HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matthew@ntl02.decnet.nokia.fi (Matthew Faupel)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Women in parliament
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:34:03 GMT
	<1222@lysator.liu.se>
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications, Cambridge, UK

In article <1222@lysator.liu.se> ceci@lysator.liu.se (Ceci Henningsson) writes:

> Someone talked about minority candidates for parliament and I got the
> impression that they were under-representated. How about women?

Yes they are.  In the recently returned parliament, 53 seats (out of 651)
are occupied by women.

> How many female candidates were there? 

I think it was just over a thousand, but that includes the minority parties
(e.g. Greens and Natural Law) which stood no chance of getting in.  The
Independent on Sunday gave a breakdown by party - I can post the figures
tomorrow.

> Were there any significant differences between the parties as to the
> percentage of each gender's candidates?  

Yes.  LibDems > Labour > Conservative.  None of the parties fielded anywhere
near 50% female candidates.  The Conservative party fielded significantly
fewer female candidates than the other two.  Again I can post exact figures
tomorrow.

> Does any party in Britain use a qota system for gender representation
> the way many European environment parties do?

None of the major ones (though maybe the Greens do).

> One might think that having a female prime minister for many years
> would make a country more open to women in politics. Has this
> happened? 

Hmmm.... She was female? :-) Seriously though, more women candidates were
fielded by the major parties than ever before and more have actually been
elected.  Also, John Major's new cabinet has two women members (though this
may have been outdone by a previous Labour administration; I can't remember
that far back...)  My personal assessment of Margaret Thatcher's
contribution to all this is that she proved that it was possible for a woman
to succeed in politics, but she didn't do anything to actively encourage
other women at all.

> I heard that tory politicians had made outright racist statements
> about a coloured tory candidate, have similar things happened to
> female candidates?

Not that I've heard; I think the media is in general less likely to report
sexism than racism though.  Incidentally, it was some members of the local
party in Cheltenham who made racist remarks about the Tory candidate for
that area rather than any of the main-line Tory politicians (though Nicholas
Fairbairn made some remarks of his own on immigration!)


Matthew
--
---* Amnesiac the Wizard *------------------* matthew@uk.tele.nokia.fi *---
 Opinions expressed here are not those of my company.    | NB. ntl02 is EN
 They're not even my own; I plagiarised the lot of them! | TEE EL ZERO TWO
---* matthew@ntl02.decnet.nokia.fi *------------------* Matthew Faupel *---
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: re: Gas Stoves
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 05:29:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 


>In article <#ctjjnf.sue@netcom.com> sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:
>>
>>Just an aside - the USA (not "American", the Americas comprise many
>>nations) Sweet Tooth pales when compared to the UK Sweet Tooth.  
>>I believe that the country which wins the most-sugar-consumed-per-capita 
>>race is Scotland, followed closely by England.  
>>
>
>At least we Scots have the 'taste' to eat the sugar raw, or with sugar
>extract and concentrate of sugar.

You must have interpreted my statements above as some sort of
judgement.  They were not.  My comments in this thread have been
confined to observations on some of the "explanations" given
for why the bread in the USA is allegedly bad-tasting.  I personally
have no interest in whether or not it is, or even why it is or might
be.  Continuing this lack of interest, I also don't care how
the Scots consume their sugar.  I'm just apathetic about all these
subjective "taste" questions.

>It came as a big disappointment when I tasted my first 'Italian' in
>California and discovered that sugar had been used instead of salt.

Geez, can I help it if you didn't know where to eat?  :-)

>In my day, eating Italian was rivalled only by eating Indian in Glasgow.

I guess I'll try it then (Indian in Glasgow).
From: lanthony@cs.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: KINGS COLLEGE LONDON ARE YOU THERE?
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:10:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Leigh Anthony 			On Exchange from Kings College, London,
Texas A&M University, TX	England.

Can anyone give me the Internet node and address for Kings College London
as I would like to telnet to my account there. Cheers.


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

"The lust for power is rooted not in strength, but in weakness..." - Erich Fromm

Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: British Bill: of Rights? of Goods?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:24:00 GMT


If you don't have a written Constitution that requires some kind
of super-majority to amend, then what is there to stop the current
government from changing the election rules any which way it wants (besides
fear of riots).  Surely, the government couldn't just unilaterally
declare that elections would henceforth be held every 7 years or that
the incumbent party could put a "lock" on a hundred constituencies of its
choice, or could they?   And if they could not do this, then what would
be the appropriate mechanism for amending the election rules?






Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
From: dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: A Comte society
Organization: :noitazinagrO
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 13:06:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr06.003840.13690@dircon.co.uk> uad1189@dircon.co.uk (Dave Yadallee) writes:
>
>TO start, my views are my own and are subject
>
>to anyone's scruntanity.
>
>Also,  about newspapers,  I prefer to read the 
>
>Times of London, but a notice:  The Express
>
>does publish internationally, and is not my favourite parper.
>(etc)

<sigh>  It's no use.  I kept marking this article to come back, so
I could embellish it with some witty parody, another E.J. Thribb
pastiche perhaps, or a snatch of Paul Neil Milne Jennings.  But
inspiration arriveth not, and who is surprised, given that our dizzy
fried DSY is such an effective self-parody?  Who can improve on such
wondrous nonsense?  My hat is off to you, Dave, for manufacturing an
expression of terminal thickness that defies ridicule.  Try writing
an election manifesto next.

-- 
||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: uk.politics,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
From: miriam@legs.gps.caltech.edu (Miriam Jackson)
Subject: Re: Polling and newspapers request
Keywords: April 9th and April 11th
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:25:10 GMT

Well, I've been watching the election results for the
last few hours and it's pretty disappointing.

Here's a summary - so far the conservatives have 321 seats
			      labour have        269 seats
			      liberal democrats  16 seats
			      others             12 seats.

Not all the results are in yet and the predictions are:
conservatives - 335 seats
labour        - 271 seats
lib. dems.    -  21 seats
others        -  24 seats.   Total seats = 651

This would give the tories a majority of 19.
there was a swing nationally from the conservatives to labour of
2.5%. the turnout was 77.9%. 

From the results so far, conservatives have gained 8 and lost 44
			 labour        have gained 44 and lost 4
			 lib dems      have gaines 4 and lost 8.
The big news is that Chris patten, the conservative party chairman
is out, Lynda Chalker is out and Rosie Barnes is out (i.e. the SDP
have gone).  Glenda jackson for labour in Hampstead and Highgate and
Seb Coe is in for the Tories in Tynemouth (makes me ashamed to be a
Geordie, but at least it's not my constituency).  

The gains for labour, in the order I wrote them down, are:
Hyndburn
Pendle
Nuneaton
Bristol East
Glasgow Govan (a regain from the SNP)
Darlington 
Rossendale and Darwen
Warrington South
Thurrock
Walthamstow (regain)
Thurrock
Hornsey and Wood Green
Cambridge (Lynda Chalker out)
Wallasey
Feltham and Heston
Plymouth Devonport
Medway
Croydon NW
Barrow and Furness
Ellesmere Port and Neston
Birmingham Northfield
Cannock and Burntwood
Stoke on Trent
Lancashire West
Southampton Itchen
Nottingham East
    "      South
Dulwich
Warwickshire North
Birmingham Yardley
Streatham
Sherwood
York
Greenwich
lewisham West
    "    East
Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda jackson in)
Ipswich


Conservative gains are Southport
Newham NW
Ribble Valley (regain)
Monmouth
Staffordshire ?  (regain)
Langbaugh (regain)
Aberdeen South
Kincarden and Deneside

Lib Dems gained:
Bath (from conservatives, Chris patten out)
Cornwall North

Plaid Cymru gained Ceredigion and Pembroke.

My apologies for any spelling mistakes or any other mistakes.
I haven't got any time to type in all the results but if anyone
wants to send e-mail to me  go ahead.
                       :-C
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: Tue, 14 Apr 92 02:17:33 GMT

 
In article <JIM.92Apr13115230@hunter.cs.strath.ac.uk> jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.022452.4346@leland.Stanford.EDU> rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes:
>
>   The real problem is that Labour is simply not a natural majority party.
>
>So how come there have been 4 Labour governments since WW2?
>

The last one being voted in in 1974.  That's 18 years ago.  Britain has 
changed drastically in that time.  How many conservative govts have we
had since WWII?  Well, 4 _since_ 1974 (including the latest) so it is
probably at least twice that number.

>   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.
>
>It's wrong to make Kinnock the scapegoat for Labour's failure. When
>you consider the state his party was in when he took over, Kinnock has
>achieved the impossible by making Labour (almost) electable.

I'm not at all making Kinnock a scapegoat.  I think he did as well as anyone
could have in the circumstances.  The point being that everything went as
well as Labour could expect AND THEY STILL LOST...


>   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.
>
>What "awful truth"?

That unless they club up with the Libs or amalgamate or lose their left
wing or do something equally drastic, they aren't going to see the inside
of #10 Downing St for a very long time to come.

>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.

But this election just proved that Labour has a no chance whatsoever in
its current form, by itself.  A Lib-Lab pact might do it, just.  But that
might destroy the Labour party.  Which would take us back to the turn of
the century.

RNA
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Election Fraud by the Conservatives
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:45:05 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: plummer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David Barker-Plummer)
>Do you get to be on the roll if you don't pay the Poll Tax?

The electoral roll and poll tax roll are supposed to be two
separate things. However since both contain the same thing -
names and addresses of everyone over 18, people compiling the
poll tax roll can look at the electoral roll and if anyone is
registered to vote but not on the poll tax roll they can
proceed with further investigations.

So, no, paying the poll tax is not a condition for getting the
vote; you don't even have to be registered for the poll tax to
get a vote. But the poll tax is a strong disincentive for
registering to vote.

Matthew Huntbach
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: My final word
Keywords: April 9th
Organization: :noitazinagrO
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 13:51:52 GMT

Dave Yadallee writes:
> Subject: My final word

Oh yes, oh please let it be......

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Flugg's Law:
	When you need to knock on wood is when you realize that the
	world is composed of vinyl, naugahyde and aluminum.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
||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: Maine Yankee <jmwise@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Pommy consulate address/#
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 01:22:32 GMT



Could someone so kindly post the British Consulate's phone number
and address for Chicago? Please? 

Thanks in advance.

-- 
Johanna M. Wise                         VMS: jmwise@gold.ucs.indiana.edu
Music is a life-long love affair.      NeXT: jmwise@cherokee.ucs.indiana.edu
                                       Unix: jmwise@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu
From: mkaziz@vela.acs.oakland.edu (KHALED AZIZ)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Help!!
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:52:59 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

Can anybody provide me with the host address of the University of Leeds?
Thanks in advance.

mkaziz@vela.acs.oakland.edu 
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:6175 soc.culture.europe:3695 soc.culture.german:3019
From: IM10001@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Kristof Kovacs)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.german
Subject: Trip to Budapest, HU.
Date: 12 Apr 92 18:45:34 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System


Hi,

I would be very thankful for any info on the cheapest way to get to Budapest
from Brussels.  Is there any Bus services from England or Germany or
maybe from Brussels even??  What about train?  How much would that cost
me?  And if anyone by any chance would go in that direction on May the
5th or the following days, than I could share gas and would be very
happy with that soultion too!  I go to Belgum instead of going to Bp.
directly because I found a very good deal flying into Brussels from the
US.  (i am studying in the US)  Thanks in advance, best regards -
Kristof Kovacs
From: apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 09:25:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Election Fraud by the Conservatives
Organization: Hewlett-Packard NSG-PWD, UK.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british

jlb10@cl.cam.ac.uk (John Beaven) writes:
>I've heard that comparisons between demographic studies and
>the 1991 census suggest that a million adults have "disappeared" from
>Britain. (roughly, take population in 1981, add births and immigrants, 
>substract deaths and emigrants, compare with 1991 population).
>
>I wonder if that might be a reason why the polls were so wrong. Perhaps
>pollsters managed to get trough to the "disappeard" (how are their samples
>selected?) who expressed some voting intentions rather than admitting 
>that they had become disenfranchised to avoid the poll tax?

I don't think this explanation for the polls' wide margin of error works;
don't forget that the exit polls were almost as wrong as the pre-election
day polls, and these obviously cannot have been affected by failure to register.

Andrew
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Can YOU predict the election outcome? - **RESULTS**
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:28:45 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <1992Apr13.091821.22941@city.cs> simon@cs.city.ac.uk (Simon Brock-Gunn) writes:
>Below is a complete list of all the predictions I received of the number
>of seats each party would get in the new parliament.  

>rank err   Con Lab  LD SNP  sender
>       0   336 271  20   3  (Actual Result)
> 1    45   327 302  17   5  Ian.Taylor@rcvie.co.at (Ian Taylor)

>So the award of "Voice of the People" goes to ... drum roll ... 
>Ian.Taylor@rcvie.co.at (Ian Taylor).

Unfair!  Ian Taylor predicted a total of 651 MPs for a subset of the
British mainland parties when there are only 634 seats in Great
Britain.  I know the Conservatives were standing in Northern Ireland,
but if he really thought they'd take all 17 seats there he can
hardly be credited with the most accurate result.
--
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
From: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Simple message
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:40:13 GMT
Reply-To: anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker)
Organization: Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.

In article <1992Apr9.075013.15123@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
(Michael Traub) writes:
>He has *thirty* times as many computers? *Thirty* times as many cars?

	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.

> [...]

	Your further abuse deleted.

>>	In that case, you are still spending thirty times as much as you
>>would if on the smaller income.
>
>Sorry, want to take that more slowly?

	Thirty times nothing is still nothing.

>I  claim  the  VAT  back  on  the  majority  of VAT-rated goods I currently
>purchase,  and  I  actually  don't  remember  saying  that I buy negligible
>quantities  of  VAT-rated  goods  in  the  first  place. While my household
>expenditure  would  drop  slightly  if  I  was  unemployed it would drop on
>*non* VAT-rated items.

	You said that already had all the luxury [which you are now equating
with VAT-rated] items you require, and that a drastic loss of income would
make no difference to your expenditure on them.  Most households, mine
included, are in no position to claim back most of our VAT [which clobbers
most things other than food and children's clothes];  how do you manage it?
Do you claim shirts, bicycles, theatre tickets as business expenses, or
what?  Enquiring minds wish to know.

-- 
Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk
From: uad1189@dircon.co.uk (Dave Yadallee)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: My final word
Keywords: April 9th
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:19:31 GMT


  On April 9th, Keep the UK United.  Vote LDem.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:6300 soc.culture.celtic:3543
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Women in parliament
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:08:31 GMT
	<1222@lysator.liu.se>
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research

In article <1222@lysator.liu.se>, Ceci Henningsson (ch) writes:

ch> Someone talked about minority candidates for parliament and I got the
ch> impression that they were under-representated. How about women?

I'm not sure how it compares with the underrepresentation of
minorities, but the representation of women is fairly dire.

ch> Were there any significant differences between the parties as to the
ch> percentage of each gender's candidates?  

I don't know the figures, but from watching announcements of results
it looked like very few conservatives, not many Labour, a few LibDems,
lots of greens and lots of Natural Law Party women. The Monster Raving
Loonie's had none, Lord Bucket Head was himself and I didn't see
anyone from Miss Whiplash's mob.

(`lots of' above means perhaps 20% :-().

ch> One might think that having a female prime minister for many years
ch> would make a country more open to women in politics. Has this
ch> happened? 

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. 

ch> I heard that tory politicians had made outright racist statements
ch> about a coloured tory candidate, have similar things happened to
ch> female candidates?

Not that I have heard, but then the openly racist comments are not
very above board either. I'd guess that a lot more goes on at local
level where it is safe from the media.

Clair Short took a few knocks, but she was being explicitly feminist
(or at least as far that way as a party politician would ever get), so
I suspect that she was threatening to just the kind of people who when
feeling insecure are likely to play the sexist card. 

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk				_O_
						 |<
From: jhill@coral.bucknell.edu (HILL, S JACKSON)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Oxford lore question
Keywords: slang
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:58:00 GMT
Distribution: world

I saw a reference the other day to "Pop" Hall, Oxford.  I take it to be a
nickname for one of the colleges.  If any one can enlighten me, please post
here or e-mail.  Thanks.    jhill@bucknell.edu
Organization: Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA, USA
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1
From: matthew@ntl02.decnet.nokia.fi (Matthew Faupel)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:06:22 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.british
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications, Cambridge, UK

In article <12APR199219114424@zeus.tamu.edu> pac9897@zeus.tamu.edu writes:

> What Great Britain (and notice they have PR in Northern Ireland because
> the Westminster parties are fully aware that PR tends toward fairer 
> representation) has now is not real democracy, it is an elected dictatorship
> that relies on 42% of voters - the majority of who live in the home counties
> to force their policies on everyone else.

I agree with what you've written, but I thought I ought to point out that PR
is only used in Northern Ireland for voting for the European Parliament.  For
all other elections (including the general one we've just had) first past the
post is used.


Matthew
--
---* Amnesiac the Wizard *------------------* matthew@uk.tele.nokia.fi *---
 Opinions expressed here are not those of my company.    | NB. ntl02 is EN
 They're not even my own; I plagiarised the lot of them! | TEE EL ZERO TWO
---* matthew@ntl02.decnet.nokia.fi *------------------* Matthew Faupel *---