HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdawson@sebastian.carleton.ca (Ron Dawson)
Subject: Re: MAJOR WINS MAJORITY!!!
Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa Ont.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:52:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.052826.28630@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> jswilson@mta.ca writes:
>After all the doubts of the election polls.... The Conservatives
>win again!!!
>I never doubted for a second that John Major would not win.  He (or rather) and
>the Conservatives are the best bet to pull Britain out of the recession.
>It sure takes your vote counters a long time though.  I didn't know till 5am
>your time that he was elected...1 am my time.

   Best bet to pull them out of a recession?  Hmnn.. who led them into
   a recession?  Anyway, I'm amazed with how slow the polls were in reporting.
   What really surprised me was the BBC and ITN focus on exit polls.
   Found it strange to have the election almost declared before
   getting any actual poll results.
  
>
>Good luck for the next 5 years!
>
   They might need it....

>JSWILSON@MTA.CA
   
   hmnn... don't suppose you also support lyin' Brian here in Canada,
   eh?  ;)

- Ron

rdawson@business.carleton.ca 

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: Tue, 14 Apr 92 23:50:38 GMT

In article <14APR199216300953@zeus.tamu.edu> pac9897@zeus.tamu.edu (SMELLS LIKE JOHN MAJOR....) writes:
>>Do you consider the magazine _The_Economist_ to be a "tabloid" or
>>"tory propaganda"?  Do you consider its editors and writers to be "morons"
>>and "bigots"?
>
>I think it probably fits into the group of Tory propaganda, since you ask.
>Whilst I think it is a good magazine, I really do not think it is
>worth the orgasms that so many Americans seem to have at it's mere mention.
>You may care to remember that The Economist was the magazine that backed
>water and electricity privatization, the introduction of the Poll Tax
>and several other of the less popular Conservative policies. I doubt that
>the Economist has been what one could call objective since Rupert Murdoch
>bought it out in the 1980's.
>

All of which, in concept, are good ideas.  Their execution was another
matter.


Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: pjs@euclid.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter J. Scott)
Subject: When must general elections be held?
Reply-To: pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:07:25 GMT

Would someone explain the parliamentary rules governing when
general elections are held?  I know that usually the governing
party gets to call the shots, unless they lose a vote of no
confidence, but there must be more to it than that, or else
a party with a huge majority could stay in power indefinitely.

-- 
This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    (pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov)


Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:5932 rec.arts.books:7707
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 8 Apr 1992 23:34:42 EDT
From: <DAB16@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: ENGLISH AS SHE IS SPOKE
 <1992Mar17.175309.10922@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu>
 <1992Mar24.204649.15864@eff.org> <1992Apr8.185424.10858@husc3.harvard.edu>

I'm not sure what this thread has to do with books, but no one seems to
mind that it doesn't.  Since "soda pop" was mentioned as a generic U.S.
tag, I'll testify that the midwesterners--not Pennsylvania, but Illinois
(Chicago), Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa--use, though perhaps not exclusively,
simply "pop" not "soda pop."  I'll modify that, as it most often occurs in
other compounds, but without "soda": e.g., "can of pop," "pop machine,"
"pop bottle," etc.  It means any sweet, fizzy beverage (Squirt barely
qualifies).
--Dennis
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dennis Beach                                BITNET: DAB16@PSUVM.BITNET
Penn State University                     internet: dab16@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
From: holohan@mark.enet.dec.com (Mark Holohan)
Subject: Re: Update on the Caraher shooting
Reply-To: holohan@mark.enet.dec.com (Mark Holohan)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 16:56:01 GMT


    
     Dave Jones writes:
|>References are not the same as fact, my friend.
 
That's odd, I thought that references were notes in a publication
that direct a reader to another information source.  Who decided
they were the same as a fact?

|>Bermuda Triangle
|>authors painstakingly quote references: mostly each other.

I can't really comment on Bermuda Triangle authors as I don't
read that trash, I'll have to take your word on that.

|>Now if you
|>had said something about cross-checking references against each other,
|>and other published accounts, looking for independent confirmation, then
|>we'd believe you were taking pains to be historically accurate.

I'll have to pass on this one, as I'm not writing a Masters Thesis,
I'm only posting a note.

                         Have a nice day,

                                Mark

--
*******************************************************************************

  Mark Holohan, DEC, USA        "Character is what you are in the dark" - BB
  holohan@epik.enet.dec.com
  
  The opinions expressed are not necessarily the opinions of 
  Digital Equipment Corporation.

*******************************************************************************
From: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The Decline of Britain (was Re: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy)
Date: 16 Apr 92 07:48:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: osf.1992Apr16.074846.2084
Reply-To: sp@mirabeau.osf.fr (Simon Patience)
Organization: OSF Research Institute

In article <1992Apr15.220220.26232@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes:
> No, no, no, no, no!  The Economist is 50% owned by the Financial Times,
> which is in turn owned by Pearsons.  By the way, those people who think
> that the Economist is a Tory rag should cogitate on the fact that the FT
> endorsed Labour, and that the Economist damned the Tories with faint praise.

To be fair, the Economist also damned the other parties too. In the last
issue before the election they had an article called something like The
worst of the lot, which basically ripped all the parties to bits and
came to the conclusion that it didn't matter who was elected as they all
had policies that would screw the country in one way or another. Very
depressing reading.

Simon.

  Simon Patience
  Open Software Foundation			Phone: +33-76-63-48-72
  Research Institute				FAX:   +33-76-51-05-32
  2 Avenue De Vignate				Email: sp@gr.osf.org
  38610 Gieres, France				       uunet!gr.osf.org!sp
From: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,uk.politics
Subject: Re: elect'n 92: TORY WIN MAKES TERRORISM
Date: 16 Apr 92 11:52:29 GMT
Organization: Chemical & Process Engineering Dept, University of Newcastle, UK.

albion@bnr.ca (Alan Buchanan) writes:


>In article <1992Apr14.161451.22005@newcastle.ac.uk>, w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk writes:

>> But let's say (for the sake of discussion) the conservative party will win
>> the next 2 elections with similar share of the vote and with an overall 
>> majority of the seats.  Do the media seriously think members of fringe
>> extreme left-wing groups and the Scotish and Welsh extreme groups (SNLA and
>> Sons of Glendower) will sit back and do nothing? 
>> 
>> There might be a real danger of terrorism.


>While I am in favour of constitutional change, I would choose to ignore
>this specific line of thought. There is always the possibility of
>people using violence. The circumstances you describe would never justify
>it and I would think that most people who seriously wanted change would do
>their best to prevent such foolish and counter-productive action.

Please do think I was advocating violence or justifying it.  The idea
I had that another term or 3 of conservative government might cause 
terrorism was partly based on what I remember reading about violence
in Italy and Germany in the 60's and 70's.  
I remember (maybe incorrectly) that both states had very long periods of
rule by the same parties and both had upserges in violence.  I think I 
once heard that one possible explanation was that people who opposed the
ruling party strongly turned to terror, as they did not believe supporting
the opposition parties would get things changed.

>It would be for those people considering protests to organise themselves 
>to minimise the risk of violent or uncontrolled action.
From: guy@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Questions on the election
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:57:37 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

finlay_j@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:

>I'd still like to get a final tally of seats of each party, which with
>all the thoughts  and reflections has not been given out yet.

In Great Britain:

Tories		336
Labour		271	
Lib Dems	 20
Plaid Cymru	  4
SNP		  3

In Northern Ireland I think the result was Official Unionists 10,
SDLP 4, Democratic Unionists 2, UPUP 1.


-- 
Guy Barry	Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 | University of Cambridge
		  Fax: +44 (0)223 334678 | Computer Laboratory   
	   JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl | New Museums Site, Pembroke Street
        Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk | Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:5846 soc.culture.celtic:3397
From: holohan@mark.enet.dec.com (Mark Holohan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Is Holohan a dweeb?
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:38:46 GMT
Reply-To: holohan@mark.enet.dec.com (Mark Holohan)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

(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

--
*******************************************************************************

  Mark Holohan, DEC, USA        "Character is what you are in the dark" - BB
  holohan@epik.enet.dec.com
  
  The opinions expressed are not necessarily the opinions of 
  Digital Equipment Corporation.

*******************************************************************************
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Farewell to Kinnock
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:52:29 GMT
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research

In article <21780566@otter.hpl.hp.com>, Andrew Farmer (af) writes:


af> Oh god, don't even think it...Next thing you know, we'll
af> have Fred Housego or Eddie the bloody Eagle as PM...

Great idea! Better an eagle than a turkey.

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk		Does John Smith have ginger pubes, that's
				what the nation is asking!
From: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Election Fraud by the Conservatives
Date: 13 Apr 92 09:51:30 GMT
	<PLUMMER.92Apr10085146@tulum.cs.swarthmore.edu>
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.
In-reply-to: plummer@cs.swarthmore.edu's message of 10 Apr 92 13:51:46 GMT

In article <PLUMMER.92Apr10085146@tulum.cs.swarthmore.edu> plummer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David Barker-Plummer) writes:

   Do you get to be on the roll if you don't pay the Poll Tax?

Yes. [The "poll" in Poll Tax means "per head" rather than something to
do with an election.] The trouble is that many people - typically low
income Labour supporters - are believed to have taken themselves off
the electoral roll in the hope of avoiding the Poll Tax. This is hardly
suprising since local government compiles the electoral roll and uses
this information to send out Poll Tax bills.

		Jim
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Election Fraud by the Conservatives
Keywords: Poll Tax
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:39:10 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: kevinh@hslrswi.hasler.ascom.ch (kevinh)
>Did the poll results take account of the constituency boundary changes
>initiated by the Conservatives a few years ago that gave them a few(!) seats.
>
>Apparently they are planning to do the same again in 94/95 which will
>give them another 15-20 seats (from the Independent 11/4).
>
>Fiddle or what!!

One constituency (Milton Keynes) was divided into two. This is
fair - it is a "new town", with a deliberately planned influx
of population; had it not been divided it would have had far
more electors than any other constituency. Apart from this,
there were no major boundary changes at this election.

Boundary changes are not a fiddle - they are decided by an
independent commission, and there has never been any evidence
that this commission does anything but draw up constituencies
of a roughly equal size with reasonably natural boundaries. The
only fiddle is that Scotland gets smaller constituencies and so
is over-represented.

The problem is the electoral system. Labour tends to pile up
votes in the industrial areas, winning more than it needs,
while the Conservative votes are rather better spread out.

As an example, consider two counties which are not unrealistic
examples of how the situation actually is:

County 1 - population 800,000, returns 5 MPs.
Votes 70% Labour, 20% Conservative, 10% Liberal Democrat.
Assume the votes are in roughly the same proportion in each
constituency, result 5 Labour MPs.

County 2 - population 1,000,000, returns 4 MPs.
Votes 60% Conservative, 20% Labour, 20% Liberal Democrat.
Assume the votes are in roughly eqial proportion in each
constituency, result 4 Conservative MPs.

For the two counties added together the results are

Party            Total Votes         Number of MPs

Conservative     760,000              4
Labour           760,000              5
Liberal Democrat 280,000              0

The boundary commission would in this case clearly see that
county 1 should have one MP less, and county 2 one MP more. It
does not take into account the politics of the counties. As a
result of the boundary changes, Labour loses a seat and the
Conservatives gain one.

Population changes in the UK mean there are quite a lot of
cases where areas like county 1 have more MPs than they are
due, and areas like county 2 less. That is why bounmdary
changes are usually favourable to teh Conservatives.

This example also shows why the LibDems win a considerable
proportion of the votes but few MPs.

Matthew Huntbach
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Any minority candidates?
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:39:57 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

In article <1992Apr13.110717.3834@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew |> Labour also have Ghanaian Paul Boateng, and the Asian member
|> who won the Langbaurgh by-election earlier this year and kept
|> his seat. The Tories have their first Asian member, elected for
|> Brentford and Isleworth in the general election.
|>
Wrong again - I checked and actually Ashok Kumar lost
Langbargh. However Ealing Southall (probably the constituency
with the highest proportion of Asian voters - over 40%) was won
by an Asian for Labour.

Matthew HUntbach
From: albion@bnr.ca (Alan Buchanan)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Women in parliament
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:50:42 GMT
Reply-To: alanbu@bnr.ca
Followup-To: soc.culture.british
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa
Originator: albion@bcrks63


In article <RJC.92Apr13180831@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk>, rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:

> 
> The Blue Witch was once described as the greatest own goal ever scored
> by feminism. With her as a role model I would think that any woman who
> didn't want to be perceived as a direct decendent of Atilla the Hun
> would avoid (party) politics. 
> 

While I know that her policies were very damaging to the position of women
I would think that in the long term she provided a useful role model.

She was a conviction politicion for whom being a woman meant less than being
her own person. She is fairly unique for any politician in that she dominated
the world stage.

I would similarly believe that Mme. Cresson has made her impact in French
politics even though her term was brief.

I suspect that it is that much easier for a woman to claim her right than it
was before. 

We should just hope for a greater choice of competent women being allowed
such an opportunity. We have seen some such women in the SNP, Labour,
Alliance, and Conservatives, to name the prominent parties, therefore there
is little limitation by political viewpoint.

It is then up to each woman to determine whether her sex is a notable
feature.



                                       Alan


--
Alan Buchanan       Bell-Northern Research, Ltd       Ph.: (613) 763-2750
Silicon Design      P.O. Box 3511, Station C          Fax: (613) 763-3970
  Methods           Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Y 4H7  

alanbu@bnr.ca        

        Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.
                         - William Butler Yeats
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Don't let the other side win (was Re: Simple message)
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:28:23 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

simon@cs.city.ac.uk (Simon Brock-Gunn) writes:
> In article <1992Mar26.101543.25054@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew H
> >Whatever government arrangement is made surely depends as much
> >on how the Labour and Conservative parties react to the
> >situation as it does on how the Liberal Democrats react. Thus
> >they ought to answer the question "what will you do?" to just
> >the same extent as the media forces the Liberal Democrats to.
> 
> There are two reasons why they shouldn't:
> 
> 1 The Liberal Democrats have as much chance of forming a government in
>   their own right as do the Monster Raving Loony Party.

Untrue.  According to the polls, 47% of people would vote Liberal Democrat if
they thought the Liberal Democrats stood a chance of winning.  That's higher
than either of the other two parties.  So the conclusion that the Liberal
Democrats can't win is predicated entirely on the assumption that the Liberal
Democrats can't win.

So basically, the Liberal Democrats CAN form a government in their own right;
and that statement is only untrue if you assume that it is untrue.

>   their only possible role - in a hung parliament.  It is not patently
>   obvious from their political views which of Labour or Conservatives they
>   would join with, so there is only one way of finding out - ask them.
>   Since we don't get a reply, we just have to keep asking.

I've heard the reply several times.  They'll join with whichever party
produces (in their view) the best policies for Britain, if and only if that
party makes a definite commitment to PR (subject to a referendum, of course).


mathew

-- 
Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we get
away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! /
PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U2
CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:6190 soc.culture.celtic:3521
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Election Results
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:01:59 GMT

David George writes:

	Craig Cockburn writes:
 
		However, the Conservatives still have a tiny number 
		of MPs in Scotland, and so the constitutional question 
		there still remains. 

	Maybe the Tories could introduce P.R. to Scotland as an 
	experiment ?

I take it that David has his tongue firmly in his cheek. If you accept
that Major is more of a pragmatist than Thatcher ever was, then it seems
to me that he will get behind Devolution. By the same token, if the SNP
is to be more than a one-issue party, then they must also get on the
Devolution bandwagon and downplay whatever future goals they might have.

						Francis Muir

francis@sep.stanford.edu

Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.politics.british
From: mickp@metro (Michael Patrick)
Subject: Re: Rampant paranoia (was Voting slips: what happens to them,DANGER!)
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 22:50:35 GMT

Interesting and slightly scary stuffthis ability to trace how you voted...

However, right now it would be quite useful in order to track down exactly
which idiots were stupid/masochistic/ignorant/self-centred/gullible enough
to vote Tory last week. If I weren't marooned here on the wrong (right?)
side of the panet I'd like to come around and box afew ears...

I had a lot of trouble with the Electoral Registration Office in Manchester
trying to ensure that I got my proxy vote. Perhaps because I voted 'the wrong way' last time?....

I guess there should be some discussion regarding opinion and exit polls and
how they can be so reliably wrong. Unless of course the whole thing was fixed...

Sorry if this is out of date, but I only get this mail updated sporadically.

Mick Patrick
mickp@ee.su.oz.au

Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 14:01:18 GMT

In article <x$dH?p3s6@cs.psu.edu> bralick@oberon.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.170606.15280@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:

>| Congress and the President are two totally separate institutions.  The
>| congressional representatives are elected by districts (approx. 1/2 million
>| population) and represent those districts during their term.  The President
>| is elected by the people at large every four years--not by the congressional
>| representatives.

>I am afraid that this turns out to be incorrect.  The president is 
>elected by the Electoral College whose sole function is to elect the 
>President.  The people actually vote for the electors who then decide
>who is to be president.  The electors for a state are equal to the
>number of representatives (in the House) plus the number of senators.
>Those who are paying attention will notice that small (population) 
>states have `better' representation in the Electoral College.

It's true that the electors vote for president rather than the popular
vote itself, but the electors are not part of Congress.  They also almost
never vote against the person they were elected to vote for.  I think once
in the last 100 years, one elector voted against the person he was to have
voted before, because he thought they shouldn't get a majority.

Also, in addition to the fact that the number of electors includes a number
equal to the number of senators, each state's electoral college vote goes
entirely to the winner of the majority of votes.  Thus if a state goes
nearly 100% for a candidate, they still get the same number of votes as if
they went 51% for the candidate.  This is the major cause of the election
where less than 50% of the popular vote elects the president (as in the
Kennedy-Nixon election of 1960).