HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Re: Can YOU predict the election outcome? - **RESULTS**
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:59:11 GMT

Guy Barry writes:

	I've also marked with an asterisk those who predicted more than 
	634 seats, who in my view should be disqualified.  (The fact that 
	this procedure puts me in second place is of course irrelevant.)  

Some may not realize that Barry spoke in jest. There is, of course, no
reason why the totality of the seperate predictions should be constrained
to be equal to the actual total. My God! Perhaps Barry really does think
they should be disqualified...Hmmm. I never trusted Cambridge when it
came to indeterminacy. They always seemed to be on Berkeley's side, not
Bayes'.

					Francis Muir

francis@sep.stanford.edu
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: When must general elections be held?
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:01:51 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

In article <STEVEW.92Apr15141531@mushroom.cs.man.ac.uk>, stevew@cs.man.ac.uk (Steve Wallis) writes:
> In article <1992Apr14.180239.5446@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>>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....
> 
> Why do people keep coming up with such rubbish?  If the Tories tried this,
> there would be a general strike and the government would be brought down
> immediately.
No. There are only three constitutional ways for a government to be brought
down. It can stand down itself. It can be stood down by HM. It can lose a vote
of no confidence in the Commons. Let's discount the first. After all, if Major
was intending to change the constitution so spectacularly, he wouldn't be about
to force an election. The second is historically unlikely, though HM would
probably be forced into it in these circumstances. And the third couldn't be
done if Major did need have 326 sycophantic MPs. The only other ways to bring
down a government are unconstitutional. A general strike won't do it on its
own. 

Stephen
>>That's the price you pay for the British unwritten constitution.
> 
> They probably had a written constitution in Albania...
> 

They also do in most of the major democracies of the world

> Steve.
> 
> --
>   /    / / \    / /            --------------------------------------------
>   \/\ /\ \/ \  / \\/      /    |    Steve Wallis (stevew@cs.man.ac.uk)    |
>     /   \ \/ \/   \\//\  /     | Mail me if you want to join the struggle |
>                    \/  \/      --------- for a socialist society. ---------
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:5907 soc.culture.usa:2825
From: sandee@ds9.scri.fsu.edu (Daan Sandee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Why should Libya hand over the PanAm bombers?
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:14:52 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.british
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Apr8.143608.13051@fwi.uva.nl>, hm@fwi.uva.nl (Hans Mulder) writes:
> It used to be that the USA just ignored rulings from the International
> Court in the Hague.  This time, they can't be bothered to wait until
> the Court comes up with a ruling.  Hardly an improvement.
> 
> I _will_ be highly surprised if the United Nations ever manages to round
> up an army to stop the United States from violating international law.

As the US has veto power in the SC (which handles the disposition of UN
forces) such an idea is not just unlikely, but impossible.
The only way to stop the bully from beating up the smaller kids in the
school yard is action *outside* the UN. To give a very small example :
when the US mined Nicaraguan harbors, some *Western European* nations offered
Nicaragua assistance in mine sweeping ... 

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: kevinh@hslrswi.hasler.ascom.ch (kevinh)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Election Fraud by the Conservatives
Keywords: Poll Tax
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:29:40 GMT
Reply-To: kevinh@hslrswi.hasler.ascom.ch
Organization: Ascom Hasler AG
Originator: kevinh@nath


In article <1992Apr13.113910.5083@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
|> 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, 

Ok, fiddle was little strong. But how come the Conservatives will
quite happily correct this "discrepancy" in our electoral system
(that just happens to give them further gains) whilst they are totally 
opposed to the fair (PR) type system, not that they are biased or anything!!

|> The problem is the electoral system.

Agreed! But the chances of reforming it *fairly* have decreased somewhat
lately :-(.

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

Yet another discrepancy that the Conservatives are unlikely to correct.

|> Matthew Huntbach

kevinh@hasler.ascom.ch
From: hugh@sci.kun.nl (Hugh Osborne)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy
Date: 16 Apr 92 10:49:22 GMT
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands

In <1229@lysator.liu.se> ceci@lysator.liu.se (Ceci Henningsson) writes:

>Daniel A Lagattuta writes:

>>Proportional representation sounds like a good idea but it had led to
>>very unstable governments in countries like Israel or Italy.  In
>>America, first past the post system has created a stable 2-party
>>system.  This is not to say that our government is doing a good job,
>>but proportional representation would not solve these problems.

>Comparisons with Italy and Israeli are in this case litteraly
>farfetched. Why not take a look at other countries in northern Europe:
>Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finnland to name some. I would call
>them stable, wouldn't you? Most of these countries have a minimum
>percentage of the votes for parties who want to get into the
>parliament. In Sweden it is 4% (or more than 12% in one district), in
>Germany 5%. In Sweden there are 7 parties in the parliament, in
>Germany about 4.

And the Netherlands have no threshhold, 9 parties in parliament. We're
not one of the most unstable countries in Europe.
From: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,uk.politics
Subject: Re: political parties
Date: 13 Apr 92 10:52:30 GMT
	<1992Apr11.022452.4346@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.
In-reply-to: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU's message of 11 Apr 92 02:24:52 GMT

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?

   There is a natural majority party within the opposition, but it is
   the LibDems + a large reasonable chunk of the Labour party.

Approx. share of the vote: 	Labour 35%, LibDem 18%
Approx. seats in parliament:	Labour 280, LibDem 10

   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. You must
also consider the arithmetic. To win the election outright, the Labour
party had to win about 60 seats from the Tories and that would require
a swing of around 8%. A victory on such a scale would be comparable to
the Labour landslide in 1945 which had all sorts of exceptional
circumstances and precedents.

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

I would have thought that the result for the election was far too
complex for such a superficial analysis. 

   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 people prefer a few quid in their pocket to
spend on satellite dishes and holidays in Benidorm instead of better
funded health, education and transport services? (Another superficial
analysis :-)

Utter bewilderment is hardly surprising when the opposition can't
defeat a government that had a lacklustre campaign and a dreadful
record in the middle of a recession.

   Labour need PR even more than the LibDems...

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.

		Jim
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Re: political parties
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:47:54 GMT

Anthony Koumis writes:

	Well, it looks like the Tories have managed to win.  I wonder 
	what the effect would be if it was two parties only and no 
	LibDems... 

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

	But my real question is what has happened to all of the "loony
	left" groups that Kinnock has kicked out of Labour? DO they have
	any major support?  What are they doing?  Like what does "Labour
	Militant" do and stand for? and those other small parties?

I believe they lost every seat they had. Its ou sont les neiges d'antan
all over again. Pity really. Looking at the candidates on the tube this
evening I could never tell who was who (except for the Loonies, God Bless 
'Em) until I looked at their favours. There was a very well-fed look about
all of them. Come to think of it, Major looks more Left than Kinnock.
Perhaps they should switch roles. As for Scotland, well, obviously its
Devolution that a consensus will develop around. 

					Francis Muir

francis@sep.stanford.edu
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Gas stoves
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:13:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <EWADAMS.92Apr9015132@netcom.Netcom.COM> ewadams@netcom.Netcom.COM (Ernest Adams) writes:
>
>It may be that British flour isn't bleached.  You might try using
>unbleached flour.  On the other hand, our wheat is grown in gigantic
>factory farms where every effort is made to increase production and
>reduce costs regardless of the effect on quality; while yours is
>probably still grown by Farmer Brown using methods that haven't
>changed significantly since the invention of the plowshare in the
>14th century.

Yeah, and they still milk cows by hand and... Sheesh!!  You have
a very quaint view of the rest of the world outside of the US!!

Of course bleached flour is available in the UK.  They have the
full range of flour products available that we've got, and maybe
more.  They also have more varieties of sugar products.  I have to
go to import stores to get ingredients for some of my recipes.

I think the issue has more to do with Flavo[u]r Drift.  Recipes
made by me in the USA taste different when I make them somewhere
else with locally-bought ingredients.  The FD effect can be seen
between regions of the USA as well as internationally.
I don't know why it occurs.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft)
Subject: Re: MAJOR WINS MAJORITY!!!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 01:51:02 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.155401.1912@pcsbst.pcs.com> billp@pcsbst.pcs.com (Bill Potter) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.201000.25851@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
>rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr13.095502.8241@bristol.ac.uk> P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk
>(Paul Smee) writes:
>> >
>> >I've noticed the world situation.  The point is that the UK has been
>> >slipping faster than most of the (industrialized, at least) world.
>> >Thirteen years ago, the UK was near the top of most comparative EEC
>> >tables; now it's near the bottom.  Maybe the whole world *is* going to
>> >hell in a handbasket, but that doesn't mean that the UK needs to lead
>> >the way.
>> 
>> Total crap.  This was true up until 1979.  Britain's productivity has
>> since grown faster than e.g. France, Germany.  See the Economist.
>
>What does this prove?  Surely we're interested in the top speed
>not the acceraration. 

Yeah, and you integrate what to get speed (actually velocity)?  That's
right, acceleration.

>
>A lot of this depends anyway on when you take your snapshot. Didn't
>the Guardian deight in telling us in 1989 that, comparing 10 years
>of Thatcher to 10 years of Mitterand, the French were winning hands
>down. The picture may have changed in the last three years so that
>the Economist can say, comparing 18 month of Major to 18 months
>of Mitterand, Britain is winning hands down.
>

Regardless of where you take your snapshot, it is incontrovertable that
Thatcher turned around a situation that most people in the world had
given up as hopeless.

And of course, how did Mitterand achieve this growth in France?  By
following conservative economic policies, after his initial disastrous
attempt to install socialism.  I.e. policies far more like those of
the Tory party than the Labour party.

RNA
From: marcus@sun.pcl.ac.uk (Marcus Harvey)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Simple message
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:26:59 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Polytechnic of Central London

In article <FkBViB1w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) writes:
>wjmc@unix.brighton.ac.uk (-*_Spikey_Tribble_*-) writes:
>> questions "Who would you support and why ?" -- the most sensible reply, in
>> that it simply answered both questions without slinging mud, was that from
>> Stephen Hawking [ Lucasian Prof. of Mathematics, Camb. ]. For those who may
>> have missed it :-
>[...]
>> >    election, they would feel they were indeed invincible. It is time
>> >    for a change, and Labour is the only serious alternative, at least
>> >    until the voting system is changed.
>
>Classic Yes Minister thinking.  "We must do something.  This is something we
>can do.  Therefore we must do this."
>
>>  Hawking has one of the greatest minds in today's world -- his words
>> should at least be given consideration.
>
>I think he should stick to physics.
>
>
Perhaps the Tories cut his funding...

Marcus Harvey
marcus@uk.ac.pcl.sun - JANET
marcus%sun.pcl.ac.uk@ukacrl - BITNET/EARN

                                                          ...Bubble Up!
From: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Election Fraud by the Conservatives
Date: 13 Apr 92 10:02:59 GMT
	<NICKH.92Apr10161517@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU>
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.
In-reply-to: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU's message of 10 Apr 92 21:15:17 GMT

In article <NICKH.92Apr10161517@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:

   As far as I know, no poll tax collectors use the electoral roll to
   gather names and addresses.

Well in Strathclyde Region, the Poll Tax is administered by the same
department which handles the electoral roll. This is true for most
local authorities. When the Poll Tax started, the electoral roll was
the only full list of adults that councils could use to compile the
Poll Tax register.

Council officials maintain that there are "fireproof walls" between
the staff working on these two tasks. However,  it stretches
credibility to accept that the staff don't/won't share information or
that the Poll Tax computers don't look at the Electoral Roll computers
(assuming they weren't the same thing in the first place).

		Jim
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: National Insurance (was Farewell to Kinnock)
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:30:45 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <1992Apr15.230436.29512@cc.uow.edu.au> jlloyd@cc.uow.edu.au (Jonathan Lloyd) writes:
>gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr15.033939.10350@cc.uow.edu.au> jlloyd@cc.uow.edu.au (Jonathan Lloyd) writes:
>

>>>NI is a heap of bullshit. Call a Tax a TAX. It (NI) should be abolished.
>>>In Australia we have a "Medicare Levy" which is 1.25% of your taxable 
>>>income. It all goes to healthcare, but they still need to take more from
>>>other tax sources. And soon they are plans afoot to give you tax credits for 
>>>taking out private health insurance. This is the kind of fairness that is
>>>completely lacking in the UK system.
>
>>In Britain, NI is only used to fund a limited range of social security
>>benefits, and virtually none of the money goes to health.  Most social
>>security spending, and nearly *all* health spending, comes from
>>general taxation.  What makes the Australian system fairer?
>
>Yes, and most of those benefits are not available to self employed people when
>they fall upon hard times.
>As I see it (these are personal opinions) the Aussie system is a hell of
>a lot more honest. They call payroll tax "payroll tax", not an employers
>NI contribution. 

I agree with you that the UK system is dishonest, in that both
employee's and employer's NI contributions are effectively a form
of tax and should be treated as such.  What I was asking was
why it's any less dishonest to call a tax a "Medicare Levy" when
the amount raised isn't enough to fund health care.  That makes
it seem to the taxpayer as though health care comes a lot cheaper
than it really is.  If you think British NI should be combined
with general taxation, then surely the Australian medicare levy should
also be combined with general taxation.

>In UK just about the only benefit of paying NI is the dole.

And the state retirement pension.  

>But if you have not made enough contributions they pay you "supplementary
>benefit" anyway. (Dole is not means tested as I recall, 
>but things may have changed).

You're basically right.  Supplementary benefit has now been renamed
"income support", but the principle is still the same.  The ridiculous
fact is that for most people neither unemployment benefit nor the
state pension is enough to live on, so if you haven't any other income
you have to claim means-tested benefits like income support and housing
benefit to make up the difference.  That means that in practice you
might as well be living entirely on means-tested benefits.

--
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: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:43:11 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <1992Apr16.140118.27596@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:

>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).

Can you, or any of the other US readers, shed any light on the origins
of this bizarre process?  Surely the obvious, and fairest, way of electing a
President (as opposed to a Parliament) is by having a single ballot.

--
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: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: TORIES AND THE SELFISH,AROGANT ENGLISH
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:37:59 GMT
Reply-To: w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk
Organization: Chemical & Process Engineering Dept, University of Newcastle, UK.

clg308@vaxa.strath.ac.uk writes:

>                 singed Andy(a true scot)
>P.S I aplogise to the English in the north,and Wales who must feel as fustrated
>as Scotland.I also apologise to any labour supporters elsewhere in Britain 
>and ask them noy to take offence at my generalizations.

A possible solution is to let the extreme north of England (eg Teesside,
Tyneside ) vote on becoming part of Scotland.  After all if they did they
would give a significant increase in the population of Scotland (say 20%).
They also have a similar political culture.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:6581 rec.arts.books:8087
From: jat@edsr.eds.com (Jon A. Turner)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: ENGLISH AS SHE IS SPOKE
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:56:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: conan.908
Organization: EDS Research, Dallas, TX 75230

In <1992Apr14.123955.5987@athena.mit.edu> terra@athena.mit.edu (Terra Witkop) writes:

>In article <kujhdnINNtd@early-bird.think.com> wark@think.com (Mark Warkentin) writes:
>>Here in beanytown lots of the locals use the word "tonic".  Anyone heard of
>>the usage elswhere?
>>-- 

>I've been living in Metro-Boston for almost 4 years, and have *very*
>rarely heard anyone refer to soda (I grew up in Western Mass., where
>all fizzy drinks are soda) as "tonic"; maybe I heard this once or
>twice from my ex-SO's mother, who grew up in Revere.  When I went to
>UMASS-Amherst, there were a lot of students from Boston, and I had
>to get used to referring to grinders as "subs" -- now the word
>"grinder" sounds weird to me...

Okay, I'd crossed my heart and promised to keep my keyboard shut--
but this hits too close to home and my favorite Linguistic Thingies.

I grew up *and* went to school in Amherst (Western MA).  Fizzy drinks
are definitely "soda," not "tonic."  The "grinders/subs" distinction
fell quite sharply along townie/Bostonian lines, but in recent years
the latter has gained the upper hand.  My own personal pet expressions,
however are:
	"frappe" for milkshake (more or less), and
	"jimmies" for chocolate sprinkles on ice cream.

English is a wonderful thing.  Ayuh.


JT