HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 20:09:58 GMT

In article <ji7i7r0@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>But each European country pays a price for its good statistics.   France
>has high unemployment, Germany has a balance of payments deficit,
>Italy has huge public debt.    So when you compare country for country,
>things look a little better.   Not perfect, but not disastrous.
>
>jon.

If by "balance of payments deficit" you mean a trade deficit, you are
wrong.  Germany traditionally runs a trade surplus.  This has been changed
to a slight trade deficit because of reunification, but they are already
moving back to a surplus.

Of the European countries, Germany has traditionally the best macro policies,
which are a little tattered (OK, maybe a lot tattered) by the refusal of
its politicians to face the true costs of reunification.  France may actually
have the best macro policies at the moment---they have the lowest inflation.
Unfortunately they have some of the highest unemployment, suggesting that
they have too many microeconomic frictions.

RNA

Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
From: potter@movies.enet.dec.com (Alan T Potter)
Subject: Re: Why wait 5 years?
Organisation: VMS Engineering, DEC, Scotland
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:23:25 GMT


livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes...
>Am I the only one who is beginning to think that whatever the Scots
>claim to want, in practice they act so as to minimize achieving it,
>and to maximise the opportunity to whinge afterwards.

Jon,

I think that you confuse the Scots (the people who make up the populace of that
part of Britain known as Scotland) with the loudmouths who think that they
represent the scots when, in fact, they represent nobody.

I think that I would be rather insulted if you associated me with Alex Salmond
just because I am from Scotland.  And remember, the person who started this
whole "let weak Scots die so as to further scottish independence" thread was in
fact from Manchester.

regards,
/atp

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| potter@movies.enet.dec.com | My opinions are my own, not DEC's. 0506 423307 |
|   Alan T Potter - GM7GLJ   |   VMS Engineering, Livingston, UK, EH54 6AG    |
+----Hand me the wine and the dice, while I have thirst and lust for living---+
From: banarji@unixg.ubc.ca (Ajai Banarji)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Any minority candidates?
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:26:23 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada


		ANY MINORITY CANDIDATES?

  I am interested in knowing how many minority candidates have been
put up by the major parties in this election. If I remember right, there
were a couple of Asians who won on a Labour ticket last time. Have the
Tories got round to picking any Asian or West Indian candidates so far?
From: awrc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Al Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Dictionary of American and English Usage (part 01/02)
Date: 6 Apr 92 11:25:34 GMT
Reply-To: awrc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Al Crawford)
Organization: The University Of Edinburgh - Department Of Computer Science

And lo, jwb@capek.rdt.monash.edu.au (Jim Breen) spake unto the masses saying:
>
>> high school n : grades 9-12 (ages ~15-18)
>> high school diploma n : high school graduating certificate
>> high (school), senior n : grades 10-12 (ages ~16-18)
>
> Called "Forms 1 - 6" in the UK?

It varies. I believe that is the standard term in use in English schools
but certainly it wasn't the terminology we used at my school here in
Scotland. The Scottish scheme is something like...

Primary school is attended for seven years from ~5 to ~11 or 12. The years
are known as "Primary 1", "Primary 2" (or P1, P2) etc.

Secondary school is attended for between four and six year from 12 to 18.
The years, at least at the school I attended, were known as "1st year",
"2nd year" or alternatively as S1, S2, S3 and so on. The term "form" was
never used,

All the above was certainly the case at my school and at several others
I've heard of, although it is by no means guaranteed to be universal.

Oh, and referring back to the original poster, there isn't any notion of a
"high school diploma" here, although there has been some talk of
introducing one. The only certificate I received on finishing high school
was a "leaving certificate" which was only really to show that I'd returned
all my books :-)>

--
		      Al Crawford - awrc@dcs.ed.ac.uk
       "Breakdown. Splinter. A thousand fragments disperse and die."
From: zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff Lane)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Election Fraud by the Conservatives
Date: 14 Apr 92 09:19:53 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, England.

In article <1992Apr13.161413.3133@tcom.stc.co.uk> bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro) writes:
>[stuff omitted about electorial and poll tax registers]
>The opposite of my experience. My third initial was transcribed wrongly
>from my electoral register form (K instead of C). This was a couple of
>years before the Poll Tax. Surprise, surprise! When the Poll Tax bills
>dropped onto the mat they contained the same incorrect initial.
>Bruce Munro.  <bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!ukc!stc!bruce


Wouldn't the Data Protection Registrar be interested in cases such as this?









-- 
Geoff. Lane.                                  Janet: zzassgl@uk.ac.mcc.uts
UTS Sys Admin, Manchester Computing Centre, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9PL
From: cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Chris Cooke)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: British leftist losers
Date: 16 Apr 92 10:54:00 GMT
	<1992Apr15.151324.27517@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
In-reply-to: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk's message of 15 Apr 92 15:13:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.151324.27517@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:

   Firstly, the Labour Party does not support proportional
   representation.

Yes it does.  For the Scottish parliament.  It's only a matter of time before
they support it for the UK parliament too.
--
	-- Chris. 	cc@dcs.ed.ac.uk   (on Janet, cc@uk.ac.ed.dcs)
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Simple message
Date: 8 Apr 92 08:01:32 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <1992Apr7.163729.15579@maths.nott.ac.uk> anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.120625.9921@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
>(Michael Traub) writes:
>
>[abount consuming VAT-rated goods in proportion to income]
>>I didn't ask if it was *possible*, I asked if it was probable.
>
>	Do you *really* think that I am not spending more than three times
>as much as B on these [and many other] things?  Or that A is not spending
>more than ten times as much again?
>
Freom your own examples I can see no mention of A spending thity times
as much as B on VAT rated goods. Wanna try again?

>>								While you
>>insist you would employ ten times as many maids and gardeners I don't
>>believe you.
>
>	Well, that's a little unfortunate.  You're too far away for us
>to fight a duel.  How do you suggest we resolve this?
>
Try telling the truth?

>>		I may consume three times the amount I consumed as a student
>>but my income is now *thirty* times what it was as a student!
>
>	Students rarely own houses, have wives and 2.2 children, etc.  It's
>difficult to extrapolate from the typically rather bizarre student patterns
>of expenditure to what people spend when they have responsibilities and a
>steady job.  How much do you think your expenditure on luxury goods would
>decline *now* if your income were slashed by 97%?
>
It wouldn't change at all. I have all the luxury goods I require already
(and I bought most of them while I was a student).

>>In case you hadn't realised you don't pay *any* tax on a mortgage.
>
>	For A and I, the difference between paying a tax and not being
>allowed a tax relief is zero.
>
But for B who doesn't own a house the tax relief is irrelevant so it
is yet another example of inequitable tax!

>>Would  your  house be ten times as large? Would you have 30 bedrooms rather
>>than  3?
>
>	See example above.  He certainly owns more than 20, to my 2-and-a-bit.
>
Does A have thirty times as many rooms as B?

>>Can  you  actually  provide any examples showing that a person on ten times
>>the income of another person pays ten times the amount of VAT?
>
>	See examples above.
>
I did, where was the example of VAT rated goods?

>>								If not then
>>you should agree that VAT is an unfair tax.
>
>	I actually passed no comment whatsoever on the fairness of VAT.
>But as a matter of fact, I believe that VAT is about the *fairest* tax
>that we *currently* have.

That was rather obvious from your attitude.

>That's not to say that it couldn't be made
>more fair.  Certainly, income tax, as *currently* constituted, is very
>far from fair;  so are all the rates schemes, old and new;  so are TV
>licence fees, etc.
>
Well we can agree on that much.



-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: migod@turing.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey)
Subject: Re: Natural Law
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:21:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.122702.7674@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>From: skenny@nano.engr.mun.ca (Shawn Kenny)
>>I saw an article on the CBC National News about the "Natural Law Party"
>>with the company of the Maharishi, Doug Henning and George Harrison. I
>>was wondering whether this was on the ballot and if so how many votes
>>did it get from the populous?
>
>It is extremely easy to get on the ballot in the UK. To get a
>candidate on the ballot in any constituency, all you need is
>the signatures of 10 of its electors. You also have to pay #500
>which is returned if you get over 5% of the vote, but this was
>clearly no problem for the Maharishi. 

It's similar in Canada, but the numbers are a bit higher, I think.

What I found amazing is that Henning (a reasonably well-known stage
magician) was allowed to stand without being a British citizen.
Apparently, all you need is Commonwealth citizenship to run (Henning is
Canadian).

(Until recently, all you needed was commonwealth citizenship to vote in
Canada.)

The "natural law" folks recently bought a huge chunk of land near Niagara
Falls Ontario with the intent of turning it into a theme park.

-- 
Mike Godfrey   	           		"Either that wallpaper goes, or I do."
Dept of Comp Sci, UofT      	         	-- allegedly, the last words
migod@turing.toronto.edu			   of Oscar Wilde
From: kevinh@hslrswi.hasler.ascom.ch (kevinh)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:18:41 GMT
Reply-To: kevinh@hslrswi.hasler.ascom.ch
Organization: Ascom Hasler AG
Originator: kevinh@nath


In article <jflm94s@zola.esd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> 
|> There is no ANSI standard for political ideas, and democracy
|> isn't supposed to be a system for producing sensible ideas, but
|> rather one for letting people chose the ideas they want, no
|> matter how daft.   If only twenty percent voted Liberal Democrat
|> then their ideas may be sensible as you like, but popular they 
|> ain't.

But a party (LibDem) that should have received 116 seats in the Commons,
based upon the number of people who voted for them, and actually received 
21 (3%) is not, IMHO, democracy.

|> As for the voting system, there really is no requirement that
|> every time someone comes up with a party that can get twenty
|> percent of the votes, we have to find a way to let them run
|> the country twenty percent of the time, or have twenty percent
|> of the influence.   Do we have to let the National Front run
|> the country one percent of the time?

As we live in a democratic society everybody has there right to speak 
however distasteful you might find what they are actually saying. The green
party actually received around 1% of the vote and should be there in
parliament with their 6 seats to represent the people who voted for them.

|> You are perfectly correct when you say that third parties get 
|> short-changed under the present system, but that does not lead to
|> the conclusion that we ought to change the system just because
|> a third party has popped up.

That's not the point, as you well know. The point is that it took
over 300,000 votes to elect every LibDem MP, and around 40,000 to
elect every Tory MP - is that fair?

kevinh@hasler.ascom.ch
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: jswilson@mta.ca (SCOTT_WILSON)
Subject: Re: MAJOR WINS MAJORITY!!!
Reply-To: jswilson@mta.ca
Organization: Mount Allison U, Sackville, N.B. Canada 
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:44:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.055233.397@cunews.carleton.ca>, rdawson@sebastian.carleton.ca (Ron Dawson) writes:

>   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....

    NOT!!!!

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

  Actually I do support some of Mr. Mulroney's policies.  He has the balls
to actually introduce policies which hurt the people but help the country's
deficeit and reduce inflation.  He is just trying to get Canada in a 
fit mode so that we can learn how to do business in the REAL WORLD without
protective barriers.  True the introduction of GST and Free Trade with the US
at the same time didn't help.  However, Britain is in a recession for a # of
reasons, part of which is why we are in recession.... The high spending of
the US Government, and the crash of their banking system.  As well, it was the
banks which loaned the people too much money, the Government as far as I know
don't control who gets the loans or how much money they get.
     Mr. Major inherited recessionary Britain from Margaret Thatcher (true
he was the Bank of England's -or something - I can't remember now -  head
guy).  The whole world is in a recession in case you didn't notice.  Just 
look at Tokyo's stock prices this week - as compared to the British ones.
 
>
>- Ron
>
>rdawson@business.carleton.ca 
>
From: mrw@cl.cam.ac.uk (Michael Warner)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Simple message
Date: 10 Apr 92 10:21:48 GMT
Reply-To: mrw@cl.cam.ac.uk (Michael Warner)
Organization: U of Cambridge Comp Lab, UK

In article <1992Apr9.080008.15420@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>Just in case you really are, people on low incomes spend a far higher
>proportion of their salary on mortgages than people on higher incomes.
>This is fact, if you don't believe me check with your building society.

And mortgages are non-VAT.   Therefore, the above would suggest that
the rich pay proportionally more VAT.   What non-VAT goods are rich
people buying proportionally far more more of ?
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: Signed, Puzzled
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:13:23 GMT

   How can John Major keep a stiff upper lip when he doesn't have one? 
--


Jon Corelis               jon@lindy.stanford.edu
Stanford University       BITNET:  BA.JYC@RLG.STANFORD.EDU
From: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry on grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Election stats (1/5) Seats and votes
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:43:35 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

hugh@sci.kun.nl (Hugh Osborne) writes:

>In <MATTHEW.92Apr13225820@matthew.ntl02.decnet.nokia.fi> matthew@ntl02.decnet.nokia.fi (Matthew Faupel) writes:

>>This should satisfy anyone's thirst for statistics (if not drown them)...


>>The overall results of the 1992 general election.
>>Source: The Guardian 11 Apr 92 (UK), The Independent 11 Apr 92 (NI)

>                                                       vvvvvvvvvvvvv

>>Party    Seats    Gains    Losses          Votes       Votes/Seat
>>Con        336       10        44     14,729,890        43,839
>>Lab        271       44         5     11,905,487        43,932
>>LibDem      20        4         6      6,241,332       312,067
>>PC           4        1         0        154,439        38,610
>>SNP          3        0         1        629,552       209,851
[...]

>Hey, this gives me an idea.  

>	How to have PR and First Past the Post at the same time.

>Keep the constituency system, and then aportion voting power to the MPs
>on a votes/seat basis; i.e. each LibDem MP gets to cast 312,067 votes,
>while the UPUP MP only has 19,305 votes. A bit unfair on the small parties
>such as the Greens, but at least it seems to combine a form of PR with 
>the much loved first past the post system.

The thought of Alex Salmond lording it around the House of Commons with
a block vote of 209,851 is too much to bear...

What I find interesting about these statistics is the way they confer
a sort of spurious legitimacy on the first-past-the-post system as far
as the two main parties are concerned; a Conservative seat is worth
almost exactly the same number of votes as a Labour seat.  However, a
quick look at the Guardian's regional breakdown of voting patterns
shows the error in viewing the results this way; taking the two
extreme examples, in the North a Conservative seat is worth 100,648
votes against 31,541 votes for a Labour seat, whereas in the
South-East a Conservative seat is worth 33,198 votes against 446,099
votes (!) for a Labour seat.



--
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: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: MAJOR WINS MAJORITY!!!
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:03:10 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <1992Apr16.145258.20409@bristol.ac.uk> P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
>In article <1992Apr16.101932.14400@bristol.ac.uk> P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
>>Waldegrave has been shuffled out of the way into Chancellor
>>of the Duchy of Wales, or some similar sinecure, which basically makes 
>>him a high-paid gofer.  
>
>Ooops, not quite right obviously, as Wales isn't a duchy.  Lancaster,
>maybe?  Cornwall?  Anyhow, my first guess gives the correct sort of
>impression, even if it's wrong in a minor detail.

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in fact: this was Chris Patten's
official job that allowed him a seat in Cabinet (Chairman of the
Conservative Party not being an office under the Crown).  William
Waldegrave's actual remit is to supervise the operation of the Citizen's
Charter.  I expect he's less likely to make a cock-up of such awesome
tasks as ensuring civil servants wear name badges.

--
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: sandee@ds9.scri.fsu.edu (Daan Sandee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: KING OF ENGLAND
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:17:11 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Apr03.110309.28484@x.co.uk>, clive@x.co.uk (Clive Feather) writes:
= In article <7985@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> sandee@ds9.scri.fsu.edu (Daan Sandee) writes:
= > Five and a half, really. Note the Mary half of Williamanmary wasn't even
= > called Mary II though her husband and co-monarch was William III.
= 
= Oh yes she was.
= 
= Look at the titles of legislation from that time (e.g. the Bill of
= Rights). It is all of the form "10 William 3 & Mary 2 ch 17" -
= i.e. heading 17 of the laws passed in the 10th year of William III and
= Mary II (this is a made up example, but check reality).

I stand corrected ... but it's not how she's known in history.

Daan Sandee                                           sandee@sun16.scri.fsu.edu
Thinking Machines Corporation
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute, B-186
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052  (904) 644-4490
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Election Fraud by the Conservatives
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:03:29 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <13508@suns3.crosfield.co.uk> pdg@crosfield.co.uk (paul goffin) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.163753.5602@bristol.ac.uk> P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
>>In article <PLUMMER.92Apr10085146@tulum.cs.swarthmore.edu> plummer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David Barker-Plummer) writes:
>
>>>Is that 77.5% of those on the roll, or 77.5% of the voting-age
>>>population.  
>
>>An obviously American question.  It's a bit of an oversimplification,
>>but in essence, over here, it's the Government's responsibility to make
>>sure that all eligible voters are registered; not like the States,
>>where if you don't go in and tell them about you, they don't care.  So,
>>to a very good approximation, if you are of voting age over here, and
>>the government is aware of your existence, you will be on the electoral
>>roll.
>
>Sorry, WRONG!
>
>Every year the "electoral roll" is drawn up.  Every address is sent
>an electoral register form (these are hand delivered by local
>govt officals, so they try to find all new houses too!)
>
>This has to be filled in with the details of everyone over 16 at that
>address, and then returned to the registra.
>
>If you're not on that list, you don't get to vote.

Thought of a better approach for this, which I'm gonna put in now since
I'm about to go home.  Reread my last sentence.  IF you are of voting
age over here, AND THE GOVERNMENT IS AWARE OF YOUR EXISTENCE, you will
be on the electoral roll.

In practice, that means that the original question is unanswerable.
There's no way of knowing how many people of voting age aren't on the
roll, by definition.  If it was known who they were, they would be
there.  One might try making guesses based on previous demographics and
expected changes, but there would be no way of proving them right.
Indeed, both sides DO make guesses, and (as you might expect) they
differ wildly from each other's.

-- 
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,rec.arts.books
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Re: ENGLISH AS SHE IS SPOKE
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:03:01 GMT

Mike Godwin writes:

	I side with Kathleen Much on this issue. I heard "cold drinks"
	as the generic term for soft drinks in Houston where I grew up,
	as well as in other parts of Texas. The use of "cokes" was much 
	rarer.

Here, Out in California, Jack-in-the-Box have adopted Cold Drink as the
generic indicator -- and it is so writ large on their drinking vessels.
As a Lover of the Fry I should mention that the Jumbo Fries from JitB
are the best around, not tasting of either fish (blech!) or chicken (aagh!).
In this JitB context Jumbo refers to the quantity, not the individual
size, where they lie somewhere between Normal and Shoestring. At $1.10
a shot, they represent a Best Buy.

						Francis Muir

francis@sep.stanford.edu