On 22/10/2021 19:29, JNugent wrote:
> 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.

And that winner should be the person who is most acceptable to most people.

>>> It happens all the time.
>>
>> It shouldn't in a democracy.
>
> It has to.
>
> The Caucus Race rules don't apply to Parliamntary elections.

I think we're misunderstanding each other, see above.

>>>>>> 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.

Yes it is, see below ...

> 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.

No, that way only a minority 45% of voters are satisfied. You are
making choices artificially binary, whereas in reality there are three
choices. If you had STV, and enough of the Labour voters and
Conservative voters' second choices were LibDems, they would be elected
as being the most acceptable to the most people, which would be entirely
as it should be.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/10/2021 18:39, Java Jive wrote:

> 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.

I see it rather differently. The electorate regard a LD vote as a
protest vote against the Government of the day, because they can't vote
for the Opposition but don't want to vote for the party in power either
because they want to show their disappointment in the performance. They
don't expect the LDs to gain enough seats to gain power, so it looks a
safe enough option.

When Cameron went into coalition with the LDs it came as a nasty shock,
not a natural event because of the arithmetic.

Jim

In article <skooup$pj$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> 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.

Yes, as I think various people in the 'North' [ always seems an odd term
here from my POV :-) ] and Midlands have pointed out. They'd get far more
benefit/pound if the transport in those regions was improved as the
priority.

> 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.

The main 'train' here is the Gravy Train for the companies, etc, who also
help bankroll many relevant MPs, provide them with 'free' advisors', and
donate to a favoured party.

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 <itaosiFe5rbU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > 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?

Basically, from a religion passed down as fact. :-)

It might even be a good idea *if* the formula they use to estimate the
'benefit' stood up in reality. Alas, in practice it doesn't.

Instead we get "things grew where we fed them" and a rise in costs/prices
rather than genuine production, because the input price rises as the bits
of coloured paper move about. So the numbers change, not the useful values.

The biggest aspect of this is the fantasies woven around 'GDP'. That made
some sense when most 'products' were things like coal or sheep meat. But in
a time when a lot of the 'work' of 'high value' consists of paper... sorry
file shuffling it becomes almost meaningless as a real measure of what is
'produced, except in terms of monkey-motion.

One interesting feature of our present Government is that it *says* it will
change this and shift investment away from the SE. But I suspect that this
is simply hot air that won't rise that far. Time will tell.

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 23/10/2021 07:54, Indy Jess John wrote:
> When Cameron went into coalition with the LDs it came as a nasty shock,
> not a natural event because of the arithmetic.

It was certainly a nasty shock for the Liberals. Previously they could
make promises, knowing that they would never get chance to be held to
the promises.

Suddenly they were in real world and involved in taking decisions.

On 22/10/2021 10:04, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Yes, as I think various people in the 'North' [ always seems an odd term
> here from my POV:-) ] and Midlands have pointed out. They'd get far more
> benefit/pound if the transport in those regions was improved as the
> priority.
>
> The main 'train' here is the Gravy Train for the companies, etc, who also
> help bankroll many relevant MPs, provide them with 'free' advisors', and
> donate to a favoured party.

Doesn't that happen everywhere, even Scotland.

Power going to the centre happens also. A very active local councillor
has just resigned because he had got fed up with trying to counter the
power base in Inverness.

On 22/10/2021 11:09, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "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)
>
>
>
The bit they have started on, London to Birmingham, already has a decent
service, because Network Rail's own figures showed that the HST time
savings would be a tiny percentage of the normal service times.

The train services from Leeds are pretty dire unless you want to go to
London or Edinburgh, so improving the other links from Leeds is the best
demonstration of "Levelling Up" the Government could do.

Jim

On 23/10/2021 10:35, Indy Jess John wrote:
> The bit they have started on, London to Birmingham, already has a decent
> service, because Network Rail's own figures showed that the HST time
> savings would be a tiny percentage of the normal service times.
>
> The train services from Leeds are pretty dire unless you want to go to
> London or Edinburgh, so improving the other links from Leeds is the best
> demonstration of "Levelling Up" the Government could do.

I was staying a friend around Birmingham when HS2 was announced so asked
if he would use it. He said that the moment he could pick up a London
train not too far from his home, it was not worth travelling into the
centre of Birmingham, changing station and paying more when there will
be little saving in journey time.

"Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message
news:sl0l1l$qin$1@dont-email.me...
> On 22/10/2021 11:09, tim... wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:skooup$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)
>>
>>
>>
> The bit they have started on, London to Birmingham, already has a decent
> service, because Network Rail's own figures showed that the HST time
> savings would be a tiny percentage of the normal service times.
>
> The train services from Leeds are pretty dire unless you want to go to
> London or Edinburgh, so improving the other links from Leeds is the best
> demonstration of "Levelling Up" the Government could do.
>
> Jim
>

"Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message
news:sl0l1l$qin$1@dont-email.me...
> On 22/10/2021 11:09, tim... wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:skooup$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)
>>
>>
>>
> The bit they have started on, London to Birmingham, already has a decent
> service, because Network Rail's own figures showed that the HST time
> savings would be a tiny percentage of the normal service times.
>
> The train services from Leeds are pretty dire unless you want to go to
> London or Edinburgh, so improving the other links from Leeds is the best
> demonstration of "Levelling Up" the Government could do.

Oops

sorry for the blank message

improving "Other lines" is not "starting HS2 from Leeds"

I agree with you, the money would be better spent on improving other lines
in the regions

but the question "how does starting HS2 from Leeds help anyone" still
remains

>
> Jim
>

On 23/10/2021 11:06, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message
> news:sl0l1l$qin$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 22/10/2021 11:09, tim... wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:skooup$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)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The bit they have started on, London to Birmingham, already has a decent
>> service, because Network Rail's own figures showed that the HST time
>> savings would be a tiny percentage of the normal service times.
>>
>> The train services from Leeds are pretty dire unless you want to go to
>> London or Edinburgh, so improving the other links from Leeds is the best
>> demonstration of "Levelling Up" the Government could do.
>
> Oops
>
> sorry for the blank message
>
> improving "Other lines" is not "starting HS2 from Leeds"
>
> I agree with you, the money would be better spent on improving other lines
> in the regions
>
> but the question "how does starting HS2 from Leeds help anyone" still
> remains
>
>
>>
>> Jim
>>

If Leeds is seen as a hub, the other lines might steadily be recognised
as service destinations rather than branch lines. The lines are OK, but
the services could do with better and more frequent rolling stock. The
HS2 is an enabler to get the local requests for better services treated
more seriously.

Jim

On 23/10/2021 07:54, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 18:39, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I see it rather differently. The electorate regard a LD vote as a
> protest vote against the Government of the day, because they can't vote
> for the Opposition but don't want to vote for the party in power either
> because they want to show their disappointment in the performance. They
> don't expect the LDs to gain enough seats to gain power, so it looks a
> safe enough option.

That supports my view rather than negates it, it shows they're
*thinking* about it, rather than voting by habit.

> When Cameron went into coalition with the LDs it came as a nasty shock,
> not a natural event because of the arithmetic.

Because we have a voting system that usually means that parliament
represents the views of the largest minority, rather than a majority,
whereas as what is needed is a way of representing a majority of views,
and that cannot come from FPTP, only from PR.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/10/2021 10:14 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <itaosiFe5rbU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> 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?
>
> Basically, from a religion passed down as fact. :-)

So is it not true that it's better to get a higher return on an
investment than a lower return (let alone a nil return or a loss)?

It's acceptable for an investment to realise a very low return or even a
loss? Is that what you're saying?

Are we even defining "investment" in the same way?

It doesn't mean "spending".

> It might even be a good idea *if* the formula they use to estimate the
> 'benefit' stood up in reality. Alas, in practice it doesn't.
>
> Instead we get "things grew where we fed them" and a rise in costs/prices
> rather than genuine production, because the input price rises as the bits
> of coloured paper move about. So the numbers change, not the useful values.
>
> The biggest aspect of this is the fantasies woven around 'GDP'. That made
> some sense when most 'products' were things like coal or sheep meat. But in
> a time when a lot of the 'work' of 'high value' consists of paper... sorry
> file shuffling it becomes almost meaningless as a real measure of what is
> 'produced, except in terms of monkey-motion.
>
> One interesting feature of our present Government is that it *says* it will
> change this and shift investment away from the SE. But I suspect that this
> is simply hot air that won't rise that far. Time will tell.

On 23/10/2021 03:46 am, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 19:29, JNugent wrote:
>> 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.
>
> And that winner should be the person who is most acceptable to most people.

That's right. The one most voters voted for.

>>>> It happens all the time.
>>>
>>> It shouldn't in a democracy.
>>
>> It has to.
>>
>> The Caucus Race rules don't apply to Parliamntary elections.
>
> I think we're misunderstanding each other, see above.

I don't believe so.

I am aware of where you are coming from (as the kids say).
>
>>>>>>> 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.
>
> Yes it is, see below ...
>
>> 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.

[That should have been 20% LibDem!!!]
>> 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.
>
> No, that way only a minority 45% of voters are satisfied.  You are
> making choices artificially binary, whereas in reality there are three
> choices.

You are shifting goalposts and changing their construction during the
journey.

You said: "...that winner should be the person who is most acceptable to
most people".

I agree.

In my example, the Labour candidate is only acceptable to 35%. The
LibDem is only acceptable to 20%.

If the voting and counting system were rigged as you suggest, a LibDem
"winner" would be acceptable to 20% and unacceptable to 80%.

A Labour "winner" would be acceptable to 35% and unacceptable to 65%.

The Conservative winner is acceptable to 45% (the highest of the three)
and unacceptable to 55% (the lowest of the three).

QED

  If you had STV, and enough of the Labour voters and
> Conservative voters' second choices were LibDems, they would be elected
> as being the most acceptable to the most people, which would be entirely
> as it should be.

This involves voters voting for candidates who are (to them) unacceptable.

Make your mind up.

Is this about fairness and arithmetic, or is it about preventing the
candidate with the largest vote from being declared the winner because
you (and others) don't like his or her party?

On 23/10/2021 10:07 am, MB wrote:

> On 23/10/2021 07:54, Indy Jess John wrote:

>> When Cameron went into coalition with the LDs it came as a nasty shock,
>> not a natural event because of the arithmetic.

> It was certainly a nasty shock for the Liberals.  Previously they could
> make promises, knowing that they would never get chance to be held to
> the promises.

> Suddenly they were in real world and involved in taking decisions.

The LibDems didn't *have* to go into coalition.

They could have offered "confidence and supply".

They could even have offered nothing and dared the Conservatives to form
a minority government.

They did what they wanted to do.

On 23/10/2021 13:59, JNugent wrote:
>
> The LibDems didn't *have* to go into coalition.
>
> They could have offered "confidence and supply".
>
> They could even have offered nothing and dared the Conservatives to form
> a minority government.
>
> They did what they wanted to do.

They did what they thought was best for the country.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 23/10/2021 03:25 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 23/10/2021 13:59, JNugent wrote:
>
>> The LibDems didn't *have* to go into coalition.
>> They could have offered "confidence and supply".
>> They could even have offered nothing and dared the Conservatives to
>> form a minority government.
>> They did what they wanted to do.
>
> They did what they thought was best for the country.

That can't be ruled out, I suppose.

how many people believe it is another, and quite separate, matter.

On 23/10/2021 13:57, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/10/2021 03:46 am, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 22/10/2021 19:29, JNugent wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> And that winner should be the person who is most acceptable to most
>> people.
>
> That's right. The one most voters voted for.
>
>>>>> It happens all the time.
>>>>
>>>> It shouldn't in a democracy.
>>>
>>> It has to.
>>>
>>> The Caucus Race rules don't apply to Parliamntary elections.
>>
>> I think we're misunderstanding each other, see above.
>
> I don't believe so.
>
> I am aware of where you are coming from (as the kids say).
>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Yes it is, see below ...
>>
>>> 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.
>
> [That should have been 20% LibDem!!!]
>>> 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.
>>
>> No, that way only a minority 45% of voters are satisfied.  You are
>> making choices artificially binary, whereas in reality there are three
>> choices.
>
> You are shifting goalposts and changing their construction during the
> journey.
>
> You said: "...that winner should be the person who is most acceptable to
> most people".
>
> I agree.
>
> In my example, the Labour candidate is only acceptable to 35%. The
> LibDem is only acceptable to 20%.

No, in your example of FPTP the Tory candidate is most acceptable only
to a minority of 45% of the electorate, but you know nothing about how
acceptable or unacceptable the other two candidates are to those voters,
the Labour candidate is most acceptable to 35%, but again you know
nothing about how acceptable or not the other two candidates are to
those voters, etc. In an STV system, you would have this extra
information, and therefore be able to select a candidate who is most
acceptable to the largest number of people, hopefully an actual majority.

> If the voting and counting system were rigged as you suggest, a LibDem
> "winner" would be acceptable to 20% and unacceptable to 80%.

Not at all, the winner, who may or may not be a LibDem would be the
person with the most primary and secondary votes, and therefore the
person most acceptable to the largest number of voters.

> A Labour "winner" would be acceptable to 35% and unacceptable to 65%.

Not necessarily as above.

> The Conservative winner is acceptable to 45% (the highest of the three)
> and unacceptable to 55% (the lowest of the three).

No, because in your system you know nothing about how acceptable or
unacceptable each candidate is to those who didn't vote for them.

>>   If you had STV, and enough of the Labour voters and
>> Conservative voters' second choices were LibDems, they would be
>> elected as being the most acceptable to the most people, which would
>> be entirely as it should be.
>
> This involves voters voting for candidates who are (to them) unacceptable.

No, it involved voters simply ranking the candidates in order of most to
least preference.

> Is this about fairness and arithmetic, or is it about preventing the
> candidate with the largest vote from being declared the winner because
> you (and others) don't like his or her party?

It's about arithmetic and fairness to the largest possible proportion of
the electorate.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 23/10/2021 15:27, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 23/10/2021 03:25 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 23/10/2021 13:59, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> The LibDems didn't *have* to go into coalition.
>>> They could have offered "confidence and supply".
>>> They could even have offered nothing and dared the Conservatives to
>>> form a minority government.
>>> They did what they wanted to do.
>>
>> They did what they thought was best for the country.
>
> That can't be ruled out, I suppose.
>
> how many people believe it is another, and quite separate, matter.

It's the simplest explanation, and therefore the one you should believe
unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 23/10/2021 03:46 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 23/10/2021 15:27, JNugent wrote:
>> On 23/10/2021 03:25 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 23/10/2021 13:59, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>> The LibDems didn't *have* to go into coalition.
>>>> They could have offered "confidence and supply".
>>>> They could even have offered nothing and dared the Conservatives to
>>>> form a minority government.
>>>> They did what they wanted to do.
>
>>> They did what they thought was best for the country.
>
>> That can't be ruled out, I suppose.
>
>> how many people believe it is another, and quite separate, matter.
>
> It's the simplest explanation, and therefore the one you should believe
> unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary.

It does constitute a variant version of the formal model of British
Parliamentary democracy and theory.

Whether one believes it is up to the individual.

There is certainly no "should" about it.

Given that the LDs exacted a promise of a referendum on PR as part of
the coalition agreement, it's sort of hard to accept that they were only
thinking of God and Country. They were thinking of the LDs at least as
much as they were of anything else.

They promised a few things themselves, one of which was support for the
carrying-out of the very long-overdue review and redrawing of
Parliamentary constituency boundaries. Then, having lost the PR
referendum, they threw their toys out of the pram and despite the
Conservatives having delivered the referendum as their side of that
deal, refused to support the boundary review (which is *still* only
"pending").

LDs thinking of God and Country? Hardly.

On 23/10/2021 16:00, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/10/2021 03:46 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 23/10/2021 15:27, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 23/10/2021 03:25 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 23/10/2021 13:59, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>>> The LibDems didn't *have* to go into coalition.
>>>>> They could have offered "confidence and supply".
>>>>> They could even have offered nothing and dared the Conservatives to
>>>>> form a minority government.
>>>>> They did what they wanted to do.
>>
>>>> They did what they thought was best for the country.
>>
>>> That can't be ruled out, I suppose.
>>
>>> how many people believe it is another, and quite separate, matter.
>>
>> It's the simplest explanation, and therefore the one you should
>> believe unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary.
>
> It does constitute a variant version of the formal model of British
> Parliamentary democracy and theory.
>
> Whether one believes it is up to the individual.
>
> There is certainly no "should" about it.
>
> Given that the LDs exacted a promise of a referendum on PR as part of
> the coalition agreement, it's sort of hard to accept that they were only
> thinking of God and Country. They were thinking of the LDs at least as
> much as they were of anything else.

Nobody mentioned God, but as for country, if you genuinely believe, as
the Liberals and then the LibDems have long held, that PR is a fairer
voting system, then it's difficult to argue that they weren't doing the
best thing for the country in demanding a referendum on it for joining a
coalition.

> They promised a few things themselves, one of which was support for the
> carrying-out of the very long-overdue review and redrawing of
> Parliamentary constituency boundaries. Then, having lost the PR
> referendum, they threw their toys out of the pram and despite the
> Conservatives having delivered the referendum as their side of that
> deal, refused to support the boundary review (which is *still* only
> "pending").

So there you go, it's doubtless still only pending for a very good
reason, perhaps that it was flawed, and anyway it's irrelevant to PR.

> LDs thinking of God and Country? Hardly.

You only say that because you support another party, being independently
minded I prefer to see some reasonably convincing evidence before making
accusations.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 23/10/2021 05:42 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 23/10/2021 16:00, JNugent wrote:
>> On 23/10/2021 03:46 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 23/10/2021 15:27, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 23/10/2021 03:25 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 23/10/2021 13:59, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>> The LibDems didn't *have* to go into coalition.
>>>>>> They could have offered "confidence and supply".
>>>>>> They could even have offered nothing and dared the Conservatives
>>>>>> to form a minority government.
>>>>>> They did what they wanted to do.
>
>>>>> They did what they thought was best for the country.
>
>>>> That can't be ruled out, I suppose.
>>>> how many people believe it is another, and quite separate, matter.
>
>>> It's the simplest explanation, and therefore the one you should
>>> believe unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary.
>
>> It does constitute a variant version of the formal model of British
>> Parliamentary democracy and theory.
>> Whether one believes it is up to the individual.
>> There is certainly no "should" about it.
>> Given that the LDs exacted a promise of a referendum on PR as part of
>> the coalition agreement, it's sort of hard to accept that they were
>> only thinking of God and Country. They were thinking of the LDs at
>> least as much as they were of anything else.
>
> Nobody mentioned God, but as for country, if you genuinely believe, as
> the Liberals and then the LibDems have long held, that PR is a fairer
> voting system, then it's difficult to argue that they weren't doing the
> best thing for the country in demanding a referendum on it for joining a
> coalition.

Political parties do tend to have a view that what is good for them is
good for the country.

They can't all be right, but they all tend to think it.

>> They promised a few things themselves, one of which was support for
>> the carrying-out of the very long-overdue review and redrawing of
>> Parliamentary constituency boundaries. Then, having lost the PR
>> referendum, they threw their toys out of the pram and despite the
>> Conservatives having delivered the referendum as their side of that
>> deal, refused to support the boundary review (which is *still* only
>> "pending").
>
> So there you go, it's doubtless still only pending for a very good
> reason, perhaps that it was flawed, and anyway it's irrelevant to PR.

***** It was *highly* relevant to PR. The deal was that the
Conservatives would accept a referendum on PR and the LDs would support
the overdue boundary review.

The Conservatives delivered on the deal. The LDs welshed on it.

>> LDs thinking of God and Country? Hardly.
>
> You only say that because you support another party, being independently
> minded I prefer to see some reasonably convincing evidence before making
> accusations.

The facts (see above at para marked *****) speak for themselves. The LDs
*got* what they wanted out of the deal (a referendum, though they didn't
win it) and then *reneged* on delivery of their side of the bargain. A
funny thing to do when they always pose as the moral party.

Not on the side of the country (which had delivered a forthright
decision on PR) and hardly on the side of God, with a straightforward
breach of the eighth and tenth Commandments.

On 23/10/2021 17:56, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/10/2021 05:42 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 23/10/2021 16:00, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 23/10/2021 03:46 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 23/10/2021 15:27, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 23/10/2021 03:25 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/10/2021 13:59, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> The LibDems didn't *have* to go into coalition.
>>>>>>> They could have offered "confidence and supply".
>>>>>>> They could even have offered nothing and dared the Conservatives
>>>>>>> to form a minority government.
>>>>>>> They did what they wanted to do.
>>
>>>>>> They did what they thought was best for the country.
>>
>>>>> That can't be ruled out, I suppose.
>>>>> how many people believe it is another, and quite separate, matter.
>>
>>>> It's the simplest explanation, and therefore the one you should
>>>> believe unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary.
>>
>>> It does constitute a variant version of the formal model of British
>>> Parliamentary democracy and theory.
>>> Whether one believes it is up to the individual.
>>> There is certainly no "should" about it.
>>> Given that the LDs exacted a promise of a referendum on PR as part of
>>> the coalition agreement, it's sort of hard to accept that they were
>>> only thinking of God and Country. They were thinking of the LDs at
>>> least as much as they were of anything else.
>>
>> Nobody mentioned God, but as for country, if you genuinely believe, as
>> the Liberals and then the LibDems have long held, that PR is a fairer
>> voting system, then it's difficult to argue that they weren't doing
>> the best thing for the country in demanding a referendum on it for
>> joining a coalition.
>
> Political parties do tend to have a view that what is good for them is
> good for the country.
>
> They can't all be right, but they all tend to think it.
>
>>> They promised a few things themselves, one of which was support for
>>> the carrying-out of the very long-overdue review and redrawing of
>>> Parliamentary constituency boundaries. Then, having lost the PR
>>> referendum, they threw their toys out of the pram and despite the
>>> Conservatives having delivered the referendum as their side of that
>>> deal, refused to support the boundary review (which is *still* only
>>> "pending").
>>
>> So there you go, it's doubtless still only pending for a very good
>> reason, perhaps that it was flawed, and anyway it's irrelevant to PR.
>
> ***** It was *highly* relevant to PR. The deal was that the
> Conservatives would accept a referendum on PR and the LDs would support
> the overdue boundary review.
>
> The Conservatives delivered on the deal. The LDs welshed on it.

Provenance?

>>> LDs thinking of God and Country? Hardly.
>>
>> You only say that because you support another party, being
>> independently minded I prefer to see some reasonably convincing
>> evidence before making accusations.
>
> The facts (see above at para marked *****) speak for themselves. The LDs
> *got* what they wanted out of the deal (a referendum, though they didn't
> win it) and then *reneged* on delivery of their side of the bargain. A
> funny thing to do when they always pose as the moral party.
>
> Not on the side of the country (which had delivered a forthright
> decision on PR) and hardly on the side of God, with a straightforward
> breach of the eighth and tenth Commandments.

God is irrelevant, and see above.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <sku2jb$t47$1@dont-email.me>, tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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

It's a nice "one step" argument of the kind polticians and civil servants
deploy.

But now consider the idea that if the money was redistributed so more went
elsewhere, *those* places would become more attractive for 'tourists' and
thus would go *there* as well, or instead.

Alas, politicians and civil servants often fail to realise that 'feedback'
is often a *loop* effect.

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 <sku2lc$tiq$1@dont-email.me>, tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com>
wrote:

> "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)

Erm, the idea is that it would first link up locations in and around Leeds,
Manchester, Birmingham, etc. Their Mayors, etc, keep pointing out how they
have problems getting people in contact with jobs, etc, because of the lack
of transport. Their economies would grow and become more productive given
the added interconnection and ability to shift people and goods.

The project isn't - or at least when approved, wasn't - just a line with
*two* stations on it - one in London and one in "The Midlands/North".

The initial idea was it becoming part of a bigger network 'oop north'. But,
curiously, ever since the costs started to -predictably - balloon a lot of
those 'opp north' bits have been trimmed.

Note also that land costs are a factor. Land down in the SE costs more, and
the number of costs to deal with existing infrastructure/km are bigger.

But the Treasury waves its usual "more benefit in the SE" wand.

As a result the main beneficiaries are the construction project people, who
of course also tend to give cushy jobs, etc, to ex-civil servants,
politicians, etc.

Its a boondoggle.

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