HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:16:54 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Apr13.083753.25455@cl.cam.ac.uk> rjb17@cl.cam.ac.uk (Richard Black) writes:
>In article <12APR199219172328@zeus.tamu.edu> Philip A. Carney writes:
>> What Great Britain (and notice they have PR in Northern Ireland ...
>
>Wrong. Elections for Westminster in NI are by the same method as
>everywhere else. It is only _European_ Elections where STV is used.

And, interestingly, in the election of the Tory Party leader 15 months
ago.  (One of the Tory bigwigs, when asked why STV was used in their
selection of John Major, while they opposed it for general use, made a
remark to the effect that 'the Tory Party was a knowledgeable and
informed group of intelligent people, and that in any case it was
important for the Party that the leader be seen to have majority
support'.  (Sometimes I wonder if they actually listen to the things
they say, sigh.)

-- 
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
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,uk.politics
Subject: Re: political parties
Date: 13 Apr 92 13:05:57 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

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?

Actually I think it's six (1945, 1950, 1964, 1966, Feb 1974, Oct 1974),
but only two of these (1945 and 1966) have had a genuine working majority.

>   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

Actually it was Labour 271, LibDem 20.

[...]

>   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.

First of all you imply that the Lib Dems plus a sizable chunk of Labour
can't form a majority, then you seem to suggest that Labour on its
own can form a majority (though it's not clear whether you mean votes
or seats in each case).  The likelihood of Labour defeating the Conservatives
on its own at the next election under the present system is pretty
tiny, and if by some miracle it did get a majority then it might well
suddenly decide that PR wasn't such a good idea.  My view is that the
only realistic way of getting PR is for the opposition parties to
field a single candidate against the Conservatives at the next election,
with a promise that they will introduce PR as quickly as possible and
then hold fresh elections under their usual party affiliations.

--
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: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Rampant paranoia (was Voting slips: what happens to them,DANGER!)
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:15:49 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: esh2@po.CWRU.Edu (Evelyn S. Hlabse)
>Same problem in Cleveland, Ohio.  When you vote in a primary you
>have the option of voting for the issues as well as the party
>candiates.  You must declare which party and the next time around
>you get hassled (my term) if you switch party affiliation which some
>do in the hope of putting a weaker candidate opposite the sure thing
>candidate of the opposite party.  Sounds like things are much the
>same on both sides of the Atlantic.

There is nothing remotely like this in the UK. We do not have
primaries here. The candidates are chosen in private meetings
by the political parties. Unless you are a paid-up member of a
political party (and very few people in the UK are) you have no
say whatsoever in who the candidate for the party you favour
is. There is no concept of an officially registered supporter
of a political party.

Matthew Huntbach
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: MAJOR WINS MAJORITY!!!
Organization: sgi
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 03:29:05 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. 

How's that?   The original claim, was "the UK has been slipping faster 
than most of the (industrialized, at least) world".   If by "top speed"
you mean economic performance, and by "acceleration" you mean change
in economic performance, then this is a claim about acceleration.

Noone has supplied any data to support that, or the followup claim that
"Thirteen years ago, the UK was near the top of most comparative EEC
tables; now it's near the bottom".    Instead, they seem more interested
in changing the question.

jon.
From: ssouth@hpldsla.sid.hp.com (Steve South)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:42:37 GMT
Subject: Re: Budmouth
Organization: HP Scientific Instruments Division - Palo Alto, CA
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british

As someone who lived in Dorset for quite a few years, and who has read quite a
few Thomas Hardy novels, perhaps I can shed some light on the matter.

Budmouth is generally believed to be based on Weymouth in Dorset. Weymouth
is a seaside resort south of Dorchester (Casterbridge).

ObTrivia: I once lived in Marnhull, believed to be Hardy's Marlott in Tess,
          just opposite the Blackmore Vale Inn which is referred to in Tess
          as the Rollivers.

Steve (ooo arrr) South
----------------------


Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:5884 soc.culture.usa:2795
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Why should Libya hand over the PanAm bombers?
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:13:37 GMT
	<1992Apr6.232851.29460@unixg.ubc.ca>
	<1992Apr7.124654.133@pony.Ingres.COM>
	<1992Apr7.180919.8260@unixg.ubc.ca>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Apr7.180919.8260@unixg.ubc.ca> buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:

   In article <1992Apr7.124654.133@pony.Ingres.COM> mkrey@Ingres.COM (MICHAEL KREY) writes:
   >In article <1992Apr6.232851.29460@unixg.ubc.ca>, buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony  writes...
   >> How about, because the UN Security Council has told them to?
   >HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!  Why not say, because the Guam foreign minister 
   >said so, or because Nancy Reagan said so??????  Same bloody thing.... 

    I hope this won't come as too much of a shock, but last year there
    was a substantial, if short, war fought in the Persian Gulf.  It
    established a new principle in world affairs, that the SC can issue
    enforceable resolutions, particularly if it seems likely to be able
    successfully to call on the US to carry the brunt of the effort of
    enforcing.

... the smell of petrol drifts across the net ... the faint but
unmistable sound of a striking match ...

Last year there was a substantial massacre carried out in the Persian
Gulf. It established a new principle in world affairs, that the US can
bully the UN into passing resolutions against anybody it doesn't like,
(while vetoing or ignoring any resolutions against allies), and
`enforce' those resolutions to the extent of working against efforts
for peace in the interim.

Nick Haines nickh@cs.cmu.edu
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: US INS complaints
Date: 13 Apr 92 01:23:44 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <9204121121.AA20387@spiff.Tymnet.COM>, hbonney@TYMNET.COM (Hugh Bonney) writes:
>
>  Re: Immigration Procedures
>    One thing missing in this discussion is that the U.S. INS is under-
>    funded for the immigration numbers and basically can only pay attention
>    to you crossing the border or filling out a form. Otherwise it just
>    doesn't exist. The movie "Green Card" is only a fantasy.

Would that it were so, but like a few other things, this depends on
who you are.   I've been in the US for about a decade, and the only
times I am ever asked to establish my status are in the rare occasions
when I change jobs.   Apart from that - which is just the employer
covering his liabilities - the INS might as well not exist: for me.

Yet I read in the paper quite often about the INS conducting raids,
picking people up on the street, sending people "back", and so on.
When I lived in Denver INS raids were a fact of life, but only for
some people.   We even had scandals where people were seized on the
street, could not immediately prove who they were, and were then 
bussed off to Mexico.   Imagine the embarassment of the INS when
it turned out that a couple of these people were actually US-born
citizens who just happened to "look" like illegal immigrants.  I
guess Gerard Depardieu "looks" like an illegal, and I don't.  Wonder
why.

jon.
From: jaherne@cix.compulink.co.uk (John Aherne)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Natural Law
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:06:44 GMT
Reply-To: John Aherne <jaherne@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Organization: Gated to News by demon.co.uk


The best thing abouty the Natural Law Party was their Manifesto, a
copy seemed to be sent thro all the houses where a NLP cantidate was
up for Election. This manifesto centre pages had a large section
comparing 'Vedic Science' and Modern Sciece with ref to Grand
Unification Thoery and N=8 Supergravity. Has to be seen to be
believed !!.

Also I think another one of NLP aims was to get a fountain in
everyones garden !!

Dave...
--
Dave Bisping                          |           JAHERNE@cix.compulink.co.uk
Newtons Computer Systems plc          |           Tel +44 81 648 8707

"This new learning fasinates me Sir Bedervere, Tell me again how Sheep's
 bladders may be employed to detect Earthquakes"  Monty Python & the Holy Grail
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: election 92: LORD SUTCH'S RESULTS
Date: 16 Apr 92 11:54:52 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <92106.104048U48073@uicvm.uic.edu> U48073@uicvm.uic.edu (Cole Kendall) writes:

>My results are from The Times, which only identifies parties by
>abbreviations, and I assume FTM is indeed Forward to Mars.  What
>exactly is C Thatch?

"Conservative Thatcherite" (according to the Guardian).



--
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: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Gas stoves
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:10:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: ttidca.34379
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.

In article <34376@ttidca.TTI.COM> jackson@soldev.tti.com (that's me) wrote:
>Any flourologists out there care to explain
>how the Merkans have managed to de-flavor the stuff so effectively?
				    ^^^^^^
God! Sorry, sorry, sorry. Abject apols.

Dick
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: uk.politics,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Simple message
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:46:55 GMT
	<1992Apr3.080230.7756@rtf.bt.co.uk>
	<1992Apr3.164535.29972@cl.cam.ac.uk>
	<1992Apr6.071030.29606@rtf.bt.co.uk>
	<1992Apr7.090129.6702@maths.nott.ac.uk>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Apr7.090129.6702@maths.nott.ac.uk> anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) writes:

   In article <1992Apr6.071030.29606@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
   (Michael Traub) writes:

   >This is an invalid assumption. If person B earns ten times as much as
   >person A do you seriously think person B will consume ten times as much???

	   Easily.

	   ...

   >Person B will probably be spending the extra money on a mortgage, something
   >which has no VAT levied on it.

	   He or she may well be spending a lot more on a mortgage, but only
   the interest on 30K is tax-free, so the chances are that person B is
   paying more than 10 times as much tax on this spending.  [You're right
   in that it isn't actually VAT, of course.]

Erm, no. Mortgages have no VAT levied on them. The fact that one can
reclaim income tax on the interest for the first #30k means that
`rich' people (ie those with houses) are paying even _less_ tax, but
is independent of the fact that that money is not liable to VAT, and
that therefore people with big mortgages are spending a smaller
fraction of income as VAT.

Nick Haines nickh@cs.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.arts.books,rec.arts.movies,alt.true-crime
From: pm@katz.cc.univie.ac.at ()
Subject: Re: John Christie
Organization: Vienna University
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:23:39 GMT

"Forty years of murder" by pathologist Keith Simpson has a chapter about
the Christie (and Evans) case.

                   Peter Marksteiner
                   pm@katz.cc.univie.ac.at
                   Vienna University Computer Center
From: gsmith@bbn.com (Graeme Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Election Results
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:58:03 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

cockburn@majors.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:


|>In article <1992Apr9.234947.1@acfcluster.nyu.edu|>, axd7104@acfcluster.nyu.edu writes...
|>>Yes, it's confirmed.  The Tories have won a "Small, but workable,
|>>majority," according to the BBC World Service.  Thank God.
|>> 
|>The situation in England was never in much doubt, England is probably going
|>to be Tory with a big majority for decades. 

|>However, the Conservatives still have a tiny number of MPs in Scotland,
|>and so the constitutional question there still remains. 

|>We wait to see if the Claim of Right 1988 is to be invoked.

|>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|>  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

Have the results from Scottish constituenties come in yet?  How
well did the Tories, Labour, SNP, etc do there?  Has the Tory
mandate increased or decreased North of the Border...

Enquiring minds etc etc..


Graeme
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: dweeb?
Date: 13 Apr 92 13:38:23 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <y8vj0fr.sue@netcom.com> sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:
<In article <1992Apr12.084902.27493@cs.yale.edu> horne-scott@CS.YALE.EDU (Scott Horne) writes:
<>In article <amvjca#.sue@netcom.com>, sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) writes:
<><In article <1992Apr12.002852.21905@cs.yale.edu> horne-scott@CS.YALE.EDU (Scott Horne) writes:
<><
<>[About residents of the US:]
<><>Two or three of the quarter-billion (or
<><>quarter-milliard :-)) of us eschew the vile orthographic revisionism of
<><>Noah Webster.

There are also a number of "you" who eschew some of his queer
"reforms", so the exact number probably isn't integer.

<><I hope you are correct in stating that there are only two or three of you.

I hope so, too.  This would relieve the British (and the British-style
spellers) from the obligation to feel guilty when they make ironic
generalisations about the Yankees.

<><Sickening suck-up Anglophilic Yankees are grotesque
<><aberrations, and should be kicked in the head at regular intervals.

Yes.  Not suppose I find you sickening and grotesque.  May I have your head?

<>Anglophilic?  You're barking up the wrong tree.  My hatred of Britannia
<>is surpassed only by my hatred of the United $tates of Amerika.

Wrong topic, Scott.  There is no connexion between your attitude
towards the empires and your attitude towards the orthographies.

<Boo hoo!  I can hardly reply for laughing.  Another academic weenie.

Laugh away.  Laugh your head off, if you wish.

<And you're STILL a Yankee, crybaby.  

So what?  One can't choose a country to be born in.
-- 
---- --- -- -  Long Live the Rose and the Heather!  - -- --- ----
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Great Britain as a malfunctioning democracy
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:41:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1992Apr13.174106.23153
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


	It seems to me the problem is with the opposition parties.  If Labour and
the Liberal Democrats could cooperate and not compete for the same seats, they
could have formed a coalition government between them.   Unless, of course, the
British voters who vote Liberal Democrat might prefer a Tory government to
Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition.  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.

	It is too bad Britain had become regionally fragmented, but the old
manufacturing and mining belt were doomed to die from international competition. 
I do not think they began their decline in 1979.  Mrs. Thatcher just refused to
prop up these dying industries any longer.  In the long run, the depressed areas
should benefit from the pro-business policies of the Conservatives who have made
Britain an attractive place to invest in again.
From: woodacre@mips.com (Michael Woodacre)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Marmite in S.F. Bay Area?
Date: 13 Apr 1992 23:48:24 GMT
Organization: mips computer systems
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: woodacre@mips.com (Michael Woodacre)
NNTP-Posting-Host: alleycat.mips.com

There is a British food store in San Mateo, it's either on 3rd or 4th
Ave ( I could never
remember which street, even when I lived on 10th Ave!), just east of the
CalTrain railway line but 
west of Delaware St.

   Michael S. Woodacre | Phone: (408) 524-8120
UUCP: {ames,pyramid,prls,decwrl}!mips!woodacre OR woodacre@mips.com
USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 928 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086

Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:6234 soc.culture.europe:3709
From: ko@cns.umist.ac.uk (Kutluk Ozguven)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Why Tories won the election (and Opinion Polls lost it).
Keywords: Britain, weather
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:34:12 GMT
Organization: UMIST, Manchester, England.

People say how can *all* the opinion polls fail on Tory lead.
How can all saw +7  as -3 to +0.5. People ask how can the
last opinion polls on the election day that is based on
actual voting can all fail.  How can their be error be over 
45 seats, they say. Everone who is working on this campaign seems 
to be shocked. But the answer is ironicly simple.

The reason how Tories kept their place while all the Europe's
leading parties are in pieces  is   simplty the weather. 

On April 8 1992 morning, Britain woke up to spring. The temparature
was considerably 10 degrees higher and a bright sunny weather replaced
the cold, rainy, dark one.   People were mostly undecided, when they
saw this they said "well, after all is is not a bad world". Until
this day none of the polls showed Tories in lead. The poll people 
detected the sudden swing and many papers headlined it the next 
(election day). But this was not enough for the polls, because since
the campaign started all the polls were so consistant that they did
not dare to go more than +0.5. Actually it was something like 3.

The next day morning, many voted early. The polls based on
these people showed a clear conservative lead. These voters experienced
the weather factor half. The voter late in the day, were influenced by
the sunny unusually bright weather much more. They said "let the status quo
stay for a million years more" to themselves. If this was the previous
campaigns where class distinction was more obvious people would care less
about external factors. but now most (critical)  people decided at the
voting point. And the voters late during the day gave Major the victory.

This is the actual story. But future historians  will seek Major/Patton
factor and speculate on some political manouvers etc.

Cheers

Kutluk
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:5923 rec.arts.books:7695
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: ENGLISH AS SHE IS SPOKE
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:54:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Apr8.185424.10858
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In Britain all soda seems to be referred to as "cokes". Probably because
they havent been inundated with all the stuff we have here like sprite,
7-up, root beer, cream soda, etc.etc.

But soda, soda pop, and soft drink I think often have regional uses
in the US.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
From: preece@sbpexe.enet.dec.com (Ian Preece)
Subject: Re: Budmouth
Keywords: budmouth weymouth barnstable hardy
Reply-To: preece@sbpexe.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:51:58 GMT


In article <174@bazooka.Altos.COM>, cbenson@bazooka.Altos.COM
(Christopher Benson) writes:
>
>Wessex itself will probably not be found on modern maps,
>but refers to Dorset, Wiltshire and bits of Berkshire, Devon.
>

Cough, splutter, choke !!!

"Berkshire, Devon" ???????


Excuuuuuse me, but Berks and Devon are a long way apart !

I think the old Kingdom of Wessex may have included some or all of what 
we now know as Hampshire, too.  In fact, wasn't Winchester the old capital?


>A quick glance at a map shows many *Something*-mouth places.
>

Meaning, "at the mouth of the river *something*"


Ian
(Heck, I only live here, how am I supposed to know ?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ObDisclaimer:

       "I wouldn't *work* for a company that held opinions like mine."      

Ian Preece,                                         Digital Equipment, UK. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------