On 18/10/2021 02:37 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 18/10/2021 13:59, JNugent wrote:
>> On 18/10/2021 01:46 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/10/2021 12:38, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 17/10/2021 10:05 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> In case you're unsure, be advised that no-one does take you
>>>>>> seriously.
>>>
>>>>> How did you poll all the people who read this group, let alone
>>>>> elsewhere? I
>>>>> ask because you seem to have omitted me, so wonder how many others you
>>>>> classify as "no-one". :-)
>>>
>>>>> Is your version of 'Proportional Representation' based on "One Man One
>>>>> Vote" - with you alone being the "One Man"? Or do you regard that
>>>>> as FPTP, but meaning just you get their first?... ;->
>>>
>>>> "One Man, One Vote" is surely the principal motto of JJ?
>>>
>>> Whoosh!  See those goalposts move!  Failure to answer the question
>>> noted!
>>
>> I'm not wrong, though, am I? ;-)
>
> You are completely wrong, I try as far as possible to base my opinions
> on relevant facts.

Hang on... you can't have the last word and then add more on.

Is that the way you lot behave in that playground of yours?

> And you still haven't answered Jim's question.
>
>>>> His is the only opinion that matters - to him.
>>>
>>> I wonder whose opinion matters most to you?
>>
>> Certainly not yours, but... I thought you'd *had* the last word?
>
> But then you just had to post more childish rubbish!

Is that your last last word this time?

Be honest (as difficult as you might find that).

On 18/10/2021 14:43, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 18/10/2021 02:37 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 18/10/2021 13:59, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18/10/2021 01:46 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 18/10/2021 12:38, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 17/10/2021 10:05 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In case you're unsure, be advised that no-one does take you
>>>>>>> seriously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How did you poll all the people who read this group, let alone
>>>>>> elsewhere? I
>>>>>> ask because you seem to have omitted me, so wonder how many others
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> classify as "no-one". :-)
>>>>
>>>>>> Is your version of 'Proportional Representation' based on "One Man
>>>>>> One
>>>>>> Vote" - with you alone being the "One Man"? Or do you regard that
>>>>>> as FPTP, but meaning just you get their first?... ;->
>>>>
>>>>> "One Man, One Vote" is surely the principal motto of JJ?
>>>>
>>>> Whoosh!  See those goalposts move!  Failure to answer the question
>>>> noted!
>>>
>>> I'm not wrong, though, am I? ;-)
>>
>> You are completely wrong, I try as far as possible to base my opinions
>> on relevant facts.
>
> Hang on... you can't have the last word and then add more on.

That's exactly what you've tried to do above, in trying to move the
goalposts, and now not only have you failed to answer Jim's question,
you've also tried to move the goalposts a second time.

> Is that the way you lot behave in that playground of yours?

Look in a mirror sometime.

>> And you still haven't answered Jim's question.
>>
>>>>> His is the only opinion that matters - to him.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder whose opinion matters most to you?
>>>
>>> Certainly not yours, but... I thought you'd *had* the last word?
>>
>> But then you just had to post more childish rubbish!
>
> Is that your last last word this time?
>
> Be honest (as difficult as you might find that).

You just have to keep on posting more childish rubbish, don't you!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 18/10/2021 03:23 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 18/10/2021 14:43, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 18/10/2021 02:37 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18/10/2021 13:59, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 18/10/2021 01:46 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18/10/2021 12:38, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/10/2021 10:05 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In case you're unsure, be advised that no-one does take you
>>>>>>>> seriously.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How did you poll all the people who read this group, let alone
>>>>>>> elsewhere? I
>>>>>>> ask because you seem to have omitted me, so wonder how many
>>>>>>> others you
>>>>>>> classify as "no-one". :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is your version of 'Proportional Representation' based on "One
>>>>>>> Man One
>>>>>>> Vote" - with you alone being the "One Man"? Or do you regard that
>>>>>>> as FPTP, but meaning just you get their first?... ;->
>>>>>
>>>>>> "One Man, One Vote" is surely the principal motto of JJ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Whoosh!  See those goalposts move!  Failure to answer the question
>>>>> noted!
>>>>
>>>> I'm not wrong, though, am I? ;-)
>>>
>>> You are completely wrong, I try as far as possible to base my
>>> opinions on relevant facts.
>>
>> Hang on... you can't have the last word and then add more on.
>
> That's exactly what you've tried to do above, in trying to move the
> goalposts, and now not only have you failed to answer Jim's question,
> you've also tried to move the goalposts a second time.
>
>> Is that the way you lot behave in that playground of yours?
>
> Look in a mirror sometime.
>
>>> And you still haven't answered Jim's question.
>>>
>>>>>> His is the only opinion that matters - to him.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder whose opinion matters most to you?
>>>>
>>>> Certainly not yours, but... I thought you'd *had* the last word?
>>>
>>> But then you just had to post more childish rubbish!
>>
>> Is that your last last word this time?
>>
>> Be honest (as difficult as you might find that).
>
> You just have to keep on posting more childish rubbish, don't you!

Is that:

(a) just an incorrectly-punctuated question or

(b) an attempt at the last word in the form of a clumsy statement?

On 18/10/2021 18:05, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 18/10/2021 03:23 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 18/10/2021 14:43, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18/10/2021 02:37 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 18/10/2021 13:59, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18/10/2021 01:46 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder whose opinion matters most to you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly not yours, but... I thought you'd *had* the last word?
>>>>
>>>> But then you just had to post more childish rubbish!
>>>
>>> Is that your last last word this time?
>>>
>>> Be honest (as difficult as you might find that).
>>
>> You just have to keep on posting more childish rubbish, don't you!
>
> Is that:
>
> (a) just an incorrectly-punctuated question or
>
> (b) an attempt at the last word in the form of a clumsy statement?

You just have to keep on posting more childish rubbish, don't you!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 18/10/2021 06:34 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 18/10/2021 18:05, JNugent wrote:
>> On 18/10/2021 03:23 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 18/10/2021 14:43, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 18/10/2021 02:37 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 18/10/2021 13:59, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/10/2021 01:46 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>>>>>> I wonder whose opinion matters most to you?
>
>>>>>> Certainly not yours, but... I thought you'd *had* the last word?
>
>>>>> But then you just had to post more childish rubbish!
>
>>>> Is that your last last word this time?
>>>> Be honest (as difficult as you might find that).
>
>>> You just have to keep on posting more childish rubbish, don't you!
>
>> Is that:
>> (a) just an incorrectly-punctuated question or
>> (b) an attempt at the last word in the form of a clumsy statement?
>
> You just have to keep on posting more childish rubbish, don't you!

Head over to www.amazon.co.uk and order a copy of "English Grammar for
Dummies".

The chapter on punctuation may be of particular use to you.

On 18/10/2021 20:48, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 18/10/2021 06:34 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> You just have to keep on posting more childish rubbish, don't you!
>
> Head over to www.amazon.co.uk and order a copy of "English Grammar for
> Dummies".
>
> The chapter on punctuation may be of particular use to you.

You just have to keep on posting more childish rubbish, don't you!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 18/10/2021 09:36 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 18/10/2021 20:48, JNugent wrote:
>> On 18/10/2021 06:34 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>> You just have to keep on posting more childish rubbish, don't you!
>
>> Head over to www.amazon.co.uk and order a copy of "English Grammar for
>> Dummies".
>
>> The chapter on punctuation may be of particular use to you.
>
> You just have to keep on posting more childish rubbish, don't you!

You don't even know why you need the book, do you?

On 18/10/2021 21:44, JNugent wrote:
> On 18/10/2021 09:36 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 18/10/2021 20:48, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 18/10/2021 06:34 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>>> You just have to keep on posting more childish rubbish, don't you!
>>
>>> Head over to www.amazon.co.uk and order a copy of "English Grammar
>>> for Dummies".
>>
>>> The chapter on punctuation may be of particular use to you.
>>
>> You just have to keep on posting more childish rubbish, don't you!
>
> You don't even know why you need the book, do you?

I don't need any book recommended by a childish pillock such as you!
You just have to keep on posting more childish rubbish, don't you!

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <skdn3k$90k$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> 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.

If you have an election where *none* of the people standing, or their
policies, actually reflect your views, what 'choice' do you have?

Similar question when you know the one candidate/platform you *do* support
stands no real chance of coming close to winning under FPTP. In this case I
always voted for what I preferred, but I can quite understand why many
people decide not to bother under FPTP.

More than once I've suggested there should be a "None of the above" option
and if that gets most votes, none of the people standing are elected. Then
have a re-run at a later date with them excluded from standing again.

The advantage of the Scots system is that my vote, and that of others, is
more likely to have some effect in terms of the general makeup of the
Assembly.

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 18/10/2021 10:05, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> The advantage of the Scots system is that my vote, and that of others, is
> more likely to have some effect in terms of the general makeup of the
> Assembly.

The problem is that you groups of activists like the Greenies with very
little support able to influence decisions because other parties need
their vote.

We had a taste of this when the Liberals got some power in the UK
through coalition.

On 18/10/2021 10:05 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <skdn3k$90k$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> If you have an election where *none* of the people standing, or their
> policies, actually reflect your views, what 'choice' do you have?
>
> Similar question when you know the one candidate/platform you *do* support
> stands no real chance of coming close to winning under FPTP. In this case I
> always voted for what I preferred, but I can quite understand why many
> people decide not to bother under FPTP.
>
> More than once I've suggested there should be a "None of the above" option
> and if that gets most votes, none of the people standing are elected. Then
> have a re-run at a later date with them excluded from standing again.
>
> The advantage of the Scots system is that my vote, and that of others, is
> more likely to have some effect in terms of the general makeup of the
> Assembly.

Your vote (or its absence) *does* have some effect in normal elections
where the candidate with most votes wins.

It lets one of the candidates have more votes (well, only one more vote,
but the effect is aggregated by the similar decisions of other electors)
than their nearest rival and so contributes to their being elected (as
the candidate preferred by more voters than any of the others).

On 19/10/2021 01:07 am, Java Jive wrote:
> On 18/10/2021 21:44, JNugent wrote:
>> On 18/10/2021 09:36 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/10/2021 20:48, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 18/10/2021 06:34 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You just have to keep on posting more childish rubbish, don't you!
>>>
>>>> Head over to www.amazon.co.uk and order a copy of "English Grammar
>>>> for Dummies".
>>>
>>>> The chapter on punctuation may be of particular use to you.
>>>
>>> You just have to keep on posting more childish rubbish, don't you!
>>
>> You don't even know why you need the book, do you?
>
> I don't need any book recommended by a childish pillock such as you! You
> just have to keep on posting more childish rubbish, don't you!

I've realised what's gone wrong.

What year do you expect to finish primary school?

On 19/10/2021 10:07, MB wrote:
>
> On 18/10/2021 10:05, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>> The advantage of the Scots system is that my vote, and that of others, is
>> more likely to have some effect in terms of the general makeup of the
>> Assembly.
>
> The problem is that you groups of activists like the Greenies

.... Greens ...

> with very
> little support

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-57047907

> able to influence decisions because other parties need
> their vote.

It's called compromise, what other nations and the EU have learnt to do
very well, while unfortunately the English, seemingly because they think
they have god-given right always to be right, are hopelessly bad at.
Jim Callaghan once said: "Politics is the art of the possible!", the
English need to relearn the truth of that too-long-forgotten wisdom.

> We had a taste of this when the Liberals got some power in the UK
> through coalition.

At the time that didn't seem to be as disastrous as some people now try
to claim, so one wonders why they are claiming that, when their party
did very well out of it.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 19/10/2021 13:59, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 18/10/2021 10:05 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>> The advantage of the Scots system is that my vote, and that of others, is
>> more likely to have some effect in terms of the general makeup of the
>> Assembly.

In other words, a positive effect.

> Your vote (or its absence) *does* have some effect in normal elections
> where the candidate with most votes wins.
>
> It lets one of the candidates have more votes (well, only one more vote,
> but the effect is aggregated by the similar decisions of other electors)
> than their nearest rival and so contributes to their being elected (as
> the candidate preferred by more voters than any of the others).

In other words, a negative effect.

Hardly a recommendation for FPTP.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 19/10/2021 14:00, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 19/10/2021 01:07 am, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 18/10/2021 21:44, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> I don't need any book recommended by a childish pillock such as you!
>> You just have to keep on posting more childish rubbish, don't you!
>
> I've realised what's gone wrong.
>
> What year do you expect to finish primary school?

You just have to keep on posting more childish rubbish, don't you!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 19/10/2021 03:02 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 19/10/2021 10:07, MB wrote:
>> On 18/10/2021 10:05, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>>> The advantage of the Scots system is that my vote, and that
>>> of others, is more likely to have some effect in terms of the
>>> general makeup of the Assembly.
>>
>> The problem is that you groups of activists like the Greenies
>
> ... Greens ...
>
>> with very little support
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-57047907
>
>> able to influence decisions because other parties need their vote.
>
> It's called compromise, what other nations and the EU have learnt to do
> very well, while unfortunately the English, seemingly because they think
> they have god-given right always to be right, are hopelessly bad at. Jim
> Callaghan once said: "Politics is the art of the possible!", the English
> need to relearn the truth of that too-long-forgotten wisdom.
>
>> We had a taste of this when the Liberals got some power in the UK
>> through coalition.
>
> At the time that didn't seem to be as disastrous as some people now try
> to claim, so one wonders why they are claiming that, when their party
> did very well out of it.

LibDem activists (as distinct from LibDem voters and potential voters)
were probably not as keen as all that on the coalition with the Cameron
Conservatives. They are two quite separate and different groups, after all.

It's a reasonable guess that the (more lefty) activists would have
preferred a tie-up with Brown, especially if he could have been
strong-armed into enacting a vote-rigging Bill (without the
constitutional nicety of a referendum) designed to keep the LDs in one
coalition partnership or other for the foreseeable future.

On 19/10/2021 03:04 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 19/10/2021 13:59, JNugent wrote:
>> On 18/10/2021 10:05 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>>> The advantage of the Scots system is that my vote, and that of
>>> others, is more likely to have some effect in terms of the general makeup of the
>>> Assembly.
>
> In other words, a positive effect.

>> Your vote (or its absence) *does* have some effect in normal elections
>> where the candidate with most votes wins.

>> It lets one of the candidates have more votes (well, only one more
>> vote, but the effect is aggregated by the similar decisions of other
>> electors) than their nearest rival and so contributes to their being
>> elected (as the candidate preferred by more voters than any of the
>> others).
>
> In other words, a negative effect.
> Hardly a recommendation for FPTP.

It's an effect.

It certainly isn't no effect.

And no doubt the winner (most often Labour or the Conservatives, of
course) will regard the effect as very positive.

On 19/10/2021 15:08, JNugent wrote:
>
> It's a reasonable guess that the (more lefty) activists would have
> preferred a tie-up with Brown, especially if he could have been
> strong-armed into enacting a vote-rigging Bill (without the
> constitutional nicety of a referendum) designed to keep the LDs in one
> coalition partnership or other for the foreseeable future.

It doesn't seem a reasonable guess to me, more like the usual right-wing
propaganda, so how about a credible link in provenance?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 19/10/2021 15:12, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 19/10/2021 03:04 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 19/10/2021 13:59, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 18/10/2021 10:05 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The advantage of the Scots system is that my vote, and that of
>>>> others, is more likely to have some effect in terms of the general
>>>> makeup of the
>>>> Assembly.
>>
>> In other words, a positive effect.
>>
>>> Your vote (or its absence) *does* have some effect in normal
>>> elections where the candidate with most votes wins.
>>>
>>> It lets one of the candidates have more votes (well, only one more
>>> vote, but the effect is aggregated by the similar decisions of other
>>> electors) than their nearest rival and so contributes to their being
>>> elected (as the candidate preferred by more voters than any of the
>>> others).
>>
>> In other words, a negative effect.
>>
>> Hardly a recommendation for FPTP.
>
> It's an effect.
>
> It certainly isn't no effect.
>
> And no doubt the winner (most often Labour or the Conservatives, of
> course) will regard the effect as very positive.

But still hardly a recommendation for FPTP.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 19/10/2021 03:27 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 19/10/2021 15:08, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> It's a reasonable guess that the (more lefty) activists would have
>> preferred a tie-up with Brown, especially if he could have been
>> strong-armed into enacting a vote-rigging Bill (without the
>> constitutional nicety of a referendum) designed to keep the LDs in one
>> coalition partnership or other for the foreseeable future.
>
> It doesn't seem a reasonable guess to me, more like the usual right-wing
> propaganda, so how about a credible link in provenance?

Come on, what do you understand by the phrase "reasonable guess"?

AAMOI, Brown did offer the LDs a switch to PR as a sweetener for trying
minority government with him.

You could take a look at a quite long discussion of what was on offer at
the contemporary blog:

<http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/05/change-coalition-is-coming.html>

On 19/10/2021 03:29 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 19/10/2021 15:12, JNugent wrote:
>> On 19/10/2021 03:04 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 19/10/2021 13:59, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 18/10/2021 10:05 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>>>>> The advantage of the Scots system is that my vote, and that of
>>>>> others, is more likely to have some effect in terms of the general
>>>>> makeup of the Assembly.
>
>>> In other words, a positive effect.
>
>>>> Your vote (or its absence) *does* have some effect in normal
>>>> elections where the candidate with most votes wins.
>
>>>> It lets one of the candidates have more votes (well, only one more
>>>> vote, but the effect is aggregated by the similar decisions of other
>>>> electors) than their nearest rival and so contributes to their being
>>>> elected (as the candidate preferred by more voters than any of the
>>>> others).
>
>>> In other words, a negative effect.
>>> Hardly a recommendation for FPTP.
>
>> It's an effect.
>> It certainly isn't no effect.
>> And no doubt the winner (most often Labour or the Conservatives, of
>> course) will regard the effect as very positive.
>
> But still hardly a recommendation for FPTP.

It doesn't need to.

The results of FPTP elections are their own recommendation, though
obviously not always the same recommendation.

On 19/10/2021 15:50, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 19/10/2021 03:27 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 19/10/2021 15:08, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> It's a reasonable guess that the (more lefty) activists would have
>>> preferred a tie-up with Brown, especially if he could have been
>>> strong-armed into enacting a vote-rigging Bill (without the
>>> constitutional nicety of a referendum) designed to keep the LDs in
>>> one coalition partnership or other for the foreseeable future.
>>
>> It doesn't seem a reasonable guess to me, more like the usual
>> right-wing propaganda, so how about a credible link in provenance?
>
> Come on, what do you understand by the phrase "reasonable guess"?
>
> AAMOI, Brown did offer the LDs a switch to PR as a sweetener for trying
> minority government with him.
>
> You could take a look at a quite long discussion of what was on offer at
> the contemporary blog:
>
> <http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/05/change-coalition-is-coming.html>

Mmmm! Just as I thought ... "Conservative candidate", nothing in the
article to support the above claims, while the few comments I bothered
to read were either rather bland or the usual right-wing diarrhoetic
paranoia.

Try harder! Start by looking up the meaning of the word 'credible'!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 19/10/2021 15:51, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 19/10/2021 03:29 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> But still hardly a recommendation for FPTP.
>
> It doesn't need to.
>
> The results of FPTP elections are their own recommendation, though
> obviously not always the same recommendation.

So, looking at the disastrous governments we've had recently, not a
recommendation at all in fact.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 19/10/2021 04:02 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 19/10/2021 15:50, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 19/10/2021 03:27 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 19/10/2021 15:08, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's a reasonable guess that the (more lefty) activists would have
>>>> preferred a tie-up with Brown, especially if he could have been
>>>> strong-armed into enacting a vote-rigging Bill (without the
>>>> constitutional nicety of a referendum) designed to keep the LDs in
>>>> one coalition partnership or other for the foreseeable future.
>>>
>>> It doesn't seem a reasonable guess to me, more like the usual
>>> right-wing propaganda, so how about a credible link in provenance?
>>
>> Come on, what do you understand by the phrase "reasonable guess"?
>>
>> AAMOI, Brown did offer the LDs a switch to PR as a sweetener for
>> trying minority government with him.
>>
>> You could take a look at a quite long discussion of what was on offer
>> at the contemporary blog:
>>
>> <http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/05/change-coalition-is-coming.html>
>
> Mmmm!  Just as I thought ... "Conservative candidate", nothing in the
> article to support the above claims, while the few comments I bothered
> to read were either rather bland or the usual right-wing diarrhoetic
> paranoia.
>
> Try harder!  Start by looking up the meaning of the word 'credible'!

I was willing to try and give you the benefit of the doubt, but it is
clear that you didn't deserve it. You object to pejorative [look it up]
descriptions of lefties and Greenies but never use anything else for
their (and your) political opponents.

Can you spell "hypocrite"?

On 19/10/2021 04:04 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 19/10/2021 15:51, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 19/10/2021 03:29 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> But still hardly a recommendation for FPTP.
>>
>> It doesn't need to.
>>
>> The results of FPTP elections are their own recommendation, though
>> obviously not always the same recommendation.
>
> So, looking at the disastrous governments we've had recently, not a
> recommendation at all in fact.

How recent is "recently"?