RugbyRebels

Dude, please.

Sent from my XT1033 using Tapatalk

UGagain wrote:Dude, please.

Sent from my XT1033 using Tapatalk

I get it, you have nothing to say. Makes me wonder why you bothered to post at all but whatever dude.

You don't get it at all. Doofus.

Sent from my XT1033 using Tapatalk

Given NZ's experience with a mixed-member proportional system, I wouldn't recommend party lists in a Westminster system with a fused executive and legislature. You end up with faceless yes men and yes women rubber stamping whatever Cabinet want for fear of being demoted down the list. Without a set constituency, MPs have no self-interest in challenging their party line. Your House of Lords might ameliorate that a little (we have only a single house - another flaw in our system).

leader of the peoples revolution from his sofa wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:So evidence of deliberate activity to prevent voters voting by council officials within a strongly Conservative supporting area in order to undermine the chances of the Conservative candidate in the mayoral election is what exactly?

You're really not getting it. Again.

Sandydragon: What UG means is all the "evidence" that the conspiracy industry has already concocted about vote rigging in systems that aren't used yet, such as online voting.

Stones of granite wrote:

leader of the peoples revolution from his sofa wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:So evidence of deliberate activity to prevent voters voting by council officials within a strongly Conservative supporting area in order to undermine the chances of the Conservative candidate in the mayoral election is what exactly?

You're really not getting it. Again.

Sandydragon: What UG means is all the "evidence" that the conspiracy industry has already concocted about vote rigging in systems that aren't used yet, such as online voting.

What UG really meant is that you are an ill mannered, badly parented peasant who hasn't a clue of what I do or don't think due to your innate intellectual incapacity.

Clearly, Sandydragon suffers from similar inflictions as he is unable to read the fucking thread and thinks that it's clever to frame right wing assertions as questions in all his comments. Even when they are irrelevant to the OP and the OP has pointed out that he's missed the point. Twice.

Fucking window lickers.

The 'conspiracy industry'.

That's gonna make me giggle for weeks.

How dumb can a grown human being be?

UGagain wrote:The 'conspiracy industry'.

That's gonna make me giggle for weeks.

How dumb can a grown human being be?

You've been making me giggle for years with your stupidity. I would say you pretty much set the benchmark.

UGagain wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

leader of the peoples revolution from his sofa wrote:

You're really not getting it. Again.

Sandydragon: What UG means is all the "evidence" that the conspiracy industry has already concocted about vote rigging in systems that aren't used yet, such as online voting.

What UG really meant is that you are an ill mannered, badly parented peasant who hasn't a clue of what I do or don't think due to your innate intellectual incapacity.

Clearly, Sandydragon suffers from similar inflictions as he is unable to read the fucking thread and thinks that it's clever to frame right wing assertions as questions in all his comments. Even when they are irrelevant to the OP and the OP has pointed out that he's missed the point. Twice.

Fucking window lickers.

Window lickers?

Read back your comments on this thread and see if you can find any sense of coherence or intelligence in them. In fact, strike that. You seem to live in some kind of parallel world where the incoherent makes sense and everyone else is a "window licker" because they can't understand.

Window lickers. Huh...

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:The 'conspiracy industry'.

That's gonna make me giggle for weeks.

How dumb can a grown human being be?

You've been making me giggle for years with your stupidity. I would say you pretty much set the benchmark.

Yeah you keep believing that, buddy. It's pretty much all you've got.

Fascism is anti-intellectual at its core.

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
Sandydragon: What UG means is all the "evidence" that the conspiracy industry has already concocted about vote rigging in systems that aren't used yet, such as online voting.

What UG really meant is that you are an ill mannered, badly parented peasant who hasn't a clue of what I do or don't think due to your innate intellectual incapacity.

Clearly, Sandydragon suffers from similar inflictions as he is unable to read the fucking thread and thinks that it's clever to frame right wing assertions as questions in all his comments. Even when they are irrelevant to the OP and the OP has pointed out that he's missed the point. Twice.

Fucking window lickers.

Window lickers?

Read back your comments on this thread and see if you can find any sense of coherence or intelligence in them. In fact, strike that. You seem to live in some kind of parallel world where the incoherent makes sense and everyone else is a "window licker" because they can't understand.

Window lickers. Huh...

I hadn't commented on the thread but you decided to throw insults my way anyway.

That alone identifies you as an ill mannered cunt. Your further comments identify you as an anti-intellectual fascist cunt.

The fact that you typed the phrase 'conspiracy industry' identifies as you as an ill mannered anti-intellectual profoundly stupid fascist cunt.

Any questions?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:I don't know why there has to be voter registration in the first place. Everyone eligible to vote in Britain has an NI number. If you tie that to their address, it's done and dusted.

If you get rid of constituencies and have party lists, you wouldn't even have to tie it to an address.

I'd also allow voting by every possible means. Online, polling stations, postal, hell, you could even have telephone voting (press 1 for Labour, 2 for Liberal Democrat, the nearest prime number to the square of PI times the number of grains of sand in Tony Blair's sandals after a visit to Saudi to get his orders for Conservative).

I'd also break the link between ballot papers and the individual, so you truly aren't identifiable.

Not everyone with an NI number is entitled to vote.

Presumably because many are under 18. Any other reasons? If there aren't, then that isn't an impediment.

UKHamlet wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:I don't know why there has to be voter registration in the first place. Everyone eligible to vote in Britain has an NI number. If you tie that to their address, it's done and dusted.

If you get rid of constituencies and have party lists, you wouldn't even have to tie it to an address.

I'd also allow voting by every possible means. Online, polling stations, postal, hell, you could even have telephone voting (press 1 for Labour, 2 for Liberal Democrat, the nearest prime number to the square of PI times the number of grains of sand in Tony Blair's sandals after a visit to Saudi to get his orders for Conservative).

I'd also break the link between ballot papers and the individual, so you truly aren't identifiable.

Not everyone with an NI number is entitled to vote.

Presumably because many are under 18. Any other reasons? If there aren't, then that isn't an impediment.

Prisoners? Do people with reduced mental facilities still have NI numbers? My guess would bethat they do.

UKHamlet wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:I don't know why there has to be voter registration in the first place. Everyone eligible to vote in Britain has an NI number. If you tie that to their address, it's done and dusted.

If you get rid of constituencies and have party lists, you wouldn't even have to tie it to an address.

I'd also allow voting by every possible means. Online, polling stations, postal, hell, you could even have telephone voting (press 1 for Labour, 2 for Liberal Democrat, the nearest prime number to the square of PI times the number of grains of sand in Tony Blair's sandals after a visit to Saudi to get his orders for Conservative).

I'd also break the link between ballot papers and the individual, so you truly aren't identifiable.

Not everyone with an NI number is entitled to vote.

Presumably because many are under 18. Any other reasons? If there aren't, then that isn't an impediment.

Are EU citizens allowed to vote in the general election? Or even people outside the EU on temporary visas?

Genuine question. They all have NI numbers.

Lizard wrote:Given NZ's experience with a mixed-member proportional system, I wouldn't recommend party lists in a Westminster system with a fused executive and legislature. You end up with faceless yes men and yes women rubber stamping whatever Cabinet want for fear of being demoted down the list. Without a set constituency, MPs have no self-interest in challenging their party line. Your House of Lords might ameliorate that a little (we have only a single house - another flaw in our system).

The Welsh assembly elections saw the use of lists. I agree with you that a representative of the people should have some people t represent,and not just be arse kissing the party leadership.

jared_7 wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Not everyone with an NI number is entitled to vote.

Presumably because many are under 18. Any other reasons? If there aren't, then that isn't an impediment.

Are EU citizens allowed to vote in the general election? Or even people outside the EU on temporary visas?

Genuine question. They all have NI numbers.

I'm reasonably sure that they can't.

Sandydragon wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Not everyone with an NI number is entitled to vote.

Presumably because many are under 18. Any other reasons? If there aren't, then that isn't an impediment.

Prisoners? Do people with reduced mental facilities still have NI numbers? My guess would bethat they do.

Prisoners should have voting rights anyway, in my view. Anyway, it's again not an impediment to using NI numbers - simply tick a box on a computer screen.

UKHamlet wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

UKHamlet wrote: Presumably because many are under 18. Any other reasons? If there aren't, then that isn't an impediment.

Prisoners? Do people with reduced mental facilities still have NI numbers? My guess would bethat they do.

Prisoners should have voting rights anyway, in my view. Anyway, it's again not an impediment to using NI numbers - simply tick a box on a computer screen.

It could be a lot simpler, perhaps the letter to households merely confirms who is able to vote rather than actual registration, unless there are errors.

The process could do with a overhaul, the use of technology needs to be increased.

Sandydragon wrote: The Welsh assembly elections saw the use of lists. I agree with you that a representative of the people should have some people t represent,and not just be arse kissing the party leadership.

That's not the way the process need work. Party lists can be made up of representatives of constituencies, nominated by constituency parties. I'm in two minds about it, tbh. Having representatives of a constituency gives a focal point for locals to contact. A list would be more nebulous. The problem with the constituency model is it is open to abuse. A simple shift of the boundaries can turn a safe Party A constituency into a marginal Party B constituency. While this hasn't traditionally been the practice, it is about to be with the boundary review being implemented by the current government, which is designed specifically to do such a thing.

Personally, I would grow the number of MPs as the population increases and make it automatic. Then create regions which are represented by a number of MPs elected from local lists on a proportional basis. The number of MPs in a region would vary according to the population of the region.

UGagain wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:The 'conspiracy industry'.

That's gonna make me giggle for weeks.

How dumb can a grown human being be?

You've been making me giggle for years with your stupidity. I would say you pretty much set the benchmark.

Yeah you keep believing that, buddy. It's pretty much all you've got.

Fascism is anti-intellectual at its core.

Careful, your narcissism is showing again.

UGagain wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:
What UG really meant is that you are an ill mannered, badly parented peasant who hasn't a clue of what I do or don't think due to your innate intellectual incapacity.

Clearly, Sandydragon suffers from similar inflictions as he is unable to read the fucking thread and thinks that it's clever to frame right wing assertions as questions in all his comments. Even when they are irrelevant to the OP and the OP has pointed out that he's missed the point. Twice.

Fucking window lickers.

Window lickers?

Read back your comments on this thread and see if you can find any sense of coherence or intelligence in them. In fact, strike that. You seem to live in some kind of parallel world where the incoherent makes sense and everyone else is a "window licker" because they can't understand.

Window lickers. Huh...

I hadn't commented on the thread but you decided to throw insults my way anyway.

That alone identifies you as an ill mannered cunt. Your further comments identify you as an anti-intellectual fascist cunt.

The fact that you typed the phrase 'conspiracy industry' identifies as you as an ill mannered anti-intellectual profoundly stupid fascist cunt.

Any questions?

Yes. What are you drinking? Toilet duck?

UKHamlet wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: The Welsh assembly elections saw the use of lists. I agree with you that a representative of the people should have some people t represent,and not just be arse kissing the party leadership.

That's not the way the process need work. Party lists can be made up of representatives of constituencies, nominated by constituency parties. I'm in two minds about it, tbh. Having representatives of a constituency gives a focal point for locals to contact. A list would be more nebulous. The problem with the constituency model is it is open to abuse. A simple shift of the boundaries can turn a safe Party A constituency into a marginal Party B constituency. While this hasn't traditionally been the practice, it is about to be with the boundary review being implemented by the current government, which is designed specifically to do such a thing.

Personally, I would grow the number of MPs as the population increases and make it automatic. Then create regions which are represented by a number of MPs elected from local lists on a proportional basis. The number of MPs in a region would vary according to the population of the region.

The Boundary Commission are independent. What they are doing is what they've always doen - try to ensure that roughly equal votes leads to roughly equal numbers of seats.

UKHamlet wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

UKHamlet wrote: Presumably because many are under 18. Any other reasons? If there aren't, then that isn't an impediment.

Prisoners? Do people with reduced mental facilities still have NI numbers? My guess would bethat they do.

Prisoners should have voting rights anyway, in my view. Anyway, it's again not an impediment to using NI numbers - simply tick a box on a computer screen.

Sandydragon wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

UKHamlet wrote: Presumably because many are under 18. Any other reasons? If there aren't, then that isn't an impediment.

Are EU citizens allowed to vote in the general election? Or even people outside the EU on temporary visas?

Genuine question. They all have NI numbers.

I'm reasonably sure that they can't.

i believe European citizens can vote in EU elections but not the general. Some Commonwealth citizens can vote but I think not all. Irish citizens resident in the Uk can vote in all elections

UKHamlet wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

UKHamlet wrote: Presumably because many are under 18. Any other reasons? If there aren't, then that isn't an impediment.

Prisoners? Do people with reduced mental facilities still have NI numbers? My guess would bethat they do.

Prisoners should have voting rights anyway, in my view. Anyway, it's again not an impediment to using NI numbers - simply tick a box on a computer screen.

What you'd then need is some list (or register, if you like) of which people with NI numbers were eligible to vote in which elections.

I disagree.

So final results in - Tories lost double the seats Labour did

Zhivago wrote:So final results in - Tories lost double the seats Labour did

That can't be right, all I've read is the elections are irrefutable proof Jeremy Corbyn is ruining the Labour party