HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pac9897@zeus.tamu.edu (SMELLS LIKE JOHN MAJOR....)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Farewell to Kinnock
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:14:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: zeus.14APR199216145112
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr14.080615.4072@cc.uow.edu.au>, 
jlloyd@cc.uow.edu.au (Jonathan Lloyd) writes...
>Besides, the gutter press are balanced by the socialist types in
>the BBC television news, which are giulty of almsot as much bias in a
>far more powerful medium.

You must have been out of Britain a long, long time. Since the infamous
bullying by Norman Tebbitt of BBC news and current affairs and
the personal bullying of John Birt by John Major and his cabinet colleges at 
a dinner party - which must have been the least subtle softening up job in
history.

>Actually Philip I think you are being a bit too pessimistic.
>There are signs of recovery on the horizon. And I believe when the recovery 
>does arrive (say in 94-95) it will have a better base than if some of the 
>silly ideas the Labour party have would have been passed into legislation.

Well yes, we'll certainly be out of recession, but some of the pressures
that have built up already under the Conservatives will be untenable - the
educational crisis will continue unless teachers and lecturers wages are
improved or at least brought up to the level of a police sergeant. The NHS
is probably a write-off affair already as the "internal market" has been
so thoroughly buggered up that some hospitals are charging parking admission
at outpatients and sending people hundreds of miles for basic treatments.
I also think that Scotland will no longer be with us, which I find immensley
sad but understandable. There is something profoundly wrong with the present
system that allows mainly the South and South East to dictate the government
to everyone else.


>The recession in Britain must be a miserable experience for many, but
>what I have seen of Labour policy indicates that the incentives to work
>our way out would be taxed out of existence.
I'm sorry, but you should know that the Conservatives have increased VAT
3-fold and it is part of the highest tax burden put on any British citizenry
ever.
Labour's main idea was to abolish the ceiling on NI, which had the support
of many accounting agencies. The fact is it is simply not fair that someone
on 20,000 should pick up the same NI bill that a guy on 40,000 does.


Philip A. Carney		On Exchange from Lancaster University,
Texas A&M University, TX	England.

**********ALL VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE MY OWN, NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF**************
******TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY, LANCASTER UNIVERSITY OR THEIR ASSOCIATES**********

"The lust for power is rooted not in strength, but in weakness..." - Erich Fromm
From: ssouth@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Steve South)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:12:18 GMT
Subject: Polls closed - exit poll results.
Organization: HP Scientific Instruments Division - Palo Alto, CA
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british

Latest news from the BBC World Service at 21:00 GMT..

Polls have closed in the UK. Weather has been good across the nation and the
turn out has been heavy. The BBC carried out an exit poll of 14000 voters in
marginal constituencies. The results of the poll suggest:

                Labour 311 seats
                Tories 287   "
                Lib Dem 25   "

Margin of error in exit poll given as 15 seats. First results expected at
around 22:00 GMT.

Steve South.
------------
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Why the exit polls were wrong ?
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:07:00 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

Was a letter in the Grauniad today by someone suggesting how the exit
polls could have been so wrong.  (For the uninitiated, these are where
they ask people coming out of the voting stations to stick an anonymous
pseudo-ballot into the polling company's box, marked to indicate how
they DID vote.  Unlike a normal poll, even the pollster doesn't know
how you answered, so there shouldn't be as much psychological pressure
on people to give the answers that they think the pollster would like.)

I can think of a number of possible honest reasons for this, and a few
dishonest ones.  The letter in the Grauniad suggested a new (to me)
possibility.  The exit poll, of course and by definition, only polls
people who have gone to the polling stations to vote.  The letter
writer was wondering whether the discrepancy could be accounted for by
the newly enfranchised British expatriates -- citizens permanently
resident outside the country, who were permitted to vote for the first
time in this election.

It's an interesting possibility.  I DEFINITELY DO NOT have any
information about the size of the ex-pat vote or about its distribution
amongst the various seats, so I have no opinion as to whether this is a
plausible, or even a possible, theory.  However, I do have an opinion
that if it is the case, and the explanation becomes public, political
life over here could become VERY interesting.

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.politics.british
From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft)
Subject: Re: The Decline of Britain (was Re: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 21:48:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.142359.67222@cs.cmu.edu> goddard+@cs.cmu.edu (Nigel Goddard) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.235946.25884@leland.Stanford.EDU> rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr14.220357.213802@cs.cmu.edu> goddard+@cs.cmu.edu (Nigel Goddard) writes:
>>>
>>That's pretty simplistic.  The Economist...
>>supports the classical liberal economic line---free trade and free
>>markets.  It is often at odds with what the British (or any other govt)
>>may be doing at the behest of its businesses.
>
>You seem to be agreeeing with me.  I agree with you that it is simple.
>Of course there are many factions within the business community, all
>agreed that capital accumulation is the major goal and divided only
>on means to that end.  I'd say the free-trade faction is overwhelmingly
>dominant.
>

Nope.  A typical Economist leader will contain a statement along the lines
of "The CBI says X is necessary, but this is clearly wrong for reasons
A,B,C."  The CBI = Confed of British Industry.  The CBI has screamed bloody
murder over high interest rates and the high value at which sterling went
into the EMS.  The Economist said "too bad".  The Economist is also
forever castigating British industry for one rotten policy or another
(such as letting pay rise too fast and expecting the govt to devalue the
pound to bail them out).

RNA
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.politics.british,soc.culture.european
From: xxxxajh@brunel.ac.uk (Alan J Holmes)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,uk.politics
Subject: Re: Rampant paranoia (was Voting slips: what happens to them,DANGER!)
Date: 6 Apr 92 13:55:59 GMT
Reply-To: xxxxajh@brunel.ac.uk.brunel.ac.uk (Alan J Holmes)
Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK

In article <1992Mar31.102107.18777@rdg.dec.com> potter@movies.enet.dec.com (Alan T Potter) writes:

>ACh, gie's a break!  Does anyone honestly believe that `they' would be able to
>check through something around 30 MILLION voting papers without arousing
>suspicion?  Don't people think that respectable writers and newspapers would
>have mentioned this?  

Ain't you never heard of computers?  

Ain't you never heard of the Official Secretes Act?

Try putting two and two together

Regards

Alan Holmes
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:6663 alt.society.civil-liberty:3520 misc.legal:9397 talk.politics.misc:18532
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: British Bill: of Rights? of Goods?
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:44:42 GMT
	<1g7wKk#0qW3125rwrX46khOrq5BQ5YL=eric@snark.thyrsus.com>
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research

In article <1g7wKk#0qW3125rwrX46khOrq5BQ5YL=eric@snark.thyrsus.com>, Eric S. Raymond (esr) writes:

esr> That's correct; no British Bill of Rights, and for that matter no
esr> British Constitution, either.  Their closest historical analogue
esr> was the Magna Carta,

There is a bill of rights too (I have a nagging suspician there are
two or something, but the famous one is the William and Mary one).
There is also the act of union of the English and Scottish
parliaments, there _was_ the act of union with Ireland, I'm not sure
if that is now totally null or whether some of the rules still bind
the British parliament. Also there are lots of laws governing what the
monarch, the government, the commons and the lords can and can't do. 

Examples:
		No lords in the commons.

		Lords doesn't get to interfere with bills related to
		revenue (which is how the poll tax debacle got through
		so easily).

		Monarch must call parliament.

		Commons can bring down the government.

And, the one many people forget, there is the treaty of Rome. This one
makes attempts to get an american style bill of rights for the UK
redundant. It exists and it is supra-national, as it must be to be
effective. I don't think we have had a good test case of what happens
if an EC government digs it's heels in against one of the European
courts and the EC is determined enough to push, should be fun when it
happens.

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk			_O_
					 |<
From: albion@bnr.ca (Alan Buchanan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Election Fraud by the Conservatives
Date: 12 Apr 92 20:40:00 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr10.193459.1828@osf.org> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
>It could be argued that this was a deliberate ploy by the Conservatives.
>Hate to admit it, but I doubt that.
>
>However, I'm very disappointed if this is so.  There have been times, on

On the subject of ploys, has there yet been a judgement on the effect
of MT's inclusion of us ex-pats?

I took the Liberality (sic) of registering through Conservative central
office and then voting according to conscience (or whatever).



                                                    Alan
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
From: dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Is Holohan a dweeb?
Organization: :noitazinagrO
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 18:00:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.083846@mark.enet.dec.com> holohan@mark.enet.dec.com (Mark Holohan) writes:
>(Lord Lloyd) writes:
>|>Ah, I wonder is there an american equivalent of "complete pillock"
>|>Now that would surely fit Mr Holohan perfectly.
>|>
>|>-Jonathan "Cymru am Byth" Lloyd
>
>  There is, we call them Lloyd
>
Oooh! Erudition! Wit!  Hyperbole!  Searing Political and Personal
attacks!  Massed assault by armies of dead sheep!  Help!

>--
>  Mark Holohan, DEC, USA        "Character is what you are in the dark" - BB
In your case, "alone" might be a good description.


-- 
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)    ||-------------------------------|
||Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY 14653-7300|-------------------------------|
|| If Unix is a computer system            ||-------------------------------|
|| then a pile of bricks is a house        ||-------------------------------|
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: bralick@oberon.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: When must general elections be held?
Organization: Self-similar
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:35:06 GMT

In article <43489@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
| In article <1992Apr13.160725.18826@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
| 
| >Would someone explain the parliamentary rules governing when
| >general elections are held?
| 
| A general election is held when the Queen dissolves Parliament.

Hmm...  How long can the Queen keep Parliment "in solution?"  How frequently
can the Queen dissolve the Parliment?

| By convention, the Queen dissolves Parliament when asked to do so by
| her Prime Minister.  In principle, she could refuse, and call instead
| upon any other Member to form a government; this hasn't happened for
| quite a long time.

Does she _have_ to be asked by the PM or can she do so at will?


Best regards,

--
Will                          \ Society cannot exist unless a controlling power
       bralick@cs.psu.edu      \ upon will and appetite be placed somewhere,
                                \ and the less of it there is within, the more
with disclaimer; use disclaimer; \ there must be without.   --   Edmund Burke
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Simple message
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:51:11 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
> In article <1992Apr9.184013.29985@maths.nott.ac.uk> anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr 
> >	Don't be silly.  [More than, actually] *Ten* times as much *value*
> >of computers/cars as I have, and [more than] thirty times as much [and as
> >many, in this case] as my poorer friend, who has none.  VAT is *value* added
> >tax, not *number* added tax.
> 
> So he spends thirty times as much on computers and cars then?

I'm about to buy a computer which is 4x as expensive as the one I used to
have.  My income isn't an order of magnitude away from 4x what it used to be
(I'm talking about disposable income here, once I've subtracted any tax,
rent, NI and so on).

Of course, there's a limit on how long one can buy consumer goods and argue
that they're in some sense necessary.  My old hi-fi equipment lasted me for
about 10 years, and I've been replacing things as they break.  I've got the
amp and speakers to go, then I'll be finished for another decade.

I bought a cheap NICAM video and a new TV (the old one was starting to lose
its picture intermittently) so I don't need to buy another TV or video until
D-MAC takes over or something breaks.  The expensive computer should last at
least 5 years (I have modest needs).  So pretty soon I'll have bought all the
VAT-rated consumer goods I want.

Of course, most people don't stop there.  They want a *better* hi-fi, a
*better* computer, a *better* microwave...  I'm also somewhat atypical in
that I don't have a car, which is an enormous drain on most people's
finances.

The rich seem to find lots of things to spend their extra money on. 
Jewellery, expensive hotels, expensive restaurants, BMWs, private jets,
enormous houses and so on.  None of that appeals to me, but maybe if I were
rich it would.  I live in hope that I'll buck the trend and find myself with
more money than I know what to do with.  (Wonder if the boss is reading
this...)

> >	Thirty times nothing is still nothing.
>
> Yes but thirty times even a Sinclair Spectrum is an expensive computer.

Thirty times a Sinclair Spectrum is a mid-to-high-end Mac or a NeXT.  Add a
big colour screen, a colour Postscript printer and lots of expensive
software and you'll probably have spend 30x the price of an Amiga or cheap PC
clone.


mathew, evil capitalist
-- 
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for them.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: david@guadet.gr.osf.org (David George)
Subject: Re: political parties
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 13:57:10 GMT

In article <JIM.92Apr13115230@hunter.cs.strath.ac.uk> jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim  
Reid) writes:
> 
> What "awful truth"? That people prefer a few quid in their pocket to
> spend on satellite dishes and holidays in Benidorm instead of better
> funded health, education and transport services? (Another superficial
> analysis :-)

I would prefer a 'better' health and education service.  The 'awful truth'
is that the Conservatives have spent more (in real terms) on both health and
education and still havn't provided the customers of this 'service' with value  
for money.  The 'awful truth' as far as Labour is concerned is that they  
couldn't afford to spend any more money (an extra 1.9 Billion) and their  
changes away from an 'internal market' would have lead to a more inefficient  
service.

David

> 
> PR won't happen unless the Conservatives get defeated in a general
> election. The only party with an arithmetically realistic chance of
> doing this is Labour.

hmmmm.... second is nowhere without P.R.
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy)
Date: 15 Apr 92 08:38:50 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <11249@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> skywalker@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>How can you say that the UK is a failing democracy when you
>have a 80% !!!! turnout for the vote ????

The problem in very simple terms is that the British system was
designed to work well in a two-party system, and now we have 3 serious
nationwide parties, plus 3 or 4 others which are serious contenders in
specific areas.  The effect is that in the past few elections the
Conservatives have nabbed huge majorities in the Commons, on the basis
of around 40% of the votes.  Or, in other words, 60% of the people
would rather have had someone else, but can't agree on whom.  (All
numbers are quick and dirty approximations.)  In this particular
election, if there had been a uniform shift of votes from Tory to
Labour across the country, the Tories could have maintained a majority,
or at least a plurality, of seats in the Commons, and thus held
onto the Government, even if Labour came out 1 or 2% ahead in the raw
vote.

Now, this probably would also have been true had some other party won,
but I'm not sure that makes things better.  And, it's almost certainly
true that whoever did win would have been the second choice for some
of the voters who voted some other way, but again...  The 'official line'
is that 'Britain needs a strong government', so that it is important 
that whoever gets power REALLY gets it.  Personally, I question whether
you can reasonably consider a government as truly valid, if it is not
clear that it actually in some way represents a compromise of the wills
of the majority of the electorate.  Certainly, the Government has made
use of its position to push some things through which clearly were
against the desires of the majority of the electorate -- e.g. the Poll
Tax.  

It would be nice to find some way to resolve this problem.  As I said
elsewhere, my feeling is that the answer is to work out some redesign
which separates the concepts of 'party solidarity' and 'viability of
the Government'.  Of course, I don't have an answer -- if I did, I
certainly wouldn't be doing what I do for a living.

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
From: ceci@lysator.liu.se (Ceci Henningsson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: News from Ambridge (was Re: Gas stoves)
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:50:20 GMT
Organization: Lysator Computer Club, Linkoping University, Sweden

dpl@aber.ac.uk (David Philip Langstaff) writes:

>In article <7535@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> colin@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>>Can I add my lone cry to this appeal? 
>>	- Are Sid and Kathy still in flagrante? 

>Sid & Kathy have sorted things out and are back together, although we haven't
>heard much from them as most of the time has been taken up with Jennifer
>(afternoon bonking) Aldridge's little family fun & games, oh and also 
>Cameron-Fraser putting Elizabeth Archer up the stick.(Bastard)

>>	- Has Mr. Archer's pig (Freda?) popped her clogs? 
>Freda was only recently sent down the lane, (bacon butties all round), David
>managed to persuade Phil that she was getting too old and that it would make
>sense.

>>	- Is Ruth still sexually discriminated against by her hubby?
>Ruth is shaping up well, she's made a few assertive claims to the farm
>and has ensured that TGWD (The Great White Dairymaid) is consulted in farm
>decisions. Ruth is also getting on famously with Usha Gupta, Mark's new
>partner in the law firm. The two of them make a team with a real eye for
>mischief.

>>	- Has Mrs. Snell been the victim of a serial killer yet?
>Sadly, no.
>>

Could someone please explain this to me and all the other people who
are totally at a loss about what this is all about? Some kind of a
TV-series is my guess. It seems to have more to do with
soc*culture*british than the political discussions.

--Ceci
--
=====ceci@lysator.liu.se===========================================
"'Bit of a boodwah,' said Nobby, with the air of a connoisseur."
Terry Pratchett: Guards! Guards
===================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,uk.politics
From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft)
Subject: Re: political parties
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 02:24:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.054754.12585@morrow.stanford.edu> francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:

>But there are two parties only; that is the principal result tonight.
>The LibDems were wiped out. Most of their votes went to Labour, although
>the Conservatives picked up a few. Once Michael Foot and the "nasty"
>lefties lost power there was no longer any reason for the "nice" lefties
>to be anywhere but back with Mummie in the Labour Party. Give Kinnock
>credit for a magnificent job of fence-mending; the problem is that the
>Party has become dull and rather Toryish.
>

The real problem is that Labour is simply not a natural majority party.
There is a natural majority party within the opposition, but it is
the LibDems + a large reasonable chunk of the Labour party.

Labour are four time losers.  You simply cannot imagine a better time
for a Labour victory---the Tories were split, demoralized, the economy
sucked, they ran a piss-poor campaign, and yet, and yet, and yet---
Kinnock still couldn't pull it off.

And it's not a problem of the Labour party not being radical enough, it
is a problem of people still not trusting Labour enough.

Poor old Neil---he has to know now that he'll never be PM.  Roy Hattersley
was quoted as being utterly bewildered by what the British people did
in this election.  I think the awful truth is beginning to dawn.

Labour need PR even more than the LibDems...

RNA
From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: MAJOR WINS MAJORITY!!!
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:25:10 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:

>In article <1992Apr10.202526.1@acfcluster.nyu.edu> axd7104@acfcluster.nyu.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Apr10.144725.2121@bristol.ac.uk>, smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
[snip]


>I've noticed the world situation.  The point is that the UK has been
>slipping faster than most of the (industrialized, at least) world.
>Thirteen years ago, the UK was near the top of most comparative EEC
>tables; now it's near the bottom.

He's right. In 1979 we were top of the Strike Chart, now we're at
the bottom. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!

--Jonathan