Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

Highest employment since the 12th century, lowest interest rates since attila the hun and the best health service since it was bombed by the hun.

It seems the housing 'crisis' is only just starting to dawn on them, most of the establishment have been too busy tweaking their buy-to-let portfolios to even notice. Hence the influx of acolytes from Labour Youth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a 50 worst predictions on last night and one of them featured mrs t - and they switched to a gorup of people saying "maggie magiie maggie" and before I knew it I'd been pavlov'd into joining in "out out out"

Shame we've not instilled the "spin spin spin, out out out" version yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a 50 worst predictions on last night and one of them featured mrs t - and they switched to a gorup of people saying "maggie magiie maggie" and before I knew it I'd been pavlov'd into joining in "out out out"

Shame we've not instilled the "spin spin spin, out out out" version yet.

Thing was Mrs T was very unpopular at the time, make no doubt about that. But she did take some hard decisions and a hard course of action that needed to be taken. She made a lot of peoples lives less happy and prosperous but in hindsight it was the right (ish) course of action to take for the longer term benefit of the country.

In contrast this government is reasonably popular however I get the feeling that with hindsight no one will look back and say this government did anything but pander to the present massess at the expense of the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loathe this government even more after reading in today's Times how lots of MPs have been cheating the system and claiming expenses of £30k a year(!) against their 2nd property.

The idea is that they are supposed to use these expenses for when they require accomodation near Westminster...loads of them have been using TAXPAYERS money to fund the purchase of 2nd, 3rd, 4th properties...no doubt letting them out too.

SCUM! :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nu Labour Ringwraiths are very active on the forum of late. [Randall Herbert]

All part of 'Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power':

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747669,00.html

Piece by piece, month by month, Tony Blair's administration is removing the safeguards that protect all of us from the whims of a government and the intrusions of a powerful state. It is engaged in a ferocious power-grab. Yet this story has not seized the imagination of the media or the public. In our failure to respond, the government must be reading a tacit acceptance that it can do what it chooses, because we either don't notice or don't care.

[...snip...]

The perverse fact is that we are being asked to place great trust in a government that makes a point of distrusting everyone outside its inner circle. If we don't share their assumption that they alone know what is best for the rest of us, we had better start protesting now. Last year Blair promised to listen to us. As he dismantles our defences, what he is hearing is something close to silence.

In contrast this government is reasonably popular ... [bTLOptingOut]

Huh? Not amongst people I know, many of whom are former Labour voters. Less than 1 in 5 of the eligible electorate voted for them in the last General Election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nu Labour Ringwraiths are very active on the forum of late.

Trying to buoy up their bleeding BTL portfolios by any chance? Or perhaps defending the indefendable incompetent economic failure of 'Crash' Gordon?

That's quite a claim. Why don't you name names, if you are so sure of it?

frugalista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Highest employment since the 12th century, lowest interest rates since attila the hun and the best health service since it was bombed by the hun.

It seems the housing 'crisis' is only just starting to dawn on them, most of the establishment have been too busy tweaking their buy-to-let portfolios to even notice. Hence the influx of acolytes from Labour Youth.

:lol::lol::lol:

The problem with Labour Youth these day is that you need a suit, a tie, a church to go to on Sunday, a daddy that is well connected and a shiny smile like Tony to have a chance. Tip for Nu Young Labour acolytes. Try teeth bleaching - you won't get preselected without it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"..this government is reasonably popular..."

you, my friend, are either blind or a paid up member of the NuLabor stasi

If you think that this government is unpopular, how do you describe the 'popularity' of the Tories who won 150 _less_ seats in parliament just a few months ago. Get real. You may not like the result, but this is called 'democracy' - you wouldn't like the alternative.

p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think that this government is unpopular, how do you describe the 'popularity' of the Tories who won 150 _less_ seats in parliament just a few months ago. [patprimer74]

In England more people voted Conservative (8,116,005) than Labour (8,043,461), but Labour won 92 more seats:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vote2005/html/england.stm

You may not like the result, but this is called 'democracy' - you wouldn't like the alternative. [patprimer74]

It may be called democracy, but where there are more than two significant candidates in a First Past The Post election it isn't remotely democratic. I would like the alternative known as Condorcet or 'Second Choice Voting':

http://www.genarts.com/karl/second-choice-voting.html

This page describes alternative voting systems for single-winner elections in which voters are given more than just a single choice vote. When implemented properly, second choice voting can have significant advantages over traditional voting:
  • It gives better results when there are more than two candidates. The winner should be the one the majority prefers over any other candidate.
  • It helps voters by allowing them to choose who they really want without losing influence over who actually has a chance of winning. Often voters have to decide between voting strategically so their vote makes a difference, or voting sincerely for who they really prefer. With this method, voters supply additional information so strategic voting should not be necessary.
  • It helps 3rd candidates because voters should actually vote for them if they prefer them.
  • It also helps established candidates because the results between them are not skewed in inappropriate ways when a 3rd candidate receives some votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How Condorcet voting works.

Voters rank candidates in order of preference 1, 2, 3, etc. (or by putting a cross in an appropriate choice column). During counting, candidates are played off against each other rather like a football league -- the winner is the one who would win through if a series of two candidate elections had been held.

Five key advantages of Condorcet voting in the UK:

  1. Voters can make a sincere vote for their preferred candidate without any risk of allowing their third or lesser preferred candidate in because they didn't vote tactically for their second choice. Condorcet is the only system mathematically proven to be ungameable -- there is no advantage in voting tactically.
  2. While minority candidates are likely to get far more first preference votes under Condorcet, in order to win a candidate needs wide support. This prevents extremist candidates 'slipping through' a split vote as can happen with First Past The Post.
  3. It's fully backwards compatible with the current FPTP system. Absent minded or elderly voters can carry on voting as they always have -- a single cross is treated as a first preference vote.
  4. Although counting is more involved than FPTP, it's still relatively easy to explain and transparent -- the process is open to scrutiny throughout, unlike some other systems which require calculations to be made before votes are redistributed amongst candidates.
  5. Last, but not least, it would encourage positive campaigning. In closely fought elections the winner will not only need first preference votes, but also second and perhaps third preferences too. You don't go around insulting the voter's first choice if you want to pick up their second or third preference vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"..this government is reasonably popular..."

you, my friend, are either blind or a paid up member of the NuLabor stasi

Hmmm by selecting just those 5 words out of the two paragraphs I wrote you seem to have turned what I said into something I didn't. Fan of NuLabour I am certainly not :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I_stink_copy.jpg

I loathe this government even more after reading in today's Times how lots of MPs have been cheating the system and claiming expenses of £30k a year(!) against their 2nd property.

The idea is that they are supposed to use these expenses for when they require accomodation near Westminster...loads of them have been using TAXPAYERS money to fund the purchase of 2nd, 3rd, 4th properties...no doubt letting them out too.

SCUM! :ph34r:

All Labour politicians are blatantly dis-honest, cheating crooks. They've got too used to being in power and they don't give a flying piece of donky droppings what anyone thinks of them because the people that vote for them are ignorant scroungers who don't work and vote Labour purely for the hand outs they know they will get!!!

What really gets my goat is that Gordon 'Poo Lip' Brown is going to retire on a £2million(s) pension while the majority of the rest of the pensioners in this country will get next to nothing!!

Death to Poo Lip Brown!! And all the other Labour scum too for that matter!

Highest employment since the 12th century, lowest interest rates since attila the hun and the best health service since it was bombed by the hun.

It seems the housing 'crisis' is only just starting to dawn on them, most of the establishment have been too busy tweaking their buy-to-let portfolios to even notice. Hence the influx of acolytes from Labour Youth.

:lol::lol:

post-4495-1144543773.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How Condorcet voting works.

...

That's the system used in Australia. It's called preferential voting there however, due to the listing of candidates in order of preference and the redistribution of eliminated candidate's votes according to those preferences.

Don't see how it would help the Tories though. I imagine that Labour votes are more likely to redistribute to Lib Dem and vice-versa.

The Tories wouldn't like the other aspect of the system used in Australia... compulsory voting backed up by a system of fines.

T&T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be called democracy, but where there are more than two significant candidates in a First Past The Post election it isn't remotely democratic. I would like the alternative known as Condorcet or 'Second Choice Voting':

I have a lot of sympathy with what you say; there certainly should be a closer relationship between the total number of votes cast and the total number of MP's. A reasonably straightforward second choice system has it's attractions. Others, of course, would claim that under the FPTP system in each constituency, every candidate (and/or party) has exactly the same chance. They just have to be more popular than all the others. If they're not popular enough to win seats outright, why should they be rewarded by being given 'second best' seats?

None of the political parties, while in government, have been very keen on changing the system. Both the Liberals and Labour, I believe, have been a bit keener while in opposition. The Tories, though, seem dead against changing the system because they calculate that, more than likely, they would never again form a goverment. This is because they've worked out that very few voters would give them the second vote i.e. Labour supporters would prefer a Liberal as second choice and vice versa.

Even if we did change, we could, of course, still land up with results similar to today's because there's no certainty that voters would vote for their current choice under a new system. We could easily land up with some very strange results as, say, in Italy where it's not uncommon for the same electorate to elect a Conservative MP but a Communist city mayor.

An interesting subject but far from straightforward.

p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the system used in Australia. It's called preferential voting there however, due to the listing of candidates in order of preference and the redistribution of eliminated candidate's votes according to those preferences. [ToilAndTrouble]

Australia uses a different form of preferential voting known as 'Instant-runoff voting':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV), Alternative Vote (AV), Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), or the Hare system is a voting system normally used for single-winner elections utilizing a ranked ballot. In Australia and New Zealand it is referred to as Preferential Voting -- although this term may be misleading because it is not the only preferential voting system.

Don't see how it would help the Tories though. I imagine that Labour votes are more likely to redistribute to Lib Dem and vice-versa. [ToilAndTrouble]

Condorcet is designed to enable voters to elect the most representative candidate. It does not "help" one party or another.

The Tories wouldn't like the other aspect of the system used in Australia... compulsory voting backed up by a system of fines. [ToilAndTrouble]

Compulsion isn't an "aspect of the system", it's an entirely separate issue.

I have a lot of sympathy with what you say; there certainly should be a closer relationship between the total number of votes cast and the total number of MP's. [patprimer74]

Condorcet would tend to achieve that although it is not a Proportional Representation system.

Others, of course, would claim that under the FPTP system in each constituency, every candidate (and/or party) has exactly the same chance. [patprimer74]

Only where there are two candidates in contention. With more than two candidates, many voters vote tactically thus unfairly reducing support for some candidates and artificially raising it for others.

They just have to be more popular than all the others. If they're not popular enough to win seats outright, why should they be rewarded by being given 'second best' seats? [patprimer74]

Indeed; a candidate needs to gain 50% of the vote in order to win outright -- that's how Condorcet works.

None of the political parties, while in government, have been very keen on changing the system. [patprimer74]

By definition they are the beneficiaries of the current system.

Even if we did change, we could, of course, still land up with results similar to today's because there's no certainty that voters would vote for their current choice under a new system. [patprimer74]

It would be most unlikely to produce results similar to today's. The key advantage of the Condorcet system is that tactical voters would not vote for their current choice, but for the candidate they actually preferred. Voting patterns would therefore change. The selection of candidates and campaigning would also change. Currently, General Elections are decided by a relatively small number of swing voters in marginal constituencies -- another reason why FPTP is fundamentally undemocratic.

We could easily land up with some very strange results as, say, in Italy where it's not uncommon for the same electorate to elect a Conservative MP but a Communist city mayor. [patprimer74]

Under FPTP we have plenty of "strange results" in the UK. Condorcet would make such strange results far less likely, if not impossible -- that's what it's designed to do.

Edited by Jeff Ross

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I_stink_copy.jpg

All Labour politicians are blatantly dis-honest, cheating crooks. They've got too used to being in power and they don't give a flying piece of donky droppings what anyone thinks of them because the people that vote for them are ignorant scroungers who don't work and vote Labour purely for the hand outs they know they will get!!!

What really gets my goat is that Gordon 'Poo Lip' Brown is going to retire on a £2million(s) pension while the majority of the rest of the pensioners in this country will get next to nothing!!

Death to Poo Lip Brown!! And all the other Labour scum too for that matter!

:lol::lol:

You seem to have conveniently forgotten the events in the years leading upto the Tories being kicked out of office

It's a combination of people (ie anybody) and power - deadly - democratic systems are not perfect but it could be a lot worse...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have conveniently forgotten the events in the years leading upto the Tories being kicked out of office

It's a combination of people (ie anybody) and power - deadly - democratic systems are not perfect but it could be a lot worse...

Well didn't think i'd find myself agreeing with you but you are quite right on that one........

Back in '97 it was appropriate and right for the country to have a change of government. I also think it was appropriate and right for there to be another change back in '05....unfortunately there wasn't a credible alternative leader....Howard having to much baggage/history.

Any party in power for too long becomes complacent, arrogant and lazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How Condorcet voting works.

Voters rank candidates in order of preference 1, 2, 3, etc. (or by putting a cross in an appropriate choice column). During counting, candidates are played off against each other rather like a football league -- the winner is the one who would win through if a series of two candidate elections had been held.

Five key advantages of Condorcet voting in the UK:

  1. Voters can make a sincere vote for their preferred candidate without any risk of allowing their third or lesser preferred candidate in because they didn't vote tactically for their second choice. Condorcet is the only system mathematically proven to be ungameable -- there is no advantage in voting tactically.

  2. While minority candidates are likely to get far more first preference votes under Condorcet, in order to win a candidate needs wide support. This prevents extremist candidates 'slipping through' a split vote as can happen with First Past The Post.

  3. It's fully backwards compatible with the current FPTP system. Absent minded or elderly voters can carry on voting as they always have -- a single cross is treated as a first preference vote.

  4. Although counting is more involved than FPTP, it's still relatively easy to explain and transparent -- the process is open to scrutiny throughout, unlike some other systems which require calculations to be made before votes are redistributed amongst candidates.

  5. Last, but not least, it would encourage positive campaigning. In closely fought elections the winner will not only need first preference votes, but also second and perhaps third preferences too. You don't go around insulting the voter's first choice if you want to pick up their second or third preference vote.

In Australia we've been doing this for years - and we like to avoid fancy names! Its called optional multiple preferential (just like the package!). It is the most democratic type in my view, its realatively easy to count (unlike proportional preferential! I've done them both) and it allows dissent ie. It allows me to vote for the best dead horse, without stopping me voting for the candidate that I would prefer of the two mob backed spikers that might even win. In otherwords I can express my reluctance. Or maybe it just consolidates a 'sense' of democracy??? hmmm... Of course it has been blocked by every government in Britian since Winston Churchill since it doesn't favour the best tacticians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have conveniently forgotten the events in the years leading upto the Tories being kicked out of office

Sleaze and dodgy financial dealings, no illegal wars however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.