On 22/10/2021 10:34, Robin wrote:
> 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.

Did the Liberal make it condition of them joining a coalition? Sort of
thing that might have done.

On 22/10/2021 12:40, JNugent wrote:
>
> 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.

So? I suspect that's true of most other political parties as well.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/10/2021 12:42, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 22/10/2021 10:05 am, MB wrote:
>>
>> 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.

How is that, how can it be, any worse for the country than the current
situation?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/10/2021 12:57, MB wrote:
>
> On 22/10/2021 10:34, Robin wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Did the Liberal make it condition of them joining a coalition? Sort of
> thing that might have done.

We're awaiting evidence.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/10/2021 12:38, JNugent wrote:
> 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.

But that would have meant voting for someone whom one didn't want to elect.

>> 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.]

No, PR is about representing the views of the *ENTIRE ELECTORATE* as
accurately as reasonably possible, rather than just the winning
proportion of it and ignoring the views of everyone else, as FPTP does.

--

Fake news kills!

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

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> 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.
>

As far as I can discover the phrase originates with Bismarck. Lord Butler
(RAB as he was known) titled his memoir “The Art of the Possible”. Given
what Bismarck achieved we should be careful not to make assumptions about
what is possible for unscrupulous motivated politicians.

I believe George Orwell said of his novel 1984 “It was meant to be a
warning, not an instruction manual”.

On 22/10/2021 11:32, Java Jive wrote:
> 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?

Since you ask so very nicely:

a. start with the Conservative and Lib Dem manifestos

https://general-election-2010.co.uk/2010-general-election-manifestos/Conservative-Party-Manifesto-2010.pdf

91 et seq

https://www.markpack.org.uk/files/2015/01/Liberal-Democrat-manifesto-2010.pdf

57 et seq

b. then look at what the coalition documentation promised

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-coalition-documentation

16-17

c. read comments from people like Professor Dieter Helm

http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/energy/energy/stranded-assets-a-deceptively-simple-and-flawed-idea-4/

e.g. "How did a Conservative dominated government come to preside over
such a profound reversal to their policy heritage from the Thatcherite
years? Why did they allow this to happen? The answers lie in the path
dependency, which Labour had created towards ever-greater intervention,
and the ceding by the Conservatives of energy policy to the Liberal
Democrats as part of the price of Coalition. It was something the
Conservatives would come to regret, forcing the Chancellor and his
allies to fight a rear-guard action. Worse still, the Coalition was to
preside over a big increase in the coal burn, a rise in carbon dioxide
emissions in 2013, a political rebellion on prices and come perilously
close to provoking a security of supply crisis. No one could describe
Coalition energy policy as a success."

Of course others will disagree. But where's the /evidence/ that Chris
Huhne just handed round the biscuits while SoS?

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

Did you also read the comments there on the shortcomings of LCOE? Have
you also read what's happened to UK wind this year?

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

On 22/10/2021 01:05 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 12:40, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> So?  I suspect that's true of most other political parties as well.

LD voters tend to be swing voters. That's the whole problem of the LDs
and does not apply to the main parties to anywhere remotely like the
same extent.

On 22/10/2021 01:07 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 22/10/2021 12:42, JNugent wrote:
>> On 22/10/2021 10:05 am, MB wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> How is that, how can it be, any worse for the country than the current
> situation?

What a silly question.

There's no point in (anyone) trying to answer it because you'll just go
off on one of your rants to the effect that only you and your chosen
party (and its voters) are valid people and everyone else deserves to be
ignored and cancelled.

On 22/10/2021 01:08 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 12:57, MB wrote:
>>
>> On 22/10/2021 10:34, Robin wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Did the Liberal make it condition of them joining a coalition? Sort of
>> thing that might have done.
>
> We're awaiting evidence.

Evidence of a question?

Why?

He asked the question. The evidence of that is just above ^.

On 22/10/2021 01:13 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 12:38, JNugent wrote:
>> 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.
>
> But that would have meant voting for someone whom one didn't want to elect.

And?

It happens all the time.

>>> 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.]
>
> No, PR is about representing the views of the *ENTIRE ELECTORATE* as
> accurately as reasonably possible, rather than just the winning
> proportion of it and ignoring the views of everyone else, as FPTP does.

Not everyone can be represented by the candidate of their choice.

It can't happen.

On 22/10/2021 02:08 pm, Robin wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 11:32, Java Jive wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Since you ask so very nicely:
>
> a.    start with the Conservative and Lib Dem manifestos
>
> https://general-election-2010.co.uk/2010-general-election-manifestos/Conservative-Party-Manifesto-2010.pdf
>
>
> 91 et seq
>
>
> https://www.markpack.org.uk/files/2015/01/Liberal-Democrat-manifesto-2010.pdf
>
>
> 57 et seq
>
>
> b.     then look at what the coalition documentation promised
>
> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-coalition-documentation
>
> 16-17
>
> c.    read comments from people like Professor Dieter Helm
>
>
> http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/energy/energy/stranded-assets-a-deceptively-simple-and-flawed-idea-4/
>
>
> e.g. "How did a Conservative dominated government come to preside over
> such a profound reversal to their policy heritage from the Thatcherite
> years? Why did they allow this to happen? The answers lie in the path
> dependency, which Labour had created towards ever-greater intervention,
> and the ceding by the Conservatives of energy policy to the Liberal
> Democrats as part of the price of Coalition. It was something the
> Conservatives would come to regret, forcing the Chancellor and his
> allies to fight a rear-guard action. Worse still, the Coalition was to
> preside over a big increase in the coal burn, a rise in carbon dioxide
> emissions in 2013, a political rebellion on prices and come perilously
> close to provoking a security of supply crisis. No one could describe
> Coalition energy policy as a success."
>
> Of course others will disagree.  But where's the /evidence/ that Chris
> Huhne just handed round the biscuits while SoS?

There WAS that time when he ran out of Bourbons and had to speed up to
Stansted to get new stocks straight off the plane. It didn't seem to
take him long there and back.
>
>> But cheaper than nuclear:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
>
> Did you also read the comments there on the shortcomings of LCOE?  Have
> you also read what's happened to UK wind this year?
>

On 20/10/2021 10:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> 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'.

I'd be hard-pushed to think of a decent PM in the last 50 years. I
sometimes wonder if your compatriot would have made a good PM if he had
lived - John Smith.

--

Jeff

On 22/10/2021 14:15, JNugent wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 01:05 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 22/10/2021 12:40, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> So?  I suspect that's true of most other political parties as well.
>
> LD voters tend to be swing voters. That's the whole problem of the LDs

It's only a 'problem' if you choose to view it as such, I don't, I think
it's the opposite because it means they're more likely to vote as a
result of thinking about the issues of the day, rather than just
knee-jerk habit. The UK need more people to be doing that, preferably
most of them.

> and does not apply to the main parties to anywhere remotely like the
> same extent.

I'm not sure you're right about that. The last time a party won the
majority of the vote was the Conservatives in 1931 & 1935, and they came
close in 1951 (but still lost), 1955, & 1959, while Labour came close in
1945, 1951, and 1966; other results have been much closer.

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

Of course, actually we decide elections by seats, rather than share of
the vote, but even going by majority of seats ...
2001 Blair 167
2010 Cameron coalition 78
20149 Johnson 80
.... so it seems unlikely from these rather artificially large majorities
that only LibDems supporters are voting tactically, there must be
significant fractions of other voters doing likewise.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/10/2021 13:31, Owen Rees wrote:
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> As far as I can discover the phrase originates with Bismarck. Lord Butler
> (RAB as he was known) titled his memoir “The Art of the Possible”. Given
> what Bismarck achieved we should be careful not to make assumptions about
> what is possible for unscrupulous motivated politicians.

That's interesting, although I didn't actually claim that Callaghan
invented the phrase, he's the only person I can remember using it, so
kind of assumed that he had.

> I believe George Orwell said of his novel 1984 “It was meant to be a
> warning, not an instruction manual”.

LOL! Now that's another good quote!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/10/2021 14:17, JNugent wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 01:07 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 22/10/2021 12:42, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 22/10/2021 10:05 am, MB wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> How is that, how can it be, any worse for the country than the current
>> situation?
>
> What a silly question.
>
> There's no point in (anyone) trying to answer it because you'll just go
> off on one of your rants to the effect that only you and your chosen
> party (and its voters) are valid people and everyone else deserves to be
> ignored and cancelled.

It's only a silly question to the unthinking such as yourself.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/10/2021 14:08, Robin wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 11:32, Java Jive wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Since you ask so very nicely:
>
> a.    start with the Conservative and Lib Dem manifestos
>
> https://general-election-2010.co.uk/2010-general-election-manifestos/Conservative-Party-Manifesto-2010.pdf
>
>
> 91 et seq
>
>
> https://www.markpack.org.uk/files/2015/01/Liberal-Democrat-manifesto-2010.pdf
>
>
> 57 et seq
>
>
> b.     then look at what the coalition documentation promised
>
> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-coalition-documentation
>
> 16-17

Well, that doesn't to me look like a surrender of the Conservative
energy policy to the LibDems:

"* Liberal Democrats have long opposed any new nuclear construction.
Conservatives, by contrast, are committed to allowing the replacement of
existing nuclear power stations provided that they are subject to the
normal planning process for major projects (under a new National
Planning Statement), and also provided that they receive no public subsidy.

* We will implement a process allowing the Liberal Democrats to maintain
their opposition to nuclear power while permitting the Government to
bring forward the National Planning Statement for ratification by
Parliament so that new nuclear construction becomes possible. This
process will involve:

– the Government completing the drafting of a national planning
statement and putting it before Parliament;
– specific agreement that a Liberal Democrat spokesperson will speak
against the Planning Statement, but that Liberal Democrat MPs will
abstain; and
– clarity that this will not be regarded as an issue of confidence."

So how do you claim from that the LibDems effectively spiked any new
nuclear development? The above says quite the contrary, that regardless
of LibDem opposition they would try to further nuclear energy anyway.

> c.    read comments from people like Professor Dieter Helm
>
> http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/energy/energy/stranded-assets-a-deceptively-simple-and-flawed-idea-4/
>
> e.g. "How did a Conservative dominated government come to preside over
> such a profound reversal to their policy heritage from the Thatcherite
> years? Why did they allow this to happen? The answers lie in the path
> dependency, which Labour had created towards ever-greater intervention,
> and the ceding by the Conservatives of energy policy to the Liberal
> Democrats as part of the price of Coalition. It was something the
> Conservatives would come to regret, forcing the Chancellor and his
> allies to fight a rear-guard action. Worse still, the Coalition was to
> preside over a big increase in the coal burn, a rise in carbon dioxide
> emissions in 2013, a political rebellion on prices and come perilously
> close to provoking a security of supply crisis. No one could describe
> Coalition energy policy as a success."
>
> Of course others will disagree.

Yes, I do, as explained above.

> But where's the /evidence/ that Chris
> Huhne just handed round the biscuits while SoS?

<shrug> it's not actually important enough to argue about.

>> But cheaper than nuclear:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
>
> Did you also read the comments there on the shortcomings of LCOE?

Yes, it's widely known that there is great difficulty in rationalising
the relative costs of different technologies of wind generation.

> Have
> you also read what's happened to UK wind this year?

Again no provenance, but I presume you mean this:

https://electricalreview.co.uk/2021/09/07/uk-forced-to-rely-on-coal-power-due-to-reduction-in-wind-generation/

However, that is bound to happen with a variable supply such as wind,
and it doesn't alter the fact that the rest of the time we are reducing
emissions overall through not using coal using wind, and lately, around
here at least, wind has definitely picked up again.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/10/2021 14:18, JNugent wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 01:08 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 22/10/2021 12:57, MB wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22/10/2021 10:34, Robin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Did the Liberal make it condition of them joining a coalition? Sort
>>> of thing that might have done.
>>
>> We're awaiting evidence.
>
> Evidence of a question?

Evidence that "the Conservatives ceded energy policy to the Liberal
Democrats". See my reply to Robin, I think we're still waiting for it.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/10/2021 18:35, Jeff Layman wrote:
> I'd be hard-pushed to think of a decent PM in the last 50 years. I
> sometimes wonder if your compatriot would have made a good PM if he had
> lived - John Smith.

Labour have a tendence to claim every time a Labour politicians dies
that he was "the best Prime Minister we never had". I remember hearing
one senior Labour politician that Smith might have been good in
opposition but he would have been useless as a Prime Minister.

On 22/10/2021 14:20, JNugent wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 01:13 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 22/10/2021 12:38, JNugent wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> But that would have meant voting for someone whom one didn't want to
>> elect.
>
> And?

And it's not a very democratic system where in order for your vote to
count you have to vote for someone you don't want to elect.

> It happens all the time.

It shouldn't in a democracy.

>>>> 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.]
>>
>> No, PR is about representing the views of the *ENTIRE ELECTORATE* as
>> accurately as reasonably possible, rather than just the winning
>> proportion of it and ignoring the views of everyone else, as FPTP does.
>
> Not everyone can be represented by the candidate of their choice.
>
> It can't happen.

But PR comes closer to it than FPTP.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/10/2021 19:06, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 14:08, Robin wrote:
>> On 22/10/2021 11:32, Java Jive wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Since you ask so very nicely:
>>
>> a.    start with the Conservative and Lib Dem manifestos
>>
>> https://general-election-2010.co.uk/2010-general-election-manifestos/Conservative-Party-Manifesto-2010.pdf
>>
>>
>> 91 et seq
>>
>>
>> https://www.markpack.org.uk/files/2015/01/Liberal-Democrat-manifesto-2010.pdf
>>
>>
>> 57 et seq
>>
>>
>> b.     then look at what the coalition documentation promised
>>
>> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-coalition-documentation
>>
>> 16-17
>
> Well, that doesn't to me look like a surrender of the Conservative
> energy policy to the LibDems:
>
> "*    Liberal Democrats have long opposed any new nuclear construction.
> Conservatives, by contrast, are committed to allowing the replacement of
> existing nuclear power stations provided that they are subject to the
> normal planning process for major projects (under a new National
> Planning Statement), and also provided that they receive no public subsidy.
>
> *    We will implement a process allowing the Liberal Democrats to
> maintain their opposition to nuclear power while permitting the
> Government to bring forward the National Planning Statement for
> ratification by Parliament so that new nuclear construction becomes
> possible.  This process will involve:
>
> –    the Government completing the drafting of a national planning
> statement and putting it before Parliament;
> –    specific agreement that a Liberal Democrat spokesperson will speak
> against the Planning Statement, but that Liberal Democrat MPs will
> abstain; and
> –    clarity that this will not be regarded as an issue of confidence."
>
> So how do you claim from that the LibDems effectively spiked any new
> nuclear development?  The above says quite the contrary, that regardless
> of LibDem opposition they would try to further nuclear energy anyway.

'cos of (a) what happened on nuclear and (b) what people involved said
happened, and why . (There's only so much the Treasury and can do in a
coalition with a Lib Dem SoS in charge).)

>
>> c.    read comments from people like Professor Dieter Helm
>>
>> http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/energy/energy/stranded-assets-a-deceptively-simple-and-flawed-idea-4/
>>
>> e.g. "How did a Conservative dominated government come to preside over
>> such a profound reversal to their policy heritage from the Thatcherite
>> years? Why did they allow this to happen? The answers lie in the path
>> dependency, which Labour had created towards ever-greater
>> intervention, and the ceding by the Conservatives of energy policy to
>> the Liberal Democrats as part of the price of Coalition. It was
>> something the Conservatives would come to regret, forcing the
>> Chancellor and his allies to fight a rear-guard action. Worse still,
>> the Coalition was to preside over a big increase in the coal burn, a
>> rise in carbon dioxide emissions in 2013, a political rebellion on
>> prices and come perilously close to provoking a security of supply
>> crisis. No one could describe Coalition energy policy as a success."
>>
>> Of course others will disagree.
>
> Yes, I do, as explained above.
>
>> But where's the /evidence/ that Chris Huhne just handed round the
>> biscuits while SoS?
>
> <shrug> it's not actually important enough to argue about.

Ah, so.

>>> But cheaper than nuclear:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
>>
>> Did you also read the comments there on the shortcomings of LCOE?
>
> Yes, it's widely known that there is great difficulty in rationalising
> the relative costs of different technologies of wind generation.
>
>> Have you also read what's happened to UK wind this year?
>
> Again no provenance, but I presume you mean this:
>
> https://electricalreview.co.uk/2021/09/07/uk-forced-to-rely-on-coal-power-due-to-reduction-in-wind-generation/
>
>
> However, that is bound to happen with a variable supply such as wind,
> and it doesn't alter the fact that the rest of the time we are reducing
> emissions overall through not using coal using wind, and lately, around
> here at least, wind has definitely picked up again.
>

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

On 22/10/2021 13:31, Owen Rees wrote:
> As far as I can discover the phrase originates with Bismarck. Lord Butler
> (RAB as he was known) titled his memoir “The Art of the Possible”. Given
> what Bismarck achieved we should be careful not to make assumptions about
> what is possible for unscrupulous motivated politicians.

"referring to Bismarck (1815–98), in conversation with Meyer von
Waldeck, 11 August 1867: ‘Politics is the art of the possible’""

On 22/10/2021 07:13 pm, MB wrote:

> On 22/10/2021 18:35, Jeff Layman wrote:

>> I'd be hard-pushed to think of a decent PM in the last 50 years. I
>> sometimes wonder if your compatriot would have made a good PM if he had
>> lived - John Smith.
>
> Labour have a tendence to claim every time a Labour politicians dies
> that he was "the best Prime Minister we never had".

They may well do so.

But that title - without a doubt - belongs to Lord Tebbit.

> I remember hearing
> one senior Labour politician that Smith might have been good in
> opposition but he would have been useless as a Prime Minister.

So far, only Attlee, Wislon and Blair managed to get round that one.
With Smith... we'll never know. But the odds aren't good.

On 22/10/2021 07:15 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 14:20, JNugent wrote:
>> On 22/10/2021 01:13 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 22/10/2021 12:38, JNugent wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> But that would have meant voting for someone whom one didn't want to
>>> elect.
>>
>> And?
>
> And it's not a very democratic system where in order for your vote to
> count you have to vote for someone you don't want to elect.

There's only one winner.
>
>> It happens all the time.
>
> It shouldn't in a democracy.

It has to.

The Caucus Race rules don't apply to Parliamntary elections.

>>>>> 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.]
>
>>> No, PR is about representing the views of the *ENTIRE ELECTORATE* as
>>> accurately as reasonably possible, rather than just the winning
>>> proportion of it and ignoring the views of everyone else, as FPTP does.
>
>> Not everyone can be represented by the candidate of their choice.
>> It can't happen.
>
> But PR comes closer to it than FPTP.

That simply isn't true.

Where the vote splits 45% Conservative, 35% Labour and 25% LibDem, the
closest it is possible to get to "everyone being represented by the
candidate of their choice" is given by First Past The Post.

45% get their candidate of choice with the Conservatives (whose
candidate is the clear winner anyway).

Only 35% or 20% would get representation by the candidate of their
choice with a system which rigged the counting in favour of one of the
loser parties.

On 22/10/2021 19:16, Robin wrote:
>
> On 22/10/2021 19:06, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 22/10/2021 14:08, Robin wrote:
>>>
>>> b.     then look at what the coalition documentation promised
>>>
>>> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-coalition-documentation
>>>
>>> 16-17
>>
>> Well, that doesn't to me look like a surrender of the Conservative
>> energy policy to the LibDems:
>>
>> "*    Liberal Democrats have long opposed any new nuclear
>> construction. Conservatives, by contrast, are committed to allowing
>> the replacement of existing nuclear power stations provided that they
>> are subject to the normal planning process for major projects (under a
>> new National Planning Statement), and also provided that they receive
>> no public subsidy.
>>
>> *    We will implement a process allowing the Liberal Democrats to
>> maintain their opposition to nuclear power while permitting the
>> Government to bring forward the National Planning Statement for
>> ratification by Parliament so that new nuclear construction becomes
>> possible.  This process will involve:
>>
>> –    the Government completing the drafting of a national planning
>> statement and putting it before Parliament;
>> –    specific agreement that a Liberal Democrat spokesperson will
>> speak against the Planning Statement, but that Liberal Democrat MPs
>> will abstain; and
>> –    clarity that this will not be regarded as an issue of confidence."
>>
>> So how do you claim from that the LibDems effectively spiked any new
>> nuclear development?  The above says quite the contrary, that
>> regardless of LibDem opposition they would try to further nuclear
>> energy anyway.
>
> 'cos of (a) what happened on nuclear and (b) what people involved said
> happened, and why .  (There's only so much the Treasury and can do in a
> coalition with a Lib Dem SoS in charge).)

Surely what happened on nuclear has much more to do with "and also
provided that they receive no public subsidy."?

--

Fake news kills!

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