General election results 2015

[MrGongGong]

Nothing like a bit of 'ineffectiveness' to get things done, eh ... ? :incredulous smiley:

When Thatcher died (i'm sure i've told this before?) I received in the next days post the Chumbawamba album
not bad for a bunch of anarchists from Leeds

[jean]

Nothing like a bit of 'ineffectiveness' to get things done, eh ... ? :incredulous smiley:

It all depends on the things.

(How many times do I have to say that before it finally sinks in?)

[MrGongGong]

It all depends on the things.

(How many times do I have to say that before it finally sinks in?)

I don't think it will :-(

Some people really DO believe that EVERYTHING can be done better by being organised in the same way
and for them I would prescribe joining an improvisation group

[P. G. Tipps]

It all depends on the things.

(How many times do I have to say that before it finally sinks in?)

No I'm afraid it doesn't depend at all on the things ...

For you (and others) 'effectiveness' clearly means government of, er, shall we say one which happens to coincide with one's own politics.

'Effectiveness' can be of any political colour hence my previous reference to the Attlee and Thatcher governments.

The alternative, of course, is 'ineffectiveness' when presumably the status quo remains.

Your, mine, and anybody else's political bias has no place in the actual definition of the word.

You can plead to the contrary as many times as you wish but that is most unlikely to 'sink in' with those rather keener on authoritative, non-revisionary meanings.

[P. G. Tipps]

I don't think it will :-(

Some people really DO believe that EVERYTHING can be done better by being organised in the same way
and for them I would prescribe joining an improvisation group

Those who believe in 'organisation' sometimes appear in the most unlikely quarters, Mr GG ... :winkeye:

http://www.activedistributionshop.org/shop/3755-thickbox/organise-84.jpg

[Flosshilde]

those rather keener on authoritative, non-revisionary meanings.

:laugh:

[MrGongGong]

Those who believe in 'organisation' sometimes appear in the most unlikely quarters, Mr GG ... :winkeye:

You missed the crucial phrase in the same way

[P. G. Tipps]

You missed the crucial phrase in the same way

There is no 'phrase' that can be observed from any direction ... just four words

(apart from the price of the rag-mag and that it's free to lucky prisioners (sic)!)

[MrGongGong]

There is no 'phrase' that can be observed from any direction ... just four words

(apart from the price of the rag-mag and that it's free to lucky prisioners (sic)!)

I suggest you go for a walk

[jean]

No I'm afraid it doesn't depend at all on the things ...

I think it does.

On your own admission, the appeal of FPTP rests on its ability to

...get things done...

My objection (and that of others) is that if the things are not things that a substantial majority of the electorate wants done, they are perhaps better not done.

You appear to be happy with this situation:

In the political world 'effective government' generally means one with the ability to govern freely. That does not necessarily mean 'good government', of course...

It doesn't mean government in accordance with the wishes of the majority, either.

Others aren't so happy. There really is nothing more to be said.

[P. G. Tipps]

I suggest you go for a walk

I've already been for my daily constitutional, Mr GG ... that's what helps keep the frazzled brain fresh and active, you know!

[P. G. Tipps]

I think it does.

On your own admission, the appeal of FPTP rests on its ability to


My objection (and that of others) is that if the things are not things that a substantial majority of the electorate wants done, they are perhaps better not done.

You appear to be happy with this situation:


It doesn't mean government in accordance with the wishes of the majority, either.

Others aren't so happy. There really is nothing more to be said.

I'm certainly happy with the last bit as it's the only bit that makes any sense! :-)

[jean]

Well, if you insist on quoting comments out of the context of whatever they're commenting on, it's hardly surprising you can't make any sense of them.

[jean]

From the Electoral Reform Society.

It seems that the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office with responsibility for Electoral Reform, may need to do a little bit more research on electoral systems...

“Thank you for your letter and accompanying petition...I appreciate your point, but the difficulty would be that we had a referendum on [changing the electoral system to Proportional Representation] in 2011... it would be pretty difficult to argue that we should go ahead anyway!”

As you’ll probably know (and the government should too!), the Alternative Vote is not a proportional system.

[P. G. Tipps]

From the Electoral Reform Society.

It seems that the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office with responsibility for Electoral Reform, may need to do a little bit more research on electoral systems...

“Thank you for your letter and accompanying petition...I appreciate your point, but the difficulty would be that we had a referendum on [changing the electoral system to Proportional Representation] in 2011... it would be pretty difficult to argue that we should go ahead anyway!”

As you’ll probably know (and the government should too!), the Alternative Vote is not a proportional system.

No, it's not, but AV was widely seen as a first step towards a a true proportional system by its advocates. Even that was substantially rejected by the electorate.

This is all a bit like republicans wanting to ditch the monarchy because they say it is 'undemocratic'.

Both FPTP and the Monarchy have the clear, undeniable backing of the great majority of the UK electorate. Nothing could be more 'democratic' than accepting the majority will of the people.

End of story ... or at least it should be unless and until the majority of people change their minds!