h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi rg

Second attempt to start a new conversation
First one showed up on my today list bur didn't appear on H2g2 list in My Space

Hi rg seems to have worked this time
Catch you later.

Hi Bx4 Well done - The job's a good un! (as they say around here). There was what I thought an interesting HoL debate about the Euro referendum (the currency not the treaty) on May 20 I think. I tried to link to it here http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbtoday/F5963509?thread=5163456&latest=1 Alas the treaty referendum debate that followed was cut off by my BBC Parliament recording. BSY

hi rg
I appear to have created two. I couldn't see the first one yesterday. Hence phantom.

yes I saw you were active is that LTR 2 or 3. I have decided tot to get sucked in to debates on the LT. Which one of the two threads should we use for our debate?

.
Hi Bx4

I think this is the better thread to use because it appears in the conversation list. I don't think there is a way to delete a thread though I'll unsubscribe to D&R just as soon as I've read what you've posted there. In theory I'll be AFK a lot today though that's weather dependent.

BSY

morning rg

Other thread: Nothing of interest just saying I set it.

weather: Bad your way I gather. Excellent ours

http://www.wunderground.com/webcams/Budgie/1/show.html

(Picture from about 8km from us)

Wind improving

For you a day for linux , HofL catch up or Kurust. For me to boat or to bike. Choices, choices

Rats posted on wrong thread again see morning thread

definitely need a to clear the head
bsy

Morning rg

Ported from 'Morning' thread

I agree we should use this one for our ongoing debate. I have extracted the following quotes from two of your posts which (prior to the 'teller diversion) seem to summarise where we are:

In much the same way as a Direct Debit mandate except instead of money being taken out of a bank account a vote is counted in an election or referendum.

'A further instruction from the vote owner to the Electoral Commission could see the vote being taken back or ceded to another third party to do with as it pleases. The third party could of course be the government.

It might even be possible to nominate one's vote to track whatever parliament decides on any issue thus letting politicians "make that decision for them".'

and

'To my mind the most popular party should always form the executive. They always have the option to form a "government of all the talents". Post election coalitions where principles are abandoned to gain power should be as welcome as Labour's topical fudging of their manifesto commitment. It's not realistically possible to force minor parties to stick to their principles (what use a recall election here?), it would be refreshing however if this could come to be seen as the norm in political behaviour.'

Thanks for the link to LTR2 or LT33. I had not been aware the debate was continuing.

I feel I should remind you of the House Rule' of this discussion that the LT is 'off piste'.

You could start another conversation on it and invite the refugees from LTR 2/3 to join in.

btw

http://www.wunderground.com/webcams/Budgie/1/show.html

(yes I know it looks like yesterday)

Unfortunately wind only 17km/h so I am of for another to avoid being given 'stuff'.

bsy

.
'Morning Bx4

The current image is simply unbelievable! The highlight of my long weekend so far has been a three hour woodland walk, I put in a mere half-hour this morning and the weather has turned bad. Part of the burner-shed roof has come away! Fear not; this is more likely to be poor workmanship than the roaring forties. I'll check the 'Morning thread to see who the rats are and what they're up to...

.
More

I hope the went well and thank you for 'porting' the segments from LTR1. I appreciate mention of the LTR itself is verbotten.

BSY

Morning rg

Weather:

Somewhat your area

http://www.wyenot.com/webcam/index.htm#

Not diffrence

Roof: Was the burner in it when it happened. Further noble effort with Kurust maybe required.

Bad weather seems a given for English bank hols.

rats: No people more an expletive directed at self for posting on wrong thread.

except of course as illustrative example.

: excellent got in a long run on totally empty roads.

Still think you should start an LT conversation on h2g2

must

bsy

.
Alas the Ross image wouldn't load though I only have to listen to the rain beating on the window to know what it must look like.

Must dash myself. I want my soup>>>

<<<BSY

Hi rg

While in durance vile I thought I would make a start:

Your:

'A further instruction from the vote owner to the Electoral Commission could see the vote being taken back or ceded to another third party to do with as it pleases. The third party could of course be the government.
I seem to have missed the first part.

However, I see one problem with your idea.

I am not sure that a voter would necessarily want to assign his votes en bloc to a specific third party.

Suppose for example the manifestos of different parties contain policies and the voter likes individual policies from different manifestos. Shouldn't the mechanism allow for votes to be assigned to policies rather than parties.

There is also a related problem, suppose a party has to make a decision on a policy that is legitimately is not in the manifesto. The Iraq War for example. One may have pre-allocated a vote to a party that favours the war but one may oppose that particular policy.

hi rg

your

'To my mind the most popular party should always form the executive.

Don't see how this would work surely if the most popular forms a minority government is always at risk of being outvoted by a majority opposition.

This means the opposition has the power the power to outvote the government party at any time and the likelihood is that the government would fall.

The process would, of course, be repeated with each new minority government

hi rg
your

'It's not realistically possible to force minor parties to stick to their principles (what use a recall election here?), it would be refreshing however if this could come to be seen as the norm in political behaviour.'

I am not sure I agree. The notion of being principled seems superficially attractive but I think the issue is rather more complex.

Suppose a small party has the option of remaining in opposition or of negotiating an arrangement with a larger party to form a governing coalition.

Not forming a coalition preserves the party's principles at the expense of not seeing any of its policies implemented.

Alternatively, if the party compromises its principles it will get some, but not all, of its policies implemented.

Now the issue is this. Are the people who voted for that party and its policies better served by having some of those policies implemented rather than none?

It seems in countries where coalitions are the norm that voters prefer the latter option since they persistently vote for parties that will only get some of their policies implemented by forming coalitions..

There is another issue of yours that coalitions address, in part at least, which is that in the current system a government can be elected by 23% of the electorate.

Clearly in a coalition the number of people who elected the government is increased.

So in terms of voter representation a coalition government is better than a single party one.

hi rg

Tidying up the last couple of bits

your

'They always have the option to form a "government of all the talents"'

Not sure you have argued and I agree that the UK parliamentary system of representative democracy has a number of glaring democratic deficits

Surely the notion that the party in power should be allowed to simply co-opt people without the involvement of the electorate only serves to increase the democratic deficit.

Your
'recall'

I think we had pretty much discarded this in previous discussions. The American system of elected officials allows recall in a way that ours doesn't (excepting possibly separately elected mayors).

The Canadian system for recalling elected representatives seems to be a theoretical option which has never been used.

I want to hava look at that Swiss government site on the way their referendums work. I haven't really come to grips with quite how the initial stages work.

I think we also need to revisit your Walden Number idea again

bsy

Hi Bx4

"…I am not sure that a voter would necessarily want to assign his votes en bloc to a specific third party…"

No problem. The voter could chose to override his "block vote" either by turning up at a referendum poll or changing their 'standing order'. I suppose it could be possible to assign a block vote to policy though I suggest this would be cumbersome. At present we are totally stuffed because in effect we have to vote for a party and take on board that we will be voting for policies we don't agree with. Of course if a party includes a policy in its manifesto and does the opposite once in power…stuffed isn't strong enough a word.

"…The Iraq War for example. One may have pre-allocated a vote to a party that favours the war but one may oppose that particular policy…"

Remember to Waldren two million? This would provide a mechanism to override such a policy.

bsy

"…This means the opposition has the power the power to outvote the government party at any time and the likelihood is that the government would fall…"

I don't have a problem with this. At least everyone stays honest.

Hi Bx4

"…Are the people who voted for that party and its policies better served by having some of those policies implemented rather than none?"

I think this is the key to your post. It presupposes that votes are in favour of all the policies of the party they vote for. Clearly this is nonsense. So suppose the Clegg goes into coalition with Brown on the basis that there would be not referendum on anything ever I'd be well upset. Clearly it's the party that decides on which policy goes through not the electorate. The electorate is deprived of all power in post election negotiation. I hope Clegg has seen the light and will not jump into bed with Labour at the first opportunity. It's not good to be seen as Labour's little helper. If it were perceived to be the case then voter would chose the primary party not second fiddle.

"…in the current system a government can be elected by 23% of the electorate…Clearly in a coalition the number of people who elected the government is increased."

This democratic deficit is better addressed by proportional representation.

"…So in terms of voter representation a coalition government is better than a single party one…"

I think coalitions are dishonest unless the parties are up front with the electorate BEFORE polling takes place.