On 15/10/2021 23:34, Indy Jess John wrote:
> 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.

It was their choice to not have any input into the vote.

On 16/10/2021 00:19, Java Jive wrote:
> 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?
>
Because it assumes that the whole of the population matter. In a
referendum, only those who vote matter.

So your arithmetic was accurate, but your assumption it was relevant
wasn't. By using it, you imply something that isn't how the law
interprets the outcome.

Jim

On 16/10/2021 00:33, Java Jive wrote:
> Whereas you*SHOULD* be voting for the policies they espouse!

The policies change over time. Weasel wording ensure that whatever they
decide to do once elected was what they intended all along. At that
point, the public has no right to ask for another election because they
feel lied to.

You might trust political parties to be honest, but history doesn't
prove that to be true.

If Stuffed Shirt A is less honest than Stuffed Shirt B it does matter.
If the party rather than the voters decide which one is elected, it
matters even more.

You are entitled to your opinion. I don't have to share it.

Jim

In article <sk924j$503$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 14/10/2021 11:17, Martin wrote:
> > At least they end up with governments not run by rich tosser.

> What like Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, hardly on the breadline? Even Corbyn
> is said to be quite wealthy.

Many things were "said" about Corbyn. But (ahem) perhaps not all of them
were true.

So far as I can see, though, Starmer is pretty much a Blair re-run.

Anyway, the real problem isn't if a politician is 'wealthy' or not. It is
the question of if someone is pulling their strings to make them so in
exchange for feeding them. Particularly when this is hidden from scrutiny
and means they act against the best interests of most people for their own
advantage.

However back on topic: The reality seems to be that the Scots system now
works fairly well in giving us Governments that represent the range of
views amongst voters here. To the point that, for example, a wish to be rid
of Westminster remains strong.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 15/10/2021 10:39, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> However back on topic: The reality seems to be that the Scots system now
> works fairly well in giving us Governments that represent the range of
> views amongst voters here. To the point that, for example, a wish to be rid
> of Westminster remains strong.

Is it?

It seems to be moving further towards a SNP one party state and that is
certainly not what you find speaking to people in Scotland and even the
elections do not show as a high number supporting the SNP as they like
to think.

On 16/10/2021 09:21, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 16/10/2021 00:19, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>>
> Because it assumes that the whole of the population matter.

Actually, I do happen to think that the whole of the population matter!

> In a
> referendum, only those who vote matter.
>
> So your arithmetic was accurate, but your assumption it was relevant
> wasn't.  By using it, you imply something that isn't how the law
> interprets the outcome.

No, I was stating the truth about the proportion of the population that
had actually voted against PR, which was very different to that claimed
previously.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 16/10/2021 09:30, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 16/10/2021 00:33, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Whereas you *SHOULD* be voting for the policies they espouse!
>
> The policies change over time. Weasel wording ensure that whatever they
> decide to do once elected was what they intended all along. At that
> point, the public has no right to ask for another election because they
> feel lied to.
>
> You might trust political parties to be honest, but history doesn't
> prove that to be true.
>
> If Stuffed Shirt A is less honest than Stuffed Shirt B it does matter.
> If the party rather than the voters decide which one is elected, it
> matters even more.

I think you are misunderstanding how PR works, or perhaps conflating
different possible systems of it. In Scotland, there are two systems in
use:

1) Local Council elections use Single Transferable Vote where voters
rank candidates in order of preference. This operates very differently
to how you describe above, and is the Electoral Reform Society's
preferred option.

2) MSPs are elected via a different system, the Additional Member
System, aka Mixed Member Proportional, and may be what you are
describing above, but your criticisms of it seem ill-founded and do not
reflect how it works in practice. See below.

The simple fact is that both the systems in use in Scotland produce more
representative results than FPTP, even the second being easily more
representative:

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/is-there-proportional-representation-in-scotland/

"How proportional is the system in Scotland?

A way of measuring the proportionality of electoral outcomes is via the
Deviation from Proportionality (DV) Index. The DV Index is calculated by
adding up the difference between each party’s vote share and their seat
share in each electoral area and dividing by two, giving a ‘total
deviation’ score. The higher the score, the more disproportionate the
result.

Westminster election results in recent years were in the 20s (2015: 24,
2010: 22.7, 2005: 20.7), the Scottish parliament has never had a result
worse than 12.1."

> You are entitled to your opinion. I don't have to share it.

Indeed, but nevertheless your arguments are illogical; when you said ...

"On 15/10/2021 21:30, Indy Jess John wrote:
> At least currently, I can vote for a person.

.... that doesn't seem to be a valid criticism of either of the Scottish
systems, because it cannot possibly apply to STV, and with AMS the
regional lists are known at the time of voting, so you know who your
regional vote will apply to.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 16/10/2021 02:10 am, Java Jive wrote:

> 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.

<shrug>

Your record speaks for itself.

On 15/10/2021 10:39 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> In article <sk924j$503$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 14/10/2021 11:17, Martin wrote:

>>> At least they end up with governments not run by rich tosser.
>
>> What like Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, hardly on the breadline? Even Corbyn
>> is said to be quite wealthy.
>
> Many things were "said" about Corbyn. But (ahem) perhaps not all of them
> were true.
>
> So far as I can see, though, Starmer is pretty much a Blair re-run.

He definitely hasn't got Blair's undoubted charisma. Compare and
contrast with the Prime Minister, who has always had charisma in
spadefuls, even twenty years ago as a TV discussion panel member, etc.
>
> Anyway, the real problem isn't if a politician is 'wealthy' or not. It is
> the question of if someone is pulling their strings to make them so in
> exchange for feeding them. Particularly when this is hidden from scrutiny
> and means they act against the best interests of most people for their own
> advantage.

Most Prime Ministers have tended to be either wealthy before gaining
office, or on leaving it. An obvious exception would have been Ramsay
McDonald.

I don't think James Callaghan came from a patrician line, but he owned a
farm in Sussex by the time he finished. The wealth of the Blairs is now
legendary but does seem to have been earned via astute business dealing.
Mrs Thatcher married into wealth, of course.

> However back on topic: The reality seems to be that the Scots system now
> works fairly well in giving us Governments that represent the range of
> views amongst voters here. To the point that, for example, a wish to be rid
> of Westminster remains strong.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

> On 15/10/2021 10:39, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > However back on topic: The reality seems to be that the Scots system now
> > works fairly well in giving us Governments that represent the range of
> > views amongst voters here. To the point that, for example, a wish to be rid
> > of Westminster remains strong.
>
> Is it?
>
> It seems to be moving further towards a SNP one party state and that is
> certainly not what you find speaking to people in Scotland and even the
> elections do not show as a high number supporting the SNP as they like
> to think.
>

From this perspective (the soft underbelly of the Deep South) it is
absurd that that the tail should wag the dog when the UK as a whole
comprises 66,796,807 souls but Scotland accounts for only 8.2% of
that total, numbering 5,463,300 (as at June 2019)*

If those disgruntled Scotsmen really hate us perfidious English so very
much, let them go forth and multiply and see just how well they do in
the real, cold, hard world all by themselves.

It would save us English the excessive subsidy that we pay to keep
Scotland on board, and for what? A disproportionate number of
Westminster politicians? A submarine base? Preferential supplies
of whisky? An unending earache?

* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_population>

--
^Ï^ <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.

On 16/10/2021 14:16, Sn!pe wrote:
>
> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 15/10/2021 10:39, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>
>>> However back on topic: The reality seems to be that the Scots system now
>>> works fairly well in giving us Governments that represent the range of
>>> views amongst voters here. To the point that, for example, a wish to be rid
>>> of Westminster remains strong.

And, perhaps more to the point, no-one seems to want to revert to FPTP.

>> Is it?
>>
>> It seems to be moving further towards a SNP one party state and that is
>> certainly not what you find speaking to people in Scotland and even the
>> elections do not show as a high number supporting the SNP as they like
>> to think.

It doesn't seem to matter how often your bullshit is debunked, like so
many others, you seem to believe that if you keep on lying enough,
people will begin to believe it. It's not going to happen, probably not
even here, certainly not north of the border. For example previously
you wrote and I replied as below:

On 26/06/2021 12:27, MB wrote:
>
> Fortunately many Scots cannot stand Sturgeon or the SNP!

'Fortunately'? Again a failure to grasp reality. You make it sound as
though there are enough to prevent independence, but as already linked,
the SNP have consistently been the largest party in Scotland for a long
time now.

It's not difficult to see why. Comparing Sturgeon and BlowJob, in terms
of results, neither have handled the pandemic well. Throughout most of
it, Scotland's figures have been only marginally better than England's,
yet Sturgeon is listened to and respected in a way that Boris isn't,
because she is a good communicator and comes over as decisive and
listening to the scientists. Similarly for other issues. Effectively,
the SNP have been the only credible political force in Scotland for some
time, all the rest are also-rans, these days even the Lib Dems.

> From this perspective (the soft underbelly of the Deep South) it is
> absurd that that the tail should wag the dog when the UK as a whole
> comprises 66,796,807 souls but Scotland accounts for only 8.2% of
> that total, numbering 5,463,300 (as at June 2019)*

What tail is trying to wag what dog? The above doesn't seem to bear any
relationship to the thread above.

> If those disgruntled Scotsmen really hate us perfidious English so very
> much, let them go forth and multiply and see just how well they do in
> the real, cold, hard world all by themselves.

Exactly as the UK is having to do as a result of Brexshit, which isn't
proving to be the cure to all our ills as was promised by the Leave
campaign, on the contrary it's rather added to our difficulties, not
eased them. I have no doubt it will prove the same for Scotland should
the country decide to leave the rUK, but it's either that or remain
chained to the corpse that is UK politics currently, and I know which I
would prefer.

> It would save us English the excessive subsidy that we pay to keep
> Scotland on board, and for what? A disproportionate number of
> Westminster politicians? A submarine base? Preferential supplies
> of whisky? An unending earache?
>
> * <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_population>

Perhaps you should have linked instead to this. If you can be arsed to
read it, you will find that there is no excessive subsidy by the English
to any of the devolved nations:

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/barnett-formula

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 16/10/2021 13:51, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 15/10/2021 10:39 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>> In article <sk924j$503$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 14/10/2021 11:17, Martin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> At least they end up with governments not run by rich tosser.
>>
>>> What like Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, hardly on the breadline?  Even Corbyn
>>> is said to be quite wealthy.
>>
>> Many things were "said" about Corbyn. But (ahem) perhaps not all of them
>> were true.
>>
>> So far as I can see, though, Starmer is pretty much a Blair re-run.
>
> He definitely hasn't got Blair's undoubted charisma. Compare and
> contrast with the Prime Minister, who has always had charisma in
> spadefuls, even twenty years ago as a TV discussion panel member, etc.

Your idea of the meaning of the word 'charisma' isn't the same as anyone
else's I know. To me, BlowJob has always appeared a bumbling,
dishonest, and incompetent fool, and I've never seen any reason to
change that opinion, nor do I know many, if any, people who think much
differently about him. The only way I can rationalise his being elected
is that he's living everybody's daydream: an idiot who some malignant
Fairy Badmother has elevated to the highest job in the land.

>> However back on topic: The reality seems to be that the Scots system now
>> works fairly well in giving us Governments that represent the range of
>> views amongst voters here. To the point that, for example, a wish to
>> be rid
>> of Westminster remains strong.

And no-one seems to want to return to FPTP.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 16/10/2021 13:42, JNugent wrote:
>
> Your record speaks for itself.

LOL! Ditto!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 16/10/2021 04:38 pm, Java Jive wrote:

[ ... ]

> It's not difficult to see why.  Comparing Sturgeon and BlowJob, in terms > of results, neither have handled the pandemic well.
What was that you were trying to claim yesterday (or maybe the day
before) about behaving like an adult and not using abusive terms?

Can you spell "hypocrite"?

On 16/10/2021 04:48 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 16/10/2021 13:51, JNugent wrote:
>> On 15/10/2021 10:39 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> On 14/10/2021 11:17, Martin wrote:
>
>>>>> At least they end up with governments not run by rich tosser.
>
>>>> What like Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, hardly on the breadline?  Even
>>>> Corbyn is said to be quite wealthy.
>
>>> Many things were "said" about Corbyn. But (ahem) perhaps not all of them
>>> were true.
>
>>> So far as I can see, though, Starmer is pretty much a Blair re-run.
>
>> He definitely hasn't got Blair's undoubted charisma. Compare and
>> contrast with the Prime Minister, who has always had charisma in
>> spadefuls, even twenty years ago as a TV discussion panel member, etc.
>
> Your idea of the meaning of the word 'charisma' isn't the same as anyone
> else's I know.  To me, BlowJob has always appeared a bumbling,
> dishonest, and incompetent fool, and I've never seen any reason to
> change that opinion, nor do I know many, if any, people who think much
> differently about him.  The only way I can rationalise his being elected
> is that he's living everybody's daydream: an idiot who some malignant
> Fairy Badmother has elevated to the highest job in the land.

[ ... ]

I expect you have had the term "hypocrite" applied to you many times, in
many ways, by many people. And here it is again.

This is *your* post of 15/10/21 @ 4:15pm:

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.

JAVA JIVE:
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,

JAVA JIVE:
.... 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

JAVA JIVE:
.... another dishonest use of a loaded term ...

> voting of whichever variety they could agree on.

JAVA JIVE:
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.

JAVA JIVE:
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.]

JAVA JIVE:
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.

And NOW, we get this gem from you (today):

Quote:
> To me, BlowJob has always appeared a bumbling,
> dishonest, and incompetent fool, and I've never seen any reason to
> change that opinion, nor do I know many, if any, people who think much
> differently about him.
Endquote

After the above and various other recent pretences to being the adult in
the conversation, can you possibly expect to be taken seriously?

In case you're unsure, be advised that no-one does take you seriously.

On 16/10/2021 17:00, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 16/10/2021 04:38 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> It's not difficult to see why.  Comparing Sturgeon and BlowJob, in
>> terms of results, neither have handled the pandemic well.
>
> What was that you were trying to claim yesterday (or maybe the day
> before) about behaving like an adult and not using abusive terms?
>
> Can you spell "hypocrite"?

Do you have a better name for him?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 16/10/2021 17:17, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 16/10/2021 04:48 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 16/10/2021 13:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15/10/2021 10:39 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So far as I can see, though, Starmer is pretty much a Blair re-run.
>>
>>> He definitely hasn't got Blair's undoubted charisma. Compare and
>>> contrast with the Prime Minister, who has always had charisma in
>>> spadefuls, even twenty years ago as a TV discussion panel member, etc.
>>
>> Your idea of the meaning of the word 'charisma' isn't the same as
>> anyone else's I know.  To me, BlowJob has always appeared a bumbling,
>> dishonest, and incompetent fool, and I've never seen any reason to
>> change that opinion, nor do I know many, if any, people who think much
>> differently about him.  The only way I can rationalise his being
>> elected is that he's living everybody's daydream: an idiot who some
>> malignant Fairy Badmother has elevated to the highest job in the land.
>
> I expect you have had the term "hypocrite" applied to you many times, in
> many ways, by many people. And here it is again.
>
> This is *your* post of 15/10/21 @ 4:15pm:
>
> 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.

Stet!

>> The referendum proposition had the full support of the LibDems, the
>> most rabid of PR supporters.
>
> JAVA JIVE:
> 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.

Stet!

> > I would have expected them to all* support it. I also would have
> > expected most of the malcontent minority parties (the malodorous
> > Greens,
>
> JAVA JIVE:
> .... again the sort of description that tells everything about your own
> bigotry and nothing useful about the Greens ...

Stet!

> > 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
>
> JAVA JIVE:
> .... another dishonest use of a loaded term ...

Stet!

> > voting of whichever variety they could agree on.
>
> JAVA JIVE:
> 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

Stet!

> > 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.
>
> JAVA JIVE:
> 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

Stet!

>> [* 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.]
>
> JAVA JIVE:
> 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.

Stet!

> And NOW, we get this gem from you (today):
>
> Quote:
> > To me, BlowJob has always appeared a bumbling,
> > dishonest, and incompetent fool, and I've never seen any reason to
> > change that opinion, nor do I know many, if any, people who think much
> > differently about him.
> Endquote

Stet!

> After the above and various other recent pretences to being the adult in
> the conversation, can you possibly expect to be taken seriously?

Can you *REALLY* not see the difference between applying an appropriate
epithet to a known individual of known sexual misbehaviour, known
dishonesty, as known incompetence, as against negatively stereotyping a
whole group of individuals of varying character, honesty, integrity,
ability, etc, based merely on their support for a particular party? Are
your *REALLY* so naive as to think the world is so simply black and white?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 16/10/2021 05:58 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 16/10/2021 17:17, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 16/10/2021 04:48 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 16/10/2021 13:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 15/10/2021 10:39 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So far as I can see, though, Starmer is pretty much a Blair re-run.
>>>
>>>> He definitely hasn't got Blair's undoubted charisma. Compare and
>>>> contrast with the Prime Minister, who has always had charisma in
>>>> spadefuls, even twenty years ago as a TV discussion panel member, etc.
>>>
>>> Your idea of the meaning of the word 'charisma' isn't the same as
>>> anyone else's I know.  To me, BlowJob has always appeared a bumbling,
>>> dishonest, and incompetent fool, and I've never seen any reason to
>>> change that opinion, nor do I know many, if any, people who think
>>> much differently about him.  The only way I can rationalise his being
>>> elected is that he's living everybody's daydream: an idiot who some
>>> malignant Fairy Badmother has elevated to the highest job in the land.
>>
>> I expect you have had the term "hypocrite" applied to you many times,
>> in many ways, by many people. And here it is again.
>>
>> This is *your* post of 15/10/21 @ 4:15pm:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Stet!
>
>>> The referendum proposition had the full support of the LibDems, the
>>> most rabid of PR supporters.
>>
>> JAVA JIVE:
>> 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.
>
> Stet!
>
>>  > I would have expected them to all* support it. I also would have
>>  > expected most of the malcontent minority parties (the malodorous
>>  > Greens,
>>
>> JAVA JIVE:
>> .... again the sort of description that tells everything about your
>> own bigotry and nothing useful about the Greens ...
>
> Stet!
>
>>  > 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
>>
>> JAVA JIVE:
>> .... another dishonest use of a loaded term ...
>
> Stet!
>
>>  > voting of whichever variety they could agree on.
>>
>> JAVA JIVE:
>> 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
>
> Stet!
>
>>  > 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.
>>
>> JAVA JIVE:
>> 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
>
>
> Stet!
>
>>> [* 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.]
>>
>> JAVA JIVE:
>> 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.
>
> Stet!
>
>> And NOW, we get this gem from you (today):
>>
>> Quote:
>>  > To me, BlowJob has always appeared a bumbling,
>>  > dishonest, and incompetent fool, and I've never seen any reason to
>>  > change that opinion, nor do I know many, if any, people who think much
>>  > differently about him.
>> Endquote
>
> Stet!
>
>> After the above and various other recent pretences to being the adult
>> in the conversation, can you possibly expect to be taken seriously?
>
> Can you *REALLY* not see the difference between applying an appropriate
> epithet to a known individual of known sexual misbehaviour, known
> dishonesty, as known incompetence, as against negatively stereotyping a
> whole group of individuals of varying character, honesty, integrity,
> ability, etc, based merely on their support for a particular party?  Are
> your *REALLY* so naive as to think the world is so simply black and white?

There is no difference between them, except in your imagination.

But that's OK.

No-one takes you seriously anyway.

On 16/10/2021 05:43 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 16/10/2021 17:00, JNugent wrote:
>> On 16/10/2021 04:38 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>> [ ... ]
>
>>> It's not difficult to see why.  Comparing Sturgeon and BlowJob, in
>>> terms of results, neither have handled the pandemic well.
>
>> What was that you were trying to claim yesterday (or maybe the day
>> before) about behaving like an adult and not using abusive terms?
>
>> Can you spell "hypocrite"?
>
> Do you have a better name for him?

How about the name he uses?

But please, carry on in your own sweet hypocritical way if that's what
you prefer. It says more about you than you ever manage to say about
anyone else.

But you already knew that.

On 16/10/2021 21:37, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 16/10/2021 05:43 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 16/10/2021 17:00, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 16/10/2021 04:38 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's not difficult to see why.  Comparing Sturgeon and BlowJob, in
>>>> terms of results, neither have handled the pandemic well.
>>
>>> What was that you were trying to claim yesterday (or maybe the day
>>> before) about behaving like an adult and not using abusive terms?
>>>
>>> Can you spell "hypocrite"?
>>
>> Do you have a better name for him?
>
> How about the name he uses?

How about one that describes his known faults?

> But please, carry on in your own sweet hypocritical way if that's what
> you prefer. It says more about you than you ever manage to say about
> anyone else.
>
> But you already knew that.

See other reply.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 16/10/2021 21:35, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 16/10/2021 05:58 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Can you *REALLY* not see the difference between applying an
>> appropriate epithet to a known individual of known sexual
>> misbehaviour, known dishonesty, as known incompetence, as against
>> negatively stereotyping a whole group of individuals of varying
>> character, honesty, integrity, ability, etc, based merely on their
>> support for a particular party?  Are your *REALLY* so naive as to
>> think the world is so simply black and white?
>
> There is no difference between them, except in your imagination.

There's every difference between judging a pillock known from his
record, and judging a load of people you know next to nothing about, and
therefore have nothing to base a fair judgement them upon.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 17/10/2021 02:11 am, Java Jive wrote:

> On 16/10/2021 21:35, JNugent wrote:
>> On 16/10/2021 05:58 pm, Java Jive wrote:

>>> Can you *REALLY* not see the difference between applying an
>>> appropriate epithet to a known individual of known sexual
>>> misbehaviour, known dishonesty, as known incompetence, as against
>>> negatively stereotyping a whole group of individuals of varying
>>> character, honesty, integrity, ability, etc, based merely on their
>>> support for a particular party?  Are your *REALLY* so naive as to
>>> think the world is so simply black and white?

>> There is no difference between them, except in your imagination.

> There's every difference between judging a pillock known from his
> record, and judging a load of people you know next to nothing about, and
> therefore have nothing to base a fair judgement them upon.

Stamp your foot in frustration.

It might make you feel better.

Or it might not.

Do let us know which it is.

In article <skc179$tsr$3@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 14/10/2021 10:22, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > 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?

> The last one did not show any enthusiasm for it.

cf Norman's comments.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <skc940$ahr$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> 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.

But you can adopt the accurate and honest conclusion "undecided" rather
than take it to mean either 'no' or 'yes'. Basically, it means *neither* of
the binary options was liked.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <skclto$60u$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> 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. 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.

....given the choice they were asked to make. Which in turn means they
weren't keen on *either* of the binary options. Thus the outcome is
'undecided', and the default is to not make a change. NOT assume that some
form of PR which wasn't on offer on that occasion would be 'rejected'.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html