On 19/10/2021 16:45, JNugent wrote:
> 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.

Because the evidence is there in black & white - as so often with you,
they are condemned by the crap that they themselves have written.

> Can you spell "hypocrite"?

Can you *REALLY* not see the difference between condemning people on the
basis of what they themselves have said and done, as opposed to
stereotyping a whole group of people of unknown and probably widely
varying shades of opinion, ability, etc with a blanket term of abuse
that tells everyone what to think about you, and absolutely nothing
useful about the target of the abuse?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 19/10/2021 16:46, JNugent wrote:
> 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"?

Particularly increasingly so over the last twenty to fifty odd years,
but to a lesser extent going back as far as the governments of the 1950s.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 20/10/2021 00:03, Bill Findlay 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.
> ^^^^^^^^^
> Parliament.
> -- Bill Findlay

I suspect that I am like most people and because of the "List" system, I
have no idea who my MSPs are.

Unfortunately our MP is the Edinburgh Banker.

In article <it54usFbhkcU5@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 18/10/2021 10:51 am, MB wrote:

> > On 17/10/2021 10:09, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> >> Yorkshire is also 'subsidised' on the same sort of argument. Possibly
> >> they may want independence as well. That's their business, though.:-)
> >
> > What is the equivalent of the Barnett formula for Yorkshire?

> Isn't there a system of differential central government (ie, taxpayer)
> support for local authorities with more "need" and less ability to fund
> it with local taxation?

Probably, but may be more routinely tweaked/adapted than Barnett.

And to counter that, the money Government spent as investment/support in
various areas tends to 'weighted' in accord with the level of 'return' that
Whitehall thinks investment will generate. This means that they regard
money spent in the SE of England as more 'worthwhile'. And as a result,
have rather invested more per head there, and given it special treatments
of various kinds.

See, for example. how public transport has been treated quite differently
in London and the SE to elsewhere in terms of the local powers given as
well as 'national' support. Also curios like a 'high speed' rail line
promoted as a benefit for the 'North' but which is growing *from London*
and won't reach the 'North' for many years. And of course, when it does,
may well attract business *down to London* rather than to the, erm,
'Powerhouse'.

Lots of rhetoric covering a different reality.

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 20/10/2021 09:32, MB wrote:
>
> I suspect that I am like most people and because of the "List" system, I
> have no idea who my MSPs are.
>
Exactly the point I made *way* earlier in the thread.

Jim

On 19/10/2021 10:16, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> Also curios like a 'high speed' rail line
> promoted as a benefit for the 'North' but which is growing *from London*
> and won't reach the 'North' for many years.

I have always thought that the maximum benefit of the HST would have
been delivered if the lines had started from Leeds rather than London.

However the decision to start from London was made by MPs in London, and
a lot of them don't recognise anything worthwhile existing outside the M25.

Jim

On 20/10/2021 10:46, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 20/10/2021 09:32, MB wrote:
>>
>> I suspect that I am like most people and because of the "List" system, I
>> have no idea who my MSPs are.
>>
> Exactly the point I made *way* earlier in the thread.

But there's no real excuse for it. As I've explained, you know who's on
the regional lists at the time you vote, and subsequently can look up
the your elected representatives by putting your postcode in here:

https://www.parliament.scot/msps/current-and-previous-msps

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 19/10/2021 10:16 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 18/10/2021 10:51 am, MB wrote:
>>> On 17/10/2021 10:09, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>>>> Yorkshire is also 'subsidised' on the same sort of argument. Possibly
>>>> they may want independence as well. That's their business, though.:-)
>
>>> What is the equivalent of the Barnett formula for Yorkshire?
>
>> Isn't there a system of differential central government (ie, taxpayer)
>> support for local authorities with more "need" and less ability to fund
>> it with local taxation?
>
> Probably, but may be more routinely tweaked/adapted than Barnett.

True. It's done every year.

> And to counter that, the money Government spent as investment/support in
> various areas tends to 'weighted' in accord with the level of 'return' that
> Whitehall thinks investment will generate. This means that they regard
> money spent in the SE of England as more 'worthwhile'. And as a result,
> have rather invested more per head there, and given it special treatments
> of various kinds.

Fancy regarding investment as more worthwhile when the prospective
returns are higher!

I wonder where they get that idea from?

> See, for example. how public transport has been treated quite differently
> in London and the SE to elsewhere in terms of the local powers given as
> well as 'national' support. Also curios like a 'high speed' rail line
> promoted as a benefit for the 'North' but which is growing *from London*
> and won't reach the 'North' for many years. And of course, when it does,
> may well attract business *down to London* rather than to the, erm,
> 'Powerhouse'.

The fact is that public spending on public transport is never an
investment. No money ever comes back to the Treasury from any local
authority or PT provider. All they ever do is take, and complain that
they're not being allowed to take as much as they would like.

FTAOD: Investment and spending are two different things*, though
dishonest people often describe the public spending they want as
"investment".

> Lots of rhetoric covering a different reality.

Well aware of it.

[* If there isn't a quantifiable return and if there is no prospect of a
quantifiable return, the taxpayers' money being used up is just
spending, invariably in the form of a subsidy. It can only be described
as an investment in some parallel world where the meaning of that word
has completely disappeared.]

In article <skm1qr$b86$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> 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 with very
> little support able to influence decisions because other parties need
> their vote.

Erm the 'little support' gives a proportion to the number. If the 'support'
is 'little' so are the number of elected MSPs. And there is nothing to stop
'opposition' MSPs voting with the main 'government' party on issues where
they agree with them.

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

LOL! So far as I can tell, pretty much all they did was hand round the
biscuits during Cabinet meetings.

--
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 <it7tq1Fruf1U1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Your vote (or its absence) *does* have some effect in normal elections
> where the candidate with most votes wins.

Here "normal" means it has no effect at all for me in FPTP elections. Only
once in 40 years might it have made a difference because the winning margin
was just 2 votes. Apart from that, my bothering simply let me express a
preference for the candidate I preferred, knowing full well they would not
get elected. So in general I simply voted so this could be counted.

So your definition of "normal" under FPTP seems somewhat, erm, selective.

Whereas under our PR system for MSPs my vote seems more to be better
reflected.

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 <it81qpFsmijU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 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.

Basically, the LDs were taken over by their 'Orange Book' club. They dumped
their previous leaders and policies and did a Blair-alike. Say anything to
get into 'power'. But were then so weak and spineless (and deluded) that
theys settled for nice jobs and handing round the biscuits as the Tories
used them as human shields. The end result was a drop in regard for them by
the public... plus a nice job abroad for their say-anything-for-money
ex-leader.

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 <skms46$379$2@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> >> So, looking at the disastrous governments we've had recently, not a
> >> recommendation at all in fact.
> >
> > How recent is "recently"?

> Particularly increasingly so over the last twenty to fifty odd years,
> but to a lesser extent going back as far as the governments of the 1950s.

I tend to feel that the last Governments which acted decently and sensibly
were the ones where their seniour members has been through WW2. That had
made them face the reality and people, and fight alongside them.

The result was significant improvements, from the NHS, changes to
Education, welfare, etc. One particularly noticable example was the
highest rate of homebuilding was under MacMillan. At that time decent
affordable housing was regarded as being essential for the people. Now it
is treated as a wealth asset with a supply to be controlled by those with
the wealth to enable them to extract more wealth from the 'shortage'.

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 <0001HW.271F863A01C3AB3270000A20638F@news.individual.net>,
Bill
Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18 Oct 2021, Jim Lesurf wrote (in article
> <597d439651noise@audiomisc.co.uk>):
> >
> > 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.
> ^^^^^^^^^ Parliament.

Reasonable correction, although I was thinking of the people who assemble
as MSPs, rather than the place/body/organisation.

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 20/10/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Whereas under our PR system for MSPs my vote seems more to be better
> reflected.

Is it reflected, my choice was not elected so as far as I am concerned
my vote was not reflected.

On 20/10/2021 10:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Erm the 'little support' gives a proportion to the number. If the 'support'
> is 'little' so are the number of elected MSPs. And there is nothing to stop
> 'opposition' MSPs voting with the main 'government' party on issues where
> they agree with them.

But with the SNP unable to get a majority, the Greenies have much more
power than they should from the number of supporters they have. That is
typical of what happens under PR.

On 20/10/2021 10:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <skm1qr$b86$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> 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 with very
>> little support able to influence decisions because other parties need
>> their vote.
>
> Erm the 'little support' gives a proportion to the number. If the 'support'
> is 'little' so are the number of elected MSPs. And there is nothing to stop
> 'opposition' MSPs voting with the main 'government' party on issues where
> they agree with them.
>
>> We had a taste of this when the Liberals got some power in the UK
>> through coalition.
>
> LOL! So far as I can tell, pretty much all they did was hand round the
> biscuits during Cabinet meetings.
>

Oddly many others take the view that - among other things - the
Conservatives ceded energy policy to the Liberal Democrats as part of
the price of coalition agreement. Hence we had bugger all on nuclear,
and a lot on renewable, smart meters, feed-in tariffs,... Bloody
expensive biscuits.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 22/10/2021 10:05, MB wrote:
>
> On 20/10/2021 10:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>> Erm the 'little support' gives a proportion to the number. If the
>> 'support'
>> is 'little' so are the number of elected MSPs. And there is nothing to
>> stop
>> 'opposition' MSPs voting with the main 'government' party on issues where
>> they agree with them.

And vice versa.

> But with the SNP unable to get a majority, the Greenies have much more
> power than they should from the number of supporters they have.  That is
> typical of what happens under PR.

No, as has been explained to you before, it means that both the Greens
and the SNP have to compromise to get legislation of mutual interest
through:

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

That's the trouble with your whole argument and that of people like you,
you just don't seem to understand the meaning of the word 'compromise',
let alone how it actually works in practice. The SNP have been the
largest party in Scotland, also at one time winning all but three of the
Scottish seats in Westminster leaving just one each for the three main
parties, over four successive Scottish governments but always without an
overall majority. They haven't made such a success of minority
government without knowing how to compromise.

As I have said before, Jim Callaghan once said: "Politics is the art of
the possible!", many of the English need to relearn the truth of that
too-long-forgotten wisdom.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/10/2021 10:00, MB wrote:
>
> On 20/10/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>> Whereas under our PR system for MSPs my vote seems more to be better
>> reflected.
>
> Is it reflected, my choice was not elected so as far as I am concerned
> my vote was not reflected.

Then you must have cast your vote very strangely, because the
apportioning of seats in the Scottish Parliament matches fairly well the
share of the vote gained by the parties.

--

Fake news kills!

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

"Jim Lesurf" <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:597dc86f14noise@audiomisc.co.uk...
> In article <it54usFbhkcU5@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 18/10/2021 10:51 am, MB wrote:
>
>> > On 17/10/2021 10:09, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>> >> Yorkshire is also 'subsidised' on the same sort of argument. Possibly
>> >> they may want independence as well. That's their business, though.:-)
>> >
>> > What is the equivalent of the Barnett formula for Yorkshire?
>
>> Isn't there a system of differential central government (ie, taxpayer)
>> support for local authorities with more "need" and less ability to fund
>> it with local taxation?
>
> Probably, but may be more routinely tweaked/adapted than Barnett.
>
> And to counter that, the money Government spent as investment/support in
> various areas tends to 'weighted' in accord with the level of 'return'
> that
> Whitehall thinks investment will generate. This means that they regard
> money spent in the SE of England as more 'worthwhile'. And as a result,
> have rather invested more per head there, and given it special treatments
> of various kinds.
>
> See, for example. how public transport has been treated quite differently
> in London

PT in London has to be scaled to deal with the 2 million workers who come in
from the regions each day and the 20 million per year tourists that it gets.

Other regions do not have this disproportionate relationship between number
of users and number of residents

Consequently the per resident spend on PT is bound to be higher in London

>and the SE to elsewhere in terms of the local powers given as
> well as 'national' support. Also curios like a 'high speed' rail line
> promoted as a benefit for the 'North' but which is growing *from London*
> and won't reach the 'North' for many years. And of course, when it does,
> may well attract business *down to London* rather than to the, erm,
> 'Powerhouse'.
>
> Lots of rhetoric covering a different reality.
>
> 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
>

"Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message
news:skooup$pj$1@dont-email.me...
> On 19/10/2021 10:16, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>> Also curios like a 'high speed' rail line
>> promoted as a benefit for the 'North' but which is growing *from London*
>> and won't reach the 'North' for many years.
>
> I have always thought that the maximum benefit of the HST would have been
> delivered if the lines had started from Leeds rather than London.

how does starting it from Leeds help anyone at all? (until it's 100%
completed that is)

On 22/10/2021 10:34, Robin wrote:
>
> On 20/10/2021 10:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>> In article <skm1qr$b86$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> LOL! So far as I can tell, pretty much all they did was hand round the
>> biscuits during Cabinet meetings.
>
> Oddly many others take the view that - among other things - the
> Conservatives ceded energy policy to the Liberal Democrats as part of
> the price of coalition agreement.

Provenance?

> Hence we had bugger all on nuclear,
> and a lot on renewable, smart meters, feed-in tariffs,...  Bloody
> expensive biscuits.

But cheaper than nuclear:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/10/2021 11:03 am, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "JNugent" <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:it54usFbhkcU5@mid.individual.net...
>> On 18/10/2021 10:51 am, MB wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/10/2021 10:09, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>>>> Yorkshire is also 'subsidised' on the same sort of argument.
>>>> Possibly they may want independence as well. That's their business,
>>>> though.:-)
>>>
>>> What is the equivalent of the Barnett formula for Yorkshire?
>>
>> Isn't there a system of differential central government (ie, taxpayer)
>> support for local authorities with more "need" and less ability to
>> fund it with local taxation?
>
> there was
>
> until it was virtually abolished by "Austerity"

Are you confident that local councils are not in receipt of monies from
the general taxpayer via the Treasury?

On 20/10/2021 10:14 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

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

> Here "normal" means it has no effect at all for me in FPTP elections.

What do you mean?

The result has the same effect on everybody, and that is not even
limited to electors in the relevant constituency.

> Only
> once in 40 years might it have made a difference because the winning margin
> was just 2 votes. Apart from that, my bothering simply let me express a
> preference for the candidate I preferred, knowing full well they would not
> get elected. So in general I simply voted so this could be counted.

But you (and others) could have voted differently. The aggregate result
of that total of decisions is what produces the actual result.
>
> So your definition of "normal" under FPTP seems somewhat, erm, selective.
>
> Whereas under our PR system for MSPs my vote seems more to be better
> reflected.

But is it only about you?

[That's a genuine question. You seem to imply that it is, and that the
result is somehow non-legitimate unless "your" candidate wins.]

On 20/10/2021 10:18 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>> 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.
>
>
> Basically, the LDs were taken over by their 'Orange Book' club. They dumped
> their previous leaders and policies and did a Blair-alike. Say anything to
> get into 'power'. But were then so weak and spineless (and deluded) that
> theys settled for nice jobs and handing round the biscuits as the Tories
> used them as human shields. The end result was a drop in regard for them by
> the public... plus a nice job abroad for their say-anything-for-money
> ex-leader.

As I said, the LD-voting public and the LDs are not the same group.

There's a Venn-type overlap, of course, but it's probably not as big as
some would hope.

The LD-voting segment of the electorate isn't even the same from
election to election.

On 22/10/2021 10:05 am, MB wrote:
> On 20/10/2021 10:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> Erm the 'little support' gives a proportion to the number. If the
>> 'support'
>> is 'little' so are the number of elected MSPs. And there is nothing to
>> stop
>> 'opposition' MSPs voting with the main 'government' party on issues where
>> they agree with them.
>
>
> But with the SNP unable to get a majority, the Greenies have much more
> power than they should from the number of supporters they have.  That is
> typical of what happens under PR.

Exactly so.

PR would mean the LDs permanently in some sort of power via coalition.