sex-pistols-bandmates-use/

It looks as though what the contracts say is the guiding principle. In
the case of Martin Shaw, it depends on the exact wording of what he
signed to determine whether he had any control over the showing of repeats.

Jim

On 15/10/2021 15:03, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 15/10/2021 02:32 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>> On 15/10/2021 14:07, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> We had a referendum on the possibility of PR for Parliamentary
>>> elections.
>>> It was defeated handsomely (circa 75:25) by the electorate.

FALSE! It's was defeated by 68% on a turnout of only 42%, so it was
defeated by only 29% of the population.

>> So it may have been, but it was a rigged question asking only about a
>> specific type of different, and hardly proportional, representation
>> namely alternative vote:
>> "At present, the UK uses the "first past the post" system to elect MPs
>> to the House of Commons. Should the "alternative vote" system be used
>> instead?"
>> For fairness and impartiality, the question should simply have been
>> whether *a* proportional system should be used instead.
>> It's sadly a common tactic to give just one option out of many, which
>> of course cuts down the number of people who would vote for change.
>> The same grubby manoeuvre was used in the Australian republic
>> referendum in 1999:
>> "A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the
>> Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and
>> Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a
>> two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament. Do
>> you approve this proposed alteration?"
>> There are many who wanted change to a republic, but not that
>> particular one, who could not therefore vote for it.
>
> What happens in Australia is none of my business.
>
>> Now, of course, there are those who, with the passage of time and
>> quite likely deliberately, forget all the shady nuances and maintain
>> (a) that we rejected proportional representation and (b) that the
>> Australians rejected the idea of becoming a republic, full stop.
>> It's rather dishonest.
>
> The referendum proposition had the full support of the LibDems, the most
> rabid of PR supporters.

Whereas your language describing perfectly reasonable and rational
people who happen to disagree with you is not 'rabid'?

It's the sort of phrase, when applied to normal rational people, that
tells us nothing about the people it's being applied to, but everything
about the bigotry of the person misapplying the term, you.

The simple fact is that the Liberals and subsequently the LibDems have
always supported proportional representation, and there's nothing
'rabid' in that, merely a rational understanding that the polarised and
increasingly confrontational style of UK politics, as epitomised by the
irrational name-calling in your own posts, is damaging to the best
interests of the country as a whole, and therefore supporting a possible
way to end it.

> I would have expected them to all* support it. I also would have
> expected most of the malcontent minority parties (the malodorous Greens,

.... again the sort of description that tells everything about your own
bigotry and nothing useful about the Greens ...

> especially) to support it, even if only as a stepping stone to getting
> what they really wanted, by at first denying a majority to the
> Conservatives or Labour and being able, via a hung Parliament, to
> legislate for permanently-rigged

.... another dishonest use of a loaded term ...

> voting of whichever variety they could
> agree on.

There is nothing 'rigged' about proportional representation, it's used
in nearly half the countries in the world, including ex-British
colonies, in the Scottish, NI, and Welsh parliaments, the Mayoralty of
London, and the 92 hereditary peers who still sit in the Lords.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

> But it didn't happen. A large majority of the electorate saw the dangers
> and refused to come into the spider's parlour. A much larger proportion
> than ever vote for Labour or the Conservatives.

Or were they manipulated by lies and FUD just as they were in the
Brexshit referendum? For example, having been fudging over PR for many
years itself while still in power, many senior influential Labour
figures suddenly came out against it once they lost the election and PR
was then proposed by the coalition!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum

> [* Of course, there's a difference between LibDems and LibDem voters.
> The latter group are much more numerous and cannot all be relied upon to
> support every left-wing policy of the actual LibDems. The party has been
> described as a left-wing party deceitfully seeking right-wing votes.]

Again a description that tells us everything about the bigotry of the
person making the comment, but nothing useful about the LibDems or their
supporters.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 15/10/2021 14:55, MB wrote:
>
> The only ones who want it are the small parties like the Greenies and
> Liberals because it is the only they can get any sort of power because
> of their limited support.

How typical that you can't mention the Greens without trying to belittle
them by using the childish term 'Greenies', and that you only mention
centrist parties while ignoring right-wing parties, such as UKIP, who
are also in favour of PR.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:skc5pl$1bgl$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> On 15/10/2021 15:03, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 15/10/2021 02:32 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15/10/2021 14:07, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We had a referendum on the possibility of PR for Parliamentary
>>>> elections.
>>>> It was defeated handsomely (circa 75:25) by the electorate.
>
> FALSE! It's was defeated by 68% on a turnout of only 42%, so it was
> defeated by only 29% of the population.

But those who decide not to vote (or can't be bothered to express a
preference) play no part in the decision-making process and cannot be lumped
with either the "yes" or "no" camp. You can only count the people who *do*
vote.

Take the much closer Brexit referendum. The result was 51.9% Brexit : 48.1%
Leave, with a turnout of 72%. The Leave supporters said that only 17.4
million of 46.5 million voters = 37% voted in favour of Brexit. But that
statistic is just as meaningless as it is to say that 16.1 million out of
46.5 million = 34% voted in favour of Leave. In both cases, the statistic
makes the unsupported assumption that all those who didn't vote would have
voted the same way. We will never know which way the abstainers would have
voted, and whether significantly more of them would have voted for Brexit or
Leave.

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:skc6j1$1qf5$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> On 15/10/2021 14:55, MB wrote:
>>
>> The only ones who want it are the small parties like the Greenies and
>> Liberals because it is the only they can get any sort of power because of
>> their limited support.
>
> How typical that you can't mention the Greens without trying to belittle
> them by using the childish term 'Greenies', and that you only mention
> centrist parties while ignoring right-wing parties, such as UKIP, who are
> also in favour of PR.

FPTP favours larger parties over smaller ones, whether those small one are
left, centre or right wing. That is both one of its strengths and its
weaknesses over PR: it tends to produce a decisive result rather than a
coalition, so there is less time wasted with inter-party negotiation; but it
also denies the small parties their fair say of the seats (ie votes) in
Parliament.

Would we want a result that almost always required a coalition of two or
more parties. Should any electoral system allow a coalition of party with
the *second* most votes with some of the smaller parties, or should only the
party with the greatest number of votes be allowed to form coalitions? In
other words, would it have been democratic in the 2010 election for Labour
(who came second) to have formed a government with various minority parties,
when Conservative received the greatest number of votes? I'm not intending
any political bias by choosing that election, only that it's one of the ones
in recent memory. Also, I realise that election (like all other UK ones) was
decided on number of seats, not proportion of votes: I'm talking about the
principle of the one that came second (by any decision-making process) being
allowed to form a government.

On 15/10/2021 04:12 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 15/10/2021 15:03, JNugent wrote:
>> On 15/10/2021 02:32 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 15/10/2021 14:07, JNugent wrote:

>>>> We had a referendum on the possibility of PR for Parliamentary
>>>> elections.
>>>> It was defeated handsomely (circa 75:25) by the electorate.
>
> FALSE!   It's was defeated by 68% on a turnout of only 42%, so it was
> defeated by only 29% of the population.

"Only"? :-)

When was the last time a party got 68% of the vote at a General Election?

>>> So it may have been, but it was a rigged question asking only about a
>>> specific type of different, and hardly proportional, representation
>>> namely alternative vote:
>>> "At present, the UK uses the "first past the post" system to elect
>>> MPs to the House of Commons. Should the "alternative vote" system be
>>> used instead?"
>>> For fairness and impartiality, the question should simply have been
>>> whether *a* proportional system should be used instead.
>>> It's sadly a common tactic to give just one option out of many, which
>>> of course cuts down the number of people who would vote for change.
>>> The same grubby manoeuvre was used in the Australian republic
>>> referendum in 1999:
>>> "A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the
>>> Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and
>>> Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a
>>> two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament. Do
>>> you approve this proposed alteration?"
>>> There are many who wanted change to a republic, but not that
>>> particular one, who could not therefore vote for it.
>
>> What happens in Australia is none of my business.
>
>>> Now, of course, there are those who, with the passage of time and
>>> quite likely deliberately, forget all the shady nuances and maintain
>>> (a) that we rejected proportional representation and (b) that the
>>> Australians rejected the idea of becoming a republic, full stop.
>>> It's rather dishonest.
>
>> The referendum proposition had the full support of the LibDems, the
>> most rabid of PR supporters.
>
> Whereas your language describing perfectly reasonable and rational
> people who happen to disagree with you is not 'rabid'?
> It's the sort of phrase, when applied to normal rational people, that
> tells us nothing about the people it's being applied to, but everything
> about the bigotry of the person misapplying the term, you.
> The simple fact is that the Liberals and subsequently the LibDems have
> always supported proportional representation, and there's nothing
> 'rabid' in that, merely a rational understanding that the polarised and
> increasingly confrontational style of UK politics, as epitomised by the
> irrational name-calling in your own posts, is damaging to the best
> interests of the country as a whole, and therefore supporting a possible
> way to end it.
>
>> I would have expected them to all* support it. I also would have
>> expected most of the malcontent minority parties (the malodorous Greens,

> ... again the sort of description that tells everything about your own
> bigotry and nothing useful about the Greens ...

>> especially) to support it, even if only as a stepping stone to getting
>> what they really wanted, by at first denying a majority to the
>> Conservatives or Labour and being able, via a hung Parliament, to
>> legislate for permanently-rigged

> ... another dishonest use of a loaded term ...

It's what they're aiming for: elections which mainstream parties cannot
win and in which the LibDems and the malodorous Greenies (!!) will
always appear to have "won".
>
>> voting of whichever variety they could agree on.
>
> There is nothing 'rigged' about proportional representation, it's used
> in nearly half the countries in the world, including ex-British
> colonies, in the Scottish, NI, and Welsh parliaments, the Mayoralty of
> London, and the 92 hereditary peers who still sit in the Lords.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
>
>> But it didn't happen. A large majority of the electorate saw the
>> dangers and refused to come into the spider's parlour. A much larger
>> proportion than ever vote for Labour or the Conservatives.
>
> Or were they manipulated by lies and FUD just as they were in the
> Brexshit referendum?  For example, having been fudging over PR for many
> years itself while still in power, many senior influential Labour
> figures suddenly came out against it once they lost the election and PR
> was then proposed by the coalition!

:-)

I wonder whether you (and others who follow the same line) ever realise
just how childish you sound with it?

Are you asking for best of seventeen votes, or something?

You *lost*.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum

>> [* Of course, there's a difference between LibDems and LibDem voters.
>> The latter group are much more numerous and cannot all be relied upon
>> to support every left-wing policy of the actual LibDems. The party has
>> been described as a left-wing party deceitfully seeking right-wing
>> votes.]
>
> Again a description that tells us everything about the bigotry of the
> person making the comment, but nothing useful about the LibDems or their
> supporters.

I'm right.

You're wrong.

Learn to live with it and calm yourself.

On 15/10/2021 17:08, NY wrote:
> FALSE! It's was defeated by 68% on a turnout of only 42%, so it was
> defeated by only 29% of the population.

So as I think I typed, there was no support for PR.

You need to indicate support before such a major change and not just
claim that those who did not vote supported the change. I would say the
low turnout is proof that there was no support.

On 15/10/2021 17:08, NY wrote:
>
> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:skc5pl$1bgl$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>
>> On 15/10/2021 15:03, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15/10/2021 02:32 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 15/10/2021 14:07, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We had a referendum on the possibility of PR for Parliamentary
>>>>> elections.
>>>>> It was defeated handsomely (circa 75:25) by the electorate.
>>
>> FALSE!   It's was defeated by 68% on a turnout of only 42%, so it was
>> defeated by only 29% of the population.
>
> But those ... Leave.

None of which alters the fact that his claim was FALSE, however you
count it!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 15/10/2021 18:10, MB wrote:
>
> On 15/10/2021 17:08, NY wrote:
>>
>> FALSE!   It's was defeated by 68% on a turnout of only 42%, so it was
>> defeated by only 29% of the population.
>
> So as I think I typed, there was no support for PR.

The figures you gave were false and misleading, however you try to argue it.

> You need to indicate support before such a major change and not just
> claim that those who did not vote supported the change.  I would say the
> low turnout is proof that there was no support.

I'm not claiming that there was support for PR, merely that I'm not
convinced that a referendum where parties on one side or the other tell
grossly misleading lies and FUD is a very good, perhaps not even the
just the best, measure of democracy.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 15/10/2021 17:20, JNugent wrote:
> On 15/10/2021 04:12 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 15/10/2021 15:03, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 15/10/2021 02:32 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 15/10/2021 14:07, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>> We had a referendum on the possibility of PR for Parliamentary
>>>>> elections.
>>>>> It was defeated handsomely (circa 75:25) by the electorate.
>>
>> FALSE!   It's was defeated by 68% on a turnout of only 42%, so it was
>> defeated by only 29% of the population.
>
> "Only"? :-)

Yes, as in "only 29%".

> When was the last time a party got 68% of the vote at a General Election?

Attempt to shift the goalposts noted.

>>> But it didn't happen. A large majority of the electorate saw the
>>> dangers and refused to come into the spider's parlour. A much larger
>>> proportion than ever vote for Labour or the Conservatives.
>>
>> Or were they manipulated by lies and FUD just as they were in the
>> Brexshit referendum?  For example, having been fudging over PR for
>> many years itself while still in power, many senior influential Labour
>> figures suddenly came out against it once they lost the election and
>> PR was then proposed by the coalition!
>
> I wonder whether you (and others who follow the same line) ever realise
> just how childish you sound with it?

It's 'childish' to complain about politicians lying and spreading FUD?
Perhaps you should look at the long-terms consequences of condoning such
disinformation and voting for such worthless causes that employ such
tactics, isn't the sh*t that the country is in bad enough for you yet?

> Are you asking for best of seventeen votes, or something?
>
> You *lost*.

No-one is disputing that.

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum
>
>>> [* Of course, there's a difference between LibDems and LibDem voters.
>>> The latter group are much more numerous and cannot all be relied upon
>>> to support every left-wing policy of the actual LibDems. The party
>>> has been described as a left-wing party deceitfully seeking
>>> right-wing votes.]
>>
>> Again a description that tells us everything about the bigotry of the
>> person making the comment, but nothing useful about the LibDems or
>> their supporters.
>
> I'm right.
>
> You're wrong.

The fact that PR wasn't chosen at a referendum doesn't give you the
right to state the facts about it in a misleading way, nor to derogate
all those who hold different political views from you. *THAT* is what
is childish here, not complaining about politicians lying.

> Learn to live with it and calm yourself.

Learn to conduct public debate in a rational manner, without resorting
to 'bears of very little brain' negative stereotypes.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 15/10/2021 16:12, Java Jive wrote:
> It's was defeated by 68% on a turnout of only 42%, so it was
> defeated by only 29% of the population.

It doesn't work like that. Locally, some years ago, there was a local
referendum asking whether the council housing should continue to be run
by the council or the function transferred to a housing association. In
raw numbers, the housing association got the most votes. Someone
challenged this in court pointing out that as a percentage of the people
eligible to vote the housing association vote was less than 50% and
therefore the status quo should not be changed.

The judge was very clear that the people who didn't vote cared so little
about the outcome that there could be no assumptions made about their
preferences and only the votes cast should be used to determine the
public opinion.

Taking your figures, it was "defeated by 68%" and that is the relevant
piece of information. The turnout is only indicative of how much the
public in general cared what the outcome might be.

Jim

On 15/10/2021 17:19, NY wrote:
>
> FPTP favours larger parties over smaller ones, whether those small one
> are left, centre or right wing. That is both one of its strengths and
> its weaknesses over PR: it tends to produce a decisive result rather
> than a coalition, so there is less time wasted with inter-party
> negotiation; but it also denies the small parties their fair say of the
> seats (ie votes) in Parliament.
>
> Would we want a result that almost always required a coalition of two or
> more parties.

Far better to have governments that are more broadly than more narrowly
based.

> Should any electoral system allow a coalition of party
> with the *second* most votes with some of the smaller parties, or should
> only the party with the greatest number of votes be allowed to form
> coalitions? In other words, would it have been democratic in the 2010
> election for Labour (who came second) to have formed a government with
> various minority parties, when Conservative received the greatest number
> of votes? I'm not intending any political bias by choosing that
> election, only that it's one of the ones in recent memory. Also, I
> realise that election (like all other UK ones) was decided on number of
> seats, not proportion of votes: I'm talking about the principle of the
> one that came second (by any decision-making process) being allowed to
> form a government.

The great advantage of PR is that it tends to means that those elected
to power are the most acceptable, or at any rate least unacceptable, to
the greatest possible subset of the population, and hence tend to favour
compromise and centrist politics over extremism.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 15/10/2021 20:48, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 15/10/2021 16:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> It's was defeated by 68% on a turnout of only 42%, so it was
>> defeated by only 29% of the population.
>
> It doesn't work like that [...] the public opinion.
>
> Taking your figures, it was "defeated by 68%" and that is the relevant
> piece of information.  The turnout is only indicative of how much the
> public in general cared what the outcome might be.

However you want to argue it, his claim was misleading.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 15/10/2021 21:01, Java Jive wrote:
> On 15/10/2021 20:48, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 15/10/2021 16:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> It's was defeated by 68% on a turnout of only 42%, so it was
>>> defeated by only 29% of the population.
>>
>> It doesn't work like that [...] the public opinion.
>>
>> Taking your figures, it was "defeated by 68%" and that is the relevant
>> piece of information. The turnout is only indicative of how much the
>> public in general cared what the outcome might be.
>
> However you want to argue it, his claim was misleading.
>
You have already said that elsewhere in this thread. I wasn't talking
about his claim.
My point was that *your* claim was similarly misleading, and I gave you
the background (which you cut out) that explained how I have the
judiciary on my side when I said it.

Jim

On 15/10/2021 20:58, Java Jive wrote:

> The great advantage of PR is that it tends to means that those elected
> to power are the most acceptable, or at any rate least unacceptable, to
> the greatest possible subset of the population, and hence tend to favour
> compromise and centrist politics over extremism.
>
The great disadvantage of PR is that the voter doesn't vote for a
person, only a party. This then trusts the party with finding
candidates to fill the seats won. I don't trust them to choose people
who would be best for the country, rather than people that the party can
instruct on the line to take.

At least currently, I can vote for a person. I don't always have a clear
idea who to vote for, but I do usually have a very clear idea who I
don't want, and I have the option to vote tactically for the person most
likely to keep them out of power. I can remember, many years ago, the
appearance of signs in many windows just before a General Election that
said "Conservative voter voting Lib-Dem this time". The unwanted
Conservative shoo-in didn't win that seat.

Jim

On 15/10/2021 21:19, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 15/10/2021 21:01, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 15/10/2021 20:48, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> Taking your figures, it was "defeated by 68%" and that is the relevant
>>> piece of information.  The turnout is only indicative of how much the
>>> public in general cared what the outcome might be.
>>
>> However you want to argue it, his claim was misleading.
>
> You have already said that elsewhere in this thread. I wasn't talking
> about his claim.
> My point was that *your* claim was similarly misleading, and I gave you
> the background (which you cut out) that explained how I have the
> judiciary on my side when I said it.

How can stating the actual facts be misleading?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 15/10/2021 21:42, Java Jive wrote:
> On 15/10/2021 21:19, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 15/10/2021 21:01, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15/10/2021 20:48, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Taking your figures, it was "defeated by 68%" and that is the relevant
>>>> piece of information. The turnout is only indicative of how much the
>>>> public in general cared what the outcome might be.
>>>
>>> However you want to argue it, his claim was misleading.
>>
>> You have already said that elsewhere in this thread. I wasn't talking
>> about his claim.
>> My point was that *your* claim was similarly misleading, and I gave you
>> the background (which you cut out) that explained how I have the
>> judiciary on my side when I said it.
>
> How can stating the actual facts be misleading?
>
It wasn't the facts that were misleading, it is the arithmetic you did
to them when they were not in the same category. Yes the 68% was a fact
of the voting. Yes the turnout of 42% was a fact. The error was the word
"defeated" when the 52% who didn't vote didn't have any input into the
process, and the courts have ruled that non-voters are irrelevant.

Jim

On 15/10/2021 08:16 pm, Java Jive wrote:

[re: referendum on PR:]

> I'm not claiming that there was support for PR...

Good.

Because there wasn't.

Quite the reverse, as you are well aware.

On 15/10/2021 08:29 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 15/10/2021 17:20, JNugent wrote:
>> On 15/10/2021 04:12 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/10/2021 15:03, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 15/10/2021 02:32 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> On 15/10/2021 14:07, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>>>> We had a referendum on the possibility of PR for Parliamentary
>>>>>> elections.
>>>>>> It was defeated handsomely (circa 75:25) by the electorate.
>>>
>>> FALSE!   It's was defeated by 68% on a turnout of only 42%, so it was
>>> defeated by only 29% of the population.
>>
>> "Only"? :-)
>
> Yes, as in "only 29%".
>
>> When was the last time a party got 68% of the vote at a General Election?
>
> Attempt to shift the goalposts noted.
>
>>>> But it didn't happen. A large majority of the electorate saw the
>>>> dangers and refused to come into the spider's parlour. A much larger
>>>> proportion than ever vote for Labour or the Conservatives.
>>>
>>> Or were they manipulated by lies and FUD just as they were in the
>>> Brexshit referendum?  For example, having been fudging over PR for
>>> many years itself while still in power, many senior influential
>>> Labour figures suddenly came out against it once they lost the
>>> election and PR was then proposed by the coalition!
>>
>> I wonder whether you (and others who follow the same line) ever
>> realise just how childish you sound with it?
>
> It's 'childish' to complain about politicians lying and spreading FUD?
> Perhaps you should look at the long-terms consequences of condoning such
> disinformation and voting for such worthless causes that employ such
> tactics, isn't the sh*t that the country is in bad enough for you yet?
>
>> Are you asking for best of seventeen votes, or something?
>>
>> You *lost*.
>
> No-one is disputing that.
>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum
>>
>>
>>>> [* Of course, there's a difference between LibDems and LibDem
>>>> voters. The latter group are much more numerous and cannot all be
>>>> relied upon to support every left-wing policy of the actual LibDems.
>>>> The party has been described as a left-wing party deceitfully
>>>> seeking right-wing votes.]
>>>
>>> Again a description that tells us everything about the bigotry of the
>>> person making the comment, but nothing useful about the LibDems or
>>> their supporters.
>>
>> I'm right.
>>
>> You're wrong.
>
> The fact that PR wasn't chosen at a referendum doesn't give you the
> right to state the facts about it in a misleading way, nor to derogate
> all those who hold different political views from you.  *THAT* is what
> is childish here, not complaining about politicians lying.
>
>> Learn to live with it and calm yourself.
>
> Learn to conduct public debate in a rational manner, without resorting
> to 'bears of very little brain' negative stereotypes.

Calm down.

You'll only upset yourself.

[You're certainly not upsetting me.]

On 15/10/2021 23:41, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 15/10/2021 08:29 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Learn to conduct public debate in a rational manner, without resorting
>> to 'bears of very little brain' negative stereotypes.
>
> Calm down.
>
> You'll only upset yourself.
>
> [You're certainly not upsetting me.]

More childishness.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 15/10/2021 23:34, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 15/10/2021 21:42, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 15/10/2021 21:19, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15/10/2021 21:01, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 15/10/2021 20:48, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Taking your figures, it was "defeated by 68%" and that is the relevant
>>>>> piece of information.  The turnout is only indicative of how much the
>>>>> public in general cared what the outcome might be.
>>>>
>>>> However you want to argue it, his claim was misleading.
>>>
>>> You have already said that elsewhere in this thread. I wasn't talking
>>> about his claim.
>>> My point was that *your* claim was similarly misleading, and I gave you
>>> the background (which you cut out) that explained how I have the
>>> judiciary on my side when I said it.
>>
>> How can stating the actual facts be misleading?
>>
> It wasn't the facts that were misleading, it is the arithmetic you did
> to them when they were not in the same category. Yes the 68% was a fact
> of the voting. Yes the turnout of 42% was a fact. The error was the word
> "defeated" when the 52% who didn't vote didn't have any input into the
> process, and the courts have ruled that non-voters are irrelevant.

What I wrote was ...

On 15/10/2021 16:12, Java Jive wrote:
>
> It's was defeated by 68% on a turnout of only 42%, so it was defeated
> by only 29% of the population.

..68 x .42 is just under .29 = 29%, so how is the above misleading?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 15/10/2021 21:30, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 15/10/2021 20:58, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> The great advantage of PR is that it tends to means that those elected
>> to power are the most acceptable, or at any rate least unacceptable, to
>> the greatest possible subset of the population, and hence tend to favour
>> compromise and centrist politics over extremism.
>>
> The great disadvantage of PR is that the voter doesn't vote for a
> person, only a party.

That's an advantage, it depersonalises politics, which is badly needed
in this country. Switzerland is generally accepted as being a
successful European country, but I bet you don't know, without looking
it up, who is their head of state, the President, because it changes
every year. For the record, it's currently Guy Parmelin, but you only
have a couple of months or so to remember it:

https://planetrulers.com/switzerland-president/

> This then trusts the party with finding
> candidates to fill the seats won. I don't trust them to choose people
> who would be best for the country, rather than people that the party can
> instruct on the line to take.

As you get no choice over what candidates they put up anyway, that's six
of one and half-a-dozen of the other.

> At least currently, I can vote for a person.

Whereas you *SHOULD* be voting for the policies they espouse! What
actual difference does it make to anyone if Stuffed Shirt A is elected
instead of Stuffed Shirt B? What matters to each and everyone of us is
what is enacted into law, because that's what affects our lives, so it's
a wasted vote to vote for a person just because you like him/her, or not
because you don't like him/her, ignoring their competence and their
policies.

> I don't always have a clear
> idea who to vote for, but I do usually have a very clear idea who I
> don't want, and I have the option to vote tactically for the person most
> likely to keep them out of power.  I can remember, many years ago, the
> appearance of signs in many windows just before a General Election that
> said "Conservative voter voting Lib-Dem this time". The unwanted
> Conservative shoo-in didn't win that seat.

PR would make it easier to vote tactically, not more difficult.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 16/10/2021 12:16 am, Java Jive wrote:
> On 15/10/2021 23:41, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 15/10/2021 08:29 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> Learn to conduct public debate in a rational manner, without
>>> resorting to 'bears of very little brain' negative stereotypes.
>>
>> Calm down.
>>
>> You'll only upset yourself.
>>
>> [You're certainly not upsetting me.]
>
> More childishness.

:-)

REALLY?

You're the child in this room.

On 16/10/2021 00:40, JNugent wrote:
> On 16/10/2021 12:16 am, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 15/10/2021 23:41, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15/10/2021 08:29 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Learn to conduct public debate in a rational manner, without
>>>> resorting to 'bears of very little brain' negative stereotypes.
>>>
>>> Calm down.
>>>
>>> You'll only upset yourself.
>>>
>>> [You're certainly not upsetting me.]
>>
>> More childishness.
>
> You're the child in this room.

See above, and as I've said before: It's not 'childish' to complain
about politicians lying and spreading FUD, and perhaps you should look
at the long-terms consequences of condoning such disinformation and
voting for such worthless causes that employ such tactics.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk