HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Adam Hamilton)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Any minority candidates?
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:16:47 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Apr7.012959.13075@morrow.stanford.edu> francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:
:Ajai Banarji writes:
:
:
:		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?
:
:I am afraid it would make too much sense; the Tories no longer seem to have
:the wit to do such a bright deed. My guess is that there is a reasonably
:high proportion of black Asians who would fit very naturally into the
:petit bourgeois milieu -- particulalrly in the North of England. Of course,
:the way the Bank of England and the Thatcher Government handled the Bank of
:Credit & Commerce matter was not likely to win them friends in that community.
:

	At least one of the newspapers assures me that the Tories HAVE picked
a candidate of Asian origin for a (reasonably) safe seat.  I regret that the
details escape me.  They also picked a candidate of West Indian origin for a
seat in the Midlands at a recent byelection; there was a large row when one
of the local party officers made some racist remarks in public about him.
As far as I know, the same candidate is standing for the same seat this time.
As I recall, the LibDems won the byelection.
	That seems suitably vague.
		Adam
From: simon@cs.city.ac.uk (Simon Brock-Gunn)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Can YOU predict the election outcome? - **RESULTS**
Date: 13 Apr 92 09:18:21 GMT
Organization: City University, London

Below is a complete list of all the predictions I received of the number
of seats each party would get in the new parliament.  Those marked with an
asterisk were received by me *after* 10pm on 9 April, but since they were
allegedly sent before (and since they were nowhere near correct) I have
included them anyway.

Key:  err - sum of difference between seats predicted and seats won for
            each party
      Con - Conservative, Lab - Labour, LD - Liberal Democrat,
      SNP - Scottish National Party

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)
 2    48   311 289  24   4  Philip Evans <pj_evans@csd.brispoly.ac.uk>
 3    80   296 303  23   8  Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk
 4    89   290 302  27   8  Paul Norris <pm3_norr@csd.brispoly.ac.uk>
 5    96 * 290 301  33  10  per@aber.ac.uk
 6    97 * 296 316  29   6  Stephen Wilcox <WILCOX@VAX.OXFORD.AC.UK>
 7    98   296 321  24   7  nroworth@nl.oracle.com (Nick Roworth)
 8   102   290 315  15  10  Nick Haines <nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU>
 9=  111   285 318  23  13  Jon Harley <J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk>
 9=  111   375 220  40   4  Lionel Tun <lionel@cs.city.ac.uk>
 9=  117   288 288  65  10  S.H.L.G.Bisson@gdr.bath.ac.uk
12   118   280 326  19   9  Simon Brock-Gunn <simon@cs.city.ac.uk>
13   153   270 325  36  20  Richard Boardman <boardman@inmos.co.uk>
14   163 * 254 334  36   5  dshone@chad.CV.NRAO.EDU (Dave Shone)
15   239   241 257 124  29  Richard Marshall <lah014@cck.coventry.ac.uk>

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

There was one spoilt paper (the person who predicted 20 seats for the SDP
- you know who you are, but I won't embarrass you by telling everyone
else).

==============================================================================
|| Simon A. Brock-Gunn | Computer Science Dept. | You can't have everything ||
|| simon@cs.city.ac.uk | City University, Nort- | - where would you put it? ||
|| Tel +44 71 477 8000 | hampton Square, London |---------------------------||
|| Fax +44 71 250 0837 | EC1V 0HB, England, UK. |   (THIS SPACE FOR RENT)   ||
==============================================================================
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:55:34 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
>Now, it is probably true that the guy got elected because the party
>line matches local perceived majority interests in most respects; but,
>even in cases where the constituents believe it doesn't, the MP will
>probably follow the party line anyway.

>Why do they do this?  Well, they are caught between the proverbial rock
>and the hard place.  If too many government MPs vote against some major
>government policy, it may force dissolution of Parliament, and a new
>election; and, the party may well not reselect them to defend their
>seat because 'it was their fault'.  On the other hand, if they vote
>with the Government but against their constituents' interests, then the
>voters may eventually get them.  All in all, though, it's probably more
>in their self-interest to stick with their party, which, if it likes
>them, will simply stand them for election in some other seat, next
>chance it gets.

Candidates in UK elections are selected by the local branch of
their party, not by the party nationally. It may therefore be
assumed that if an MP votes against the party lines in the
interests of his or her constituency, he or she will get the
backing of the local party.

I would say part of the reason for UK MP's slavish backing of
the party line is simply tradition. People in the UK expect it
to happen. Most of them vote for the party label, not for the
individual candidate. People in the UK always claim to be
highly supportive of "united" parties. If a substantial number
of a party's MPs vote against the party line, the party will be
criticised as weak or indecisive, and will start to lose support.

Another reason is the lack of a primary system. MPs know that
so long as they have the backing of the local party activists,
they needn't worry about the views of their wider electorate.

We also have a very centralised media - most people learn about
politics through national newspapers and TV stations, not local
ones, thereofe they think of politics in terms of the national
party labels and not in terms of their local politicians.

Matthew Huntbach
From: Trevor.Kirby@newcastle.ac.uk (Trevor Kirby)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: American view of the Election
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:17:32 GMT
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.


In article <1992Mar27.135551.4032@city.cs>, simon@cs.city.ac.uk (Simon Brock-Gunn) writes:

>How does this differ from saying "I have my life to live and therefore the
>desires of the rest of the people in the UK come a fairly poor second."
>
>If you *do* feel this way, then fine.  But if not, perhaps you could
>explain how considering the rest of the world in the way you vote differs
>from considering the rest of the country.
>
Does the existance of the NHS or otherwise affect the rest of the world?
Does poll tax/rates/council tax affect the rest of the world?
Do pensions affect the rest of the world?

I could go on ad nauseum (cue predicatable comment) but basically I think the  
only thing that the rest of the world cares about is our economy and defence
policies and these are not the only issues at stake.

 Trev
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: jswilson@mta.ca (SCOTT_WILSON)
Subject: MAJOR WINS MAJORITY!!!
Reply-To: jswilson@mta.ca
Organization: Mount Allison U, Sackville, N.B. Canada 
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:28:26 GMT

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.

Good luck for the next 5 years!

JSWILSON@MTA.CA
From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: reasons for leaving (was Re: Inclusion of expats in UK elections)
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:27:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: ttidca.34593
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.

>In article <jfml5g0@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>> 
>> Maybe we should have people say why they left.

I left (a long time ago) to visit my cousin for a few months. I failed
to return out of sheer laziness.  Many people come to California and
never leave, drugged by the sunshine, the lack of parking problems, and
the casual life style.

Dick Jackson
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: News from Ambridge (was Re: Gas stoves)
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:16:55 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <1992Apr16.150138.18560@aber.ac.uk> dpl@aber.ac.uk (David Philip Langstaff) writes:
>In article <1231@lysator.liu.se> ceci@lysator.liu.se (Ceci Henningsson) writes:
>>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.

Nothing to do with culture as far as I'm concerned...

>Sorry if you felt left out, we were discussing "The Archers", BBC Radio 4's
>daily story of country folk. Its being going on for years (does anyone know
>exactly how long ?) and rates alongside cricket, the house of lords, and the
>game of Mornington Crescent in being a very British insitution.

I think it celebrated its 40th anniversary this year.  It's one of the
few things on Radio 4 that have me racing for the off switch.

--
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
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: cockburn@majors.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn)
Subject: Re: April 9th
Organization: Digital Equipment Co. Ltd., Newbury, England
Distribution: soc.culture.british
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:16:16 GMT


In article <11129@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, andrew@DINO.QCI.BIOCH.BCM.TMC.EDU (Andrew Sharff) writes...


>Both the Conservatives and now Labour have said that they will NOT deal with 
>the Lib Dems, and after all why should either the conservatives or labour want 
>to introduce pr. It isn't in their best interests. So where does that leave everybody.
> 

Haven't you heard that Labour has committed to introduce PR in Scotland,
even though it is against its interests there?

Craig

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Craig Cockburn, Digital Equipment Co. Ltd, Newbury, England.  
  ARPAnet: cockburn@majors.enet.dec.com                            Saor
  UUCP:..!decwrl!majors.enet.dec.com!cockburn                      Alba!

  Views here are my own, and are not necessarily those of Digital
From: bob@castle.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Farewell to Kinnock
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:37:54 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh Parallel Computing Centre

jlloyd@cc.uow.edu.au (Jonathan Lloyd) writes:
>You and I both know that those in much of rural Scotland and the North 
>are nearly as conservative as those in the Home Counties. They don't like
>being dictated to by what they perceive as the lefties in town!

The elections must be rigged then. They keep electing  a lot
of Liberal Democrat MPs.
	Bob.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: horne-scott@CS.YALE.EDU (Scott Horne)
Subject: Re: dweeb?
Organization: Computer "Science" Dept, Yale University
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 00:20:36 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.185101.10857@husc3.harvard.edu>, koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis) writes:
<
<Some Brit worried about an American trying to defend his language.  So
<I thought I would point out that some LInguists actually think that
<American-English as spoken is closer to medieval-english than english-
<english as spoken.

Not true.  (And you have it on a linguist's authority.)  Go read some books
on Old and Middle English.

					--Scott

-- 
Scott Horne                               ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne
horne@cs.Yale.edu      SnailMail:  Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT   06520
203 436-1848                Residence:  Rm 1848 Silliman College, New Haven, CT
ZANG4 HAN4 YI4 JIA1 / GONG4 JIAN4 ZHONG1HUA2!
From: hugh@sci.kun.nl (Hugh Osborne)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Election stats (1/5) Seats and votes
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:54:31 GMT
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands

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
>SDP          0        0         3         30,751         --
>Green        0        0         0        156,006         --
>Natural Law  0        0         0         62,764         --
>Other        0        0         0        270,792         --
>---------------------------------
>UUP          9        0         0        271,049        30,117
>SDLP         4        1         0        184,445        46,111
>DUP          3        0         0        103,039        34,346
>UPUP         1        0         0         19,305        19,305
>Sinn Fein    0        0         1         78,291         --
>Alliance     0        0         0         68,665         --

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.
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Why should Libya hand over the PanAm bombers?
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:17:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: topaz.STEINLY.92Apr6161722
	<NICKH.92Apr2190242@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU>
	<1992Apr3.162536.6929@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<NICKH.92Apr3121309@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
In-reply-to: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU's message of 3 Apr 92 17:13:09 GMT

In article <NICKH.92Apr3121309@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:

   In article <1992Apr3.162536.6929@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow) writes:
      In article <NICKH.92Apr2190242@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:


   As someone else pointed out, acts committed outside the US _cannot_ be
   properly tried in a US criminal court.

As yet another person pointed out, the US does claim jurisdiction
over crimes committed against US citizens abroad! I believe a number
of countries claim limited jurisdiction over people accused of
committing crimes outside the nominal jurisdiction of the country,
in particular was crimes.


   jurisdiction, the extradition.  There is no extradition treaty with
   Libya, so you _can't_ just "demand" extradition---you have to make a
   special case.

This puzzled me. I believe yet another person noted that extradition
was claimed under the Treaty of Montreal of which Libya is a
signatory, hijacking and attack on airlines appears to be treated
somewhat differently from ordinary crimes under international law.
Any net.lawyers _know_?


*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  I know people whose idea of fun				*
*  Is throwing stones in the river in the afternoon sun		*
*  Oh let me be as free as them					*
*  				- BB 1986			*
From: nikkhah@skyfox.usask.ca
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: What happened to Peter Haines??
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:31:49 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan

Peter Haines who used to be leader of the Young Liberals, later on
as far as I know joined the Labour Party. He was active against racism
and once was accused of bank robbery. Eventually he was acquitted.

I want to know whether he was standing for parliament and if he was
did he get elected. please post any information that you might have.
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: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 08:43:51 GMT

In article <jh63hps@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.142400.20476@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
>|> 
>|> 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 
>
>They'd have to amend the Representation of the People Act (I think), 
>which they could do if they had a large enough majority, and could 
>enforce the whip.  It's been amended several times, usually to extend
>the franchise (1918) or to reduce the voting age (1969).

That was my question: what does a "large enough majority" mean?

>The Government does do things unilaterally.  It declares States
>of Emergency, for example.  Now tell me the US Government never
>does things unilaterally.

I was referring more to election rules than to things like states
of emergency.  I am not sure what you mean by "unilaterally"; rules
that are actually specified in the U.S. Constitution itself can only
be changed by following the amendment process.
From: ceci@lysator.liu.se (Ceci Henningsson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Gas stoves
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:11:50 GMT
Organization: Lysator Computer Club, Linkoping University, Sweden



Margaret F Riley writes:
>>Damned if I know.   Chalk it up to the American Sweet Tooth or the
>>American Inexpensive Rising and Preservative agent.    Personally, I
>>never touch the stuff.   I bought my husband a very nice KitchenAid
>>mixer so he can make bread at home.

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.  

In my opinion, what makes the difference, is the way that different
countries keep sugared and unsugared food apart. I grew up in Germany,
where the bread is black and sour and the cakes are very sweet.
(Nostalgia...but it is still that way, I know, because I checked it
thourougly the last time I as there.)

Naturally, that is the way I like it. Enter the Swedish baking
tradition, where you can't tell the difference between bread and
cakes. The bread is sweet and the cakes bland. The cakes are even
called 'coffee bread' sometimes. Top a slice of 'fint broed' with
strawberry jam and wipped cream, and it will taste more 'caky' than
any Swedish cake.

>Surely you must touch the stuff on some occasions.  You'd die
>otherwise.  Perhaps you were just speaking of table sugar.

Sugar is not essential for people. I don't know about neither the UK
nor the USA, but in Sweden buying un-sugared (and un-sweetened)
products isn't even very hard. Sugar and yeast are used for other
things than baking bread, remember? 

--Ceci

--
=====ceci@lysator.liu.se===========================================
"'Bit of a boodwah,' said Nobby, with the air of a connoisseur."
Terry Pratchett: Guards! Guards
===================================================================
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: When must general elections be held?
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:02:39 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

In article <1992Apr13.160725.18826@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, pjs@euclid.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter J. Scott) writes:
> 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.

A government lasts at most five years. Other than that, there's no restriction
at all. The last election could have been held right up until June 12th (?)
this year. Until the Tories decide they've had enough of elections and change
the law to make a Labour government illegal, that is....:-(

BTW, I believe that this is theoretically possible. All Major needs is 326
sycophantic MPs willing to change the rules, and Bob's his uncle. No more
tricky general elections. Hundreds of years of uninterrupted conservative
government....

That's the price you pay for the British unwritten constitution.

Stephen Wilcox 
> -- 
> This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
> brain on news.  Any questions?    |    (pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov)
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: British leftist losers
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:49:48 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <1992Apr13.135452.20040@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
>Rather than whining about how Britain doesn't have proportional
>representation, why don't Labour and the Liberal Democrats form
>an alliance, and stand as a single party in the next election?

The Liberals and the Social Democrats had enough problems forming
themselves into a single party.  A merger of Labour and the Lib Dems
would be impossible without both parties tearing themselves apart.
However, an electoral alliance is not inconceivable, as long as the
parties can find common causes to unite behind.  One of these (in my
view, the most important) would have to be PR.

--
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
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
From: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Election Fraud by the Conservatives
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:13:56 GMT
	Apr10161517@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU><JIM.92Apr13110259@hunter.cs.strath.ac.uk>
	<NICKH.92Apr13131104@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU> <1230@lysator.liu.se>
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.
In-reply-to: ceci@lysator.liu.se's message of 15 Apr 92 18:41:02 GMT

In article <1230@lysator.liu.se> ceci@lysator.liu.se (Ceci Henningsson) writes: