May 3rd, 2011

Humphrys Stumped Thrice

Christmas came early for those who enjoy a good John Humphrys cock-up, as this morning three came at once. He went to pieces in his discussion about AV.  ‘As opposed to First Past The Post, which is used by no other major democracy…’ Wrong.

‘It simply isn’t true that you count votes more than once’  he went on the batter Cameron with. Wrong.

The whole point of AV is that you count the votes more than once until someone gets 50%. Not only couldn’t he get his head round the system, but the campaign is clearly a bit of a struggle for the ageing presenter too: “There’s broadly two campaigns, Tories against Lib Dems/Labour and some Labour are on the other side as well’. Wrong.

More than half of Labour MPs, more than 80% of Labour councillors, plus two thirds of Labour peers and the major unions are all backing the “Labour NO to AV” campaign. If one of the most politically engaged people in the country can’t get their head round AV, what’s your average punter meant to be thinking? Either that or old Humphrys is back to his spinning tricks…


  1. 1
    Anonymous says:

    In my opinion Humphreys made a Jeremy Hunt of things this morning.

  2. 2
    Andy says:

    I thought I understood AV until I heard John vs Dave on Radio4 Today. Then @EvanHD Davis got involved on Twitter and confused matters even more. #bollocks2AV

  3. 3

    I suppose there’s some wriggle room in that it’s a “different” vote (preference) that’s counted in the next round; but it’s still clear that Humphrys doesn’t understand (or has been badly briefed about) AV.

  4. 4
    Bobby Mugabe says:

    Justin Webb had it in for Cleggy this morning too.

  5. 5
    alfa 101 says:

  6. 6
    Student Grant says:

    Technically Humphries is right that you only count the votes once.

  7. 7
    Infuriated of West Mids says:

    Technically, Humphries is a cock. And he’s wrong.

  8. 8
    Peter Russell says:

    The counted once thing is just semantics though isn’t it? In each round each vote is counted once, the lie he was trying to expose was that AV isn’t one man one vote. Everyone gets one vote, which is counted once in each round.

  9. 9
    Charlotte Corday says:

    I gather the BBC news website announced that “Obama has been killed” so how can the beeb possibly understand AV?

  10. 10
    Plato says:

    FAB pix :D

  11. 11
    Progressive Tory says:

    He was correct. There is only one count. The rest of the procedure is a bit of simples arithmetic.

  12. 12
    Engineer says:

    If there’s this much confusion about AV when we’re just talking about it, how much confusion and argument would there be if we actually used it?

    Keep things simple. Stick with FPTP.

  13. 13
    David Gill says:

    And see how First Past the Post features in the video (“How your election vote works”) for Welsh Assembly Government elections later this week:

  14. 14
    Sasb says:

    An eaby slunder.

  15. 15
    Mave says:

    Ave Maria.

  16. 16
    Mystick1 says:

    About time BBC got rid of Humphrys , Naughtie , Evans & Co. Too much bias towards Liebour.

  17. 17
    Sir William Waad says:

    All the arguments against AV are based on the fear that it would work.

  18. 18
    Sir William Waad says:

    Engineer, can you count to four?

  19. 19
  20. 20
    Trinny says:

    There is no post in first past the post.

    Is that irony?

  21. 21
    Weygand says:

    Humphrys got 4 things wrong.

    He said everybody’s second preference counted – here at 5.00min

    No – only those who vote for eliminated candidates have their second choice counted.

  22. 22
    Engineer says:

    Yes, but I can count to one much quicker.

  23. 23
    The BBC says:

    Well done Comrade Humphries, keep muddying the waters. There is another 250K a year in it for you.

  24. 24
    Sir William Waad says:

    Everybody’s vote has the same influence on the result. Under FPTP, a large number of votes have no influence on the result. FPTP means you vote for the party you dislike least. AV means you can vite for the party you want to vote for.

  25. 25
    AC1 says:

    It’s 16 times more complicated than counting to 1.

  26. 26
    Engineer says:

    There is a post – the one for which the election is being held.

  27. 27
    AC1 says:

    No, The argument against AV is that it wouldn’t change a thing, and be more expensive, complex and make it harder for voters to effect the outcome.

  28. 28
    Anonymous says:

    I am going to vote but spoil the vote. There is no point in voting No and rewarding Cameron or voting Yes and rewarding Clegg.

    Hope we end up having a general election when Clegg is forced to leave as the leader of LD.

  29. 29
    Totally confused ? Join the rest of us says:

    Well for a start they’d be people who would still put “X” instead of 1,2,3,4 etc….would that count ? Some people would put “1” in all the boxes or “1” and “3” and miss out the other choices.It’s bad enough some people understanding now…AV would be a nightmare…not to mention what happens if no candidate gets the magic “50%” after all the secondary etc votes had been allocated…..Would we have to hold another election. ? Would people be required to state their preference for all candidates by legislation as they did in Australia and also required by law to vote as once again they were forced to do in Australia ?

  30. 30
    Another Engineer says:

    That’s not quite right.

    AV – 4 candidates.

    1st choice – 4 options.
    2nd choice – 3 options.
    3rd choice – 2 options.
    4th choice – 1 option.

    -> 24 choices

    FPTP – 4 candidates.

    -> 4 choices

    So it will be 6 times more complicated.

    Generally, it will be (n-1)! times more complicated for n candidates.

    eg, for 10 candidates, it will be 362880 times more complicated.

  31. 31
    Steve Miliband says:

    It’s hard enough to vote for one candidate, let alone rank them all

  32. 32
    Anonymous says:

    Vote Yes to FPTP!

  33. 33
    Mike Hunt says:

    And those that can’t count put an X.

  34. 34
    The Paragnostic says:

    As a libertarian, there are never, ever, any parties I want to vote for.

    I demand equality for my views, and will set Slotgob on you if you disagree…

  35. 35
    Trinny says:

    But you don’t go past that post.

  36. 36
    The Paragnostic says:

    An unfortunate mistake – how we’d laugh if the house n1gger was shot by accident!

  37. 37
    D.Sinner says:

    Aslong as liebour are kept away from our finances i don’t give a shit which voting system we have.

  38. 38
    The Paragnostic says:

    I think AC1 was talking in terms of registers and binary addition – you must be a ‘civil engineer’ (i.e. a twat that builds earthworks) not to see that.


  39. 39
    Another Engineer says:

    Guess again.

    Are we talking about voting here, or programming in assember?

  40. 40
    Penfold says:

    Time for the old codger to be laid out to grass.
    Perhaps we might hail a passing SEAL to do the “honours”, a humane mercy.

  41. 41

    AV means you can vite for the party you want to vote for.

    Err … not quite.

    One still gives one’s first vote to the party one dislikes the least. The difference is that, under AV, after doing that you get the chance to tell the Returning Officer in which order you dislike the other parties.

  42. 42
    The Paragnostic says:

    Nope, Sir WW – my argument against AV is based on the current leadership of Labour and Conservative (don’t give a shit about Cleggie – he’s irrelevant).

    Both leaders would have lost under a FPTP system, and while the Liebour choice was between Jacob and Esau, the Conservatives would have had the capable and intelligent David Davis as leader.

    Would DD be as supine as DC?


    And that’s my objection to AV in a nutshell.

  43. 43
    john in cheshire says:

    Mr Humphys is a Jeremy Hunt.

  44. 44
    Her Maj says:

    No wonder the dense little fucker has never been knighted.

  45. 45
    Anonymous says:

    In democracy it is the choice of the people. It doesn’t matter who wins as long as they are chosen by the people.

  46. 46
    Ivor price says:

    Being Welsh does not help him.
    The only reason that the BBC have not been so obviously biased to the Yes vote is that Labour are totally divided – something they and the Toady Programme wish to avoid discussing

  47. 47
    The Paragnostic says:

    I rather think AC1 (as the internet guru des nos jours) was thinking assembler.

    Having reread your post, I find your combinatorial mathematics strangely attractive and would like to subscribe to your publication :-)

  48. 48
    Peter Grimes says:

    Not only that, but Humpty, like his mates Numpty and Evan ‘Albert’ Davis are all dyed-in-the-wool ZaNuLieBor lying c.nuts!

  49. 49
    Fa Kin Su Pah says:

    On the Electoral Commission
    web site there is a little cartoon
    comparing FPTP and AV.
    FPTP takes about 30 seconds and is
    crystal clear. AV takes about 3 minutes
    and is rather less so.
    It is undoubtedly a far more complicated voting system.
    A factor I think.

  50. 50
    I don't need no doctor says:

    Humpty Dumpty Humphrys.
    You know these interviewers consider themselves more important than their interviewees. They are however jumped up John Lewis rejects, especially at the BBC.
    Cameron should have gobbed in Humphrys eye.

  51. 51

    This is just the sort of academic masturbation enjoyed by the geeks from the IT Society; what normal pereson gives an sh1t?

    All this minig engineer is bothered about is whether AV is a good idea. Just looking at the people who think it is worth the candle is proof enough for me that it isn’t.

  52. 52
    The Paragnostic says:

    Proper democracy involves only property owning males over the age of majority – anything more is demotic crap.

  53. 53
    Infuriated of West Mids says:

    Yeah, but the order in which you dislike the others least is only taken into account if you voted for the least popular candidate in the first place. Hence, your vote is counted twice.

  54. 54
    D.Sinner says:

    Better hope the people have good sense and long memories.

  55. 55
    AC1 says:

    There are many ways to measure complexity. Your factorial one I thinking about, but I just thinking about potential storage requirements for FPTP v AV (2^ choices).

  56. 56
    TJB says:

    Wrong, everyone’s vote isn’t counted all the way through. What a shock though, Bryant full of shit!

  57. 57
    Dictatorships are less complex says:

    Yeah, av is so complex. Perhaps we should go back to dictatorships. Much easier.

  58. 58
    dutchy in scotland says:

    Humphreys is and always will be a Welsh socialist tosser of the highest order !!!

  59. 59
    Seamaster says:

    The daft welsh spacker.

  60. 60
    Sir William Waad says:

    So – Labour’s mostly in favour of FPTP, and this proves it’s better?

  61. 61
    AC1 says:

    The main point is that Condorcet says that NO voting system will deliver a single vote majority.

    Since the systems are therefore all “flawed” it’s best to choose the simplest one (IMHO as an IT geek).

  62. 62
    Sir William Waad says:

    You’re arguing that we would get exactly the same election results under AV as we do under FPTP?

  63. 63
    Another Engineer says:

    Remittance Man – of course no normal person gives a sh*t. Which is why most people won’t be voting.

    I’m with you on the reasons for rejecting it, though. It isn’t really that complicated, just unnecessary.

    There might be more of an argument for PR.

  64. 64
    The Paragnostic says:

    Love the blog, RM – especially the warning from Google that it might be ‘offensive’ before I got in.

    Yes – it is mathematical masturbation, but then so is AV – a stupid solution to a problem that is better fixed by:

    1. The power of recall – if x% of constituents sign up, a by-election is requred (would have said mandat0ry but for the modbot)

    2. Fair boundaries – Liebour still has an inbuilt majority of between 24 and 39 seats depending on average share.

    3. Postal votes – the abuse of these by the subcontinentals is legendary and needs to be stopped.

    What the value of x is, I don’t know – I’d suggest 10 – if 6,000 people are pissed off with their MP then he should go.

  65. 65
    Sir William Waad says:

    Not more complicated, just a little longer. Counting to four isn’t more complicated than counting to three.

  66. 66
    Fumbles says:

    If your name is Ed Miliband, and your party is “neutral” about the subject of AV (even though the majority of your party are against it) why are you making it look like Labour are campaigning FOR it?

  67. 67
    sockpuppet #4 says:

    Cameron is a cock too then.

    He was making some sort of shit point about first preference votes don’t count in further rounds.

    They do.

  68. 68
    Adler nur fur uns says:

    The only reason that the head of Humphrys’ todger is bigger than the rest of it is to stop his hand slipping off!

  69. 69
    Anonymous says:

    Give us REAL choice, not just yes or no.

    Offer us a ballot of YES / NO / MAYBE

    Because if Humphrys can’t figure it out before the event, it’s not going to make the slightest difference after the event.

    Whatever party holds office, its STILL the GOVERNMENT that wins.

    We are being distracted by yet another layer of obfuscation and rearranging of the deck chairs.

  70. 70
    Mike Hunt says:

    In the safe seats where the current incumbent got 50% or more of the vote then the result will be exactly the same.

  71. 71
    sockpuppet #4 says:

    its simple. But cameron was trying to make a “clever” point.

    Its so bloody simple actually, that they have to make up complicated points (that are bollocks) to make the campaign fun.

  72. 72
    Logan says:

    If it was as simple as the yes campaign claims, then we would not be having these non-stop discussions and debates about what votes are counted and what votes are not counted and why and who will only have one of their preferences counted and who would have several of theirs counted…

  73. 73
    The Paragnostic says:

    He could still get it up enough to have a kid while in his 60s – bet you won’t!

  74. 74
    Sir William Waad says:

    Some people would draw a funny face on the voting paper, some people would write F*CK on it, while others would write in Billy Bowden’s name etc. etc. etc. Generally, though, if you’re sharp enough to find your way to the polling station on the right day you’ll be able to count to four and one might just argue that, if you can’t, you shouldn’t be voting.

  75. 75
    sockpuppet #4 says:

    no, the argument is that conservative couldn’t “win”.

    I disagree with the idea that politicians “win” by the way.

  76. 76
    sockpuppet #4 says:

    they do. A few years later when they get their pension.

  77. 77
    Mark Oaten says:

    You can dump that on me if you like!

  78. 78
    Anonymous says:

    cos Kinnochio has shares in the company that makes the vote counting machines

  79. 79
    Engineer says:

    Well, true; though it might be argued that some holders of those posts sometimes exceed their authorisation – are they then ‘past the post’?

  80. 80
    The BBC AKA Bum Boys Cocks says:

    All reference to Humphrys ignorance has been removed and for the BBC it’s a no-story – Tossers the lot of ‘em.

  81. 81
    Engineer says:

    With ‘No’ as your second preference…

  82. 82
    The Paragnostic says:

    Because Ed is permanently stuck in 6th form debating mode, and the adenoidal twat will never grow up?

    Two bastards whelped on Justine and another on Alice?

    Sad wanker.

  83. 83
    Backwoodsman says:

    All this minig engineer is bothered about is whether AV is a good idea. Just looking at the people who think it is worth the candle is proof enough for me that it isn’t.

    Remmitance man was presumably alluding to our very own state sponsors of terrorism, the bbc , here.

  84. 84
    The Paragnostic says:

    Beyond the pale, most of them Eng :-)

  85. 85
    Engineer says:


    It’s usually an exercise in identifying the least worst option – having to rank the buggers would be too much.

  86. 86
    ST says:

    I don’t understand why it’s fairer that someone dimwit who votes for the least popular gets the opportunity gets the opportunity to be part of the winning 51% whereas if my candidate lost I would have to be part of the losing 49%.

    Everyone’s vote counts except they don’t, well alright they do, but for some it will still be like FPTP whereas for others they get the opportunity to vote for the ‘winner’.


  87. 87
    sockpuppet #4 says:

    If you have 10 candidates, its pretty certain that over N of them will be complete dicks, and don’t count.


  88. 88
    ST says:

    Knickers! Talking of dim wits he’s the same post without the deja vu and other fuck ups.

    I don’t understand why it’s fairer that some dimwit who votes for the least popular candidate gets the opportunity to be part of the winning 51% whereas if my candidate lost I would have to be part of the losing 49%.

    Everyone’s vote counts except they don’t, well alright they do, but for some it will still be like FPTP whereas for others they get the opportunity to vote for the ‘winner’.


  89. 89
    Anonymous says:

    I’m confused by the double count of votes; surely it’s just a case of getting the votes for the eliminated candidate and adding these to the pile of votes for the other candidates? So the candidate(s) with the most votes do not have their votes counted twice, only those of the eliminated candidate?

  90. 90
    Yes he did. No he didn't. says:

    The taking of Osama is already unravelling.

    White House modifies Osama bin Laden account

  91. 91
    ST says:

    Fantastic come back.

  92. 92
    Bent Bradshaw says:

    Want to see a picture of me in a Clanger’s thong??

  93. 93

    Whatever. SirWillie is wrong and by all accounts Paddy Power is already paying out on bets that AV will be booted into touch so the whole debate is academic.

  94. 94
    sockpuppet #4 says:

    Ha. Dimwits who vote for eliminated partys. Plenty of ‘em round here.

    I don’t think its particularly fairer by the way.
    But for someone to “win” in the first round, and get beaten later, they have to be pretty unpopular with the “dimwits”.

    Perhaps someone with such a vile disdain for potential voters does deserve a kick up the arse.

    PS: I’m not voting for AV you know!

  95. 95
    Lord Lucan says:

    He’s Senile. Pure and Simple. He barely knows what day it is…

  96. 96
    Rob says:

    Whats this fetish with wanting things “fair”? The world isn’t fair, life isn’t fair. That’s the way it is, anything else is just complaining cos you didn’t get what you think you deserve. Making things ‘fair’ is rearranging matters to benefit yourself…

  97. 97
    The Paragnostic says:

    You’re correct, but why have the fiasco of counting votes that people didn’t want to cast?

    Of course, there’s the argument that it gives people a chance to choose the wankers to represent them in reverse order, but I’d rather fight my own corner than delegate to a strutting cock of whatever persuasion.

    FPTP or proper PR, or fuck off.

  98. 98
    ST says:

    So your argument is AV stops thick people from voting….that’s a better argument.

  99. 99
    Gordon ( SoldGoldAtThe ) BottomBrown says:

    Let me get at the Bank of England’s Gold Bullion Reserves again !!!!!!!!!

  100. 100
    sockpuppet #4 says:

    A great quote:

    “I wasn’t there,”

  101. 101
    ST says:

    Ok dim wit was unnecessary, but I still fail to see why this system is any fairer.

    Not that I believe a fairer system is obtainable anyway.

  102. 102
    P. Mandevilson, the Eminence Greasy says:

    Got a full set already, thanks.

  103. 103
    They're all smug, sneering cunts at the BBC, 'cept Kuenssbergs whom I wish to bum intensely says:


  104. 104
    Mike Hunt says:

    Quite right, the world is not ‘fair’.

    Trouble is now so many have been through schools where there are no losers and there are prizes for everyone. As soon as they go outside into the real world where there ARE winners and losers, they just can’t cope and scream ‘but it’s not fair.

  105. 105
    Postlethwaite says:


  106. 106
    Peter Russell says:

    You’re looking at it wrong. The 50% thing is a distraction. Think of it as a series of run off elections – The last placed candidate is eliminated and a separate election is conducted with fewer candidates, until there are only two left.

    In the final mini-election there are two candidates, and everyone who bothered to express a preference between the two gets counted for one or the other – just like a FPTP election with just two candidates. One candidate wins and one loses. What’s unfair about that?

  107. 107
    sockpuppet #4 says:

    Interesting rather the opposite …
    You’d think that a club where they think in the same sort of way, FPTP would be fine.
    But if you’re talking about a system for electing government, you’d actually want them to be “supine” as in, they should be listening to more than their core 30% of the electorate

    PS: you don’t actually know whether DD would have won under FPTP. The “dimwits” (see above), might not have voted for their no-hoper candidates.

  108. 108
    misterned says:

    Actually we did not get to hear all of Cameron’s point as Humphrys interrupted him so often and spouted blatant lies about AV in the process.

    It is a fact that those who voted a first preference vote for the eventual winner in a constituency, and those who voted a first preference vote for the person who comes second, will NOT have their second (or any other lower preference) vote counted at all.

  109. 109
    sockpuppet #4 says:

    Actually ST … your point, even without the “dimwits” makes me more pro-AV. If you do have a candidate who is an out and out “töry tosser” or “labour twat”, he’s more likely to stir up enough aversion for the small party voters (which can of course include conservatives) for AV to make the difference.

    Its not fairer, but its more like a competition in not being unpopular.

  110. 110
    Mike Hunt says:

    woo-hoo, two comment 101s.

  111. 111
    Spank Sinatra says:

    And let us not forget that there is no obligation to provide a 2nd /3rd / or 4th preference at all. If I am offered (and want) a full English breakfast or a further choice of either shit on toast, shit with eggs or shit in cornflakes I have no desire to be served up with anything other than a non-shit option. AV has to be considered a truly shit proposal.

  112. 112
    Alexsandr Orlov says:

    Liverpool supporters would like to win the Premiership but they are nowhere neargood enough so they would prefer Chelsea to win it rather than man utd. Simples. Just like AV.

  113. 113
    Lord Bowden of Middlesex says:

    Hang the C-unts at the BBC!

    *Not out over night.

  114. 114
    sockpuppet #4 says:

    And neither they should. that would indeed give them “two votes”.

    He just seemed to keep on saying that people who vote for small parties get two votes. They get one.

    Which if rejected means they have lost their right to representation and lost their right to be listened to. Which is basically what happened to you really innit?

  115. 115
    Gordon Brown says:

    Obama Beach

  116. 116

    Whats the best odds on AV getting booted into the long grass thanks to voter apathy on a nice hot May day.

  117. 117
    Implacable opponent of scope ambiguities says:

    Does “intensely” govern “wish” or “bum”?

  118. 118
    Lord Snooty. says:

    Why don’t we keep voting simple. Only men over the age of 50 who own land should be allowed the vote. Seriously though, some people are just too thick to vote e.g My family have voted Labour for generations and I will continue to vote Labour.
    Some people do not use their vote. This undermines democracy. We can’t get the basics right. Introducing AV will further undermine democracy.

  119. 119
    Titford Hat says:

    What annoys me about AV is that the second preferences of those losers who vote for people who come bottom of the poll are added in. If I vote for the person who comes top in the poll it’s likely that my second preference won’t be used at all.

  120. 120
    Drop a daisy cutter on the BBC says:

    The BBC WANT AV, that is quite obvious, they totally ignore the splits in Nu Liebore but go on and on and on and on about ‘Tory/Lib Dem splits’

  121. 121
    Alexsandr Orlov says:

    Ulster Unionist 44 36 +4 -4 0 69.2 48.2 269,501 -10.9
    Independent Unionist 18 3 +3 -0 + 3 5.8 15.6 86,052 +15.6

    If you have no problems with results like this vote No
    If you do have problems with results like this vote Yes

  122. 122
    Lord Bowden of Middlesex says:

    AV or not AV makes no fucking difference, the fuckin EU-arse lickers rule the fuckin place , they just want thier turn on the gravy trian at our expenses!

    Hang em , Hang em All!!!!!!!

  123. 123
    Nemo says:

    “More than half of Labour MPs, more than 80% of Labour councillors, plus two thirds of Labour peers and the five major unions are all backing the “Labour NO to AV” campaign.” Now that says it all, what a good reason not to vote for “NO to AV, safe seats jobbies for as long they want them all those lovely expenses not allowances which are taxable

  124. 124
    BBC owned by Labour says:

    Cameron gave him a rogering.

  125. 125
    Titford Hat says:

    Why should stupid people have the vote? Perhaps we ought to restrict voting to people with an IQ of 110 or more. And a BMI of 25 or less, naturally.

  126. 126
    Alexsandr Orlov says:

    If you vote 1 and 3 under AV 3 is clearly your second choice so if your first choice is removed 3 will be taken as your second choice. simples

  127. 127
    Silly Bercow says:

    Oh shit. It’s RANK. I’ll vote against now that I know. Thought it was……

  128. 128
    Assange tips BL off says:

    Wikileaks forced Obama’s hand. Reckon assange is Now dead meat.

  129. 129
    Torontory says:

    ‘As opposed to First Past The Post, which is used by no other major democracy…’

    Didn’t Mr Humphreys read the papers that Stephen Harper (Conservative) won the general election in Canada last night with an overall majority using the FPTP system. As a member of the G8 with no significant banking crisis, it probably doesn’t count as a major democracy in the eyes of JH/BBC

  130. 130
    Alexsandr Orlov says:

    Quite right. Support the in-built Labour bias in the electoral system.

  131. 131
    Fog says:

    Putting 1,2,3 on the ballot paper is the easy bit. Its the counting process :

    Round One – votes for each candidate counted. If one receives more than half the votes cast, they win. Its over. If not – Round Two – candidate with fewest numbers removed, but same ballot papers votes for other candidates are added to appropriate candidates pile. Round three – again the one with the fewest votes is removed and same ballot papers looked at and other choices added to appropriate candidate. This process is repeated until one candidate has more than half the votes.

  132. 132
    AC1 says:

    Why not go all your way and insist on Aryan Racial purity too?

    Personally I’m in favour of making voting only as important as removing a government, i.e. the government plays a much smaller role and thus harms society less.

  133. 133
    Alexsandr Orlov says:

    Canada is a “little village”. Simples

  134. 134
    Fubar Saunders says:


    useless beeboid twat.

    Even cleggy was on reasonable form this morning on Toady, despite the presenter trying to turn it into an anti-tory-pro-labour-fest.

  135. 135
    William says:

    I can’t wait until all this AV vote is over and Guido can get back to calling for reform rather than defending the status quo.

    We just had a royal wedding and no comment about all the republican activities, or the fact £££ of taxpayer money was wasted.

    I thought this was a radical blog, not a mouthpiece for conservative Britain.

    You’ve changed, man.

  136. 136
    AC1 says:

    Smaller governments mean we can dictate more of our own affairs.

  137. 137
    Infuriated of West Mids says:

    +1 This is my main beef with AV, and one that few people seem to understand, sadly.

  138. 138
    Tit for Tat says:

    I am voting for the ones with the big knockers first.

  139. 139

    I’m still waiting for my Twix.
    Or my Mars.
    or any confectionery at all.

    When will the count be over, I’m as hungry as a Pickles between meals.

  140. 140
    The Timbalone says:

    Humphries is stupid fucker

  141. 141
    The Timbalone says:

    i smell

  142. 142
    Anonymous says:

    But surely under AV you have the choice – you can either vote for one person or several?

    Granted that the counting of the votes will be chaotic given the current level of education! But I still can’t see what is so wrong with AV.

  143. 143

    I thought Gordon kicked Canada out of the G8 and put Spain in?
    Made the UK’s debt look much better that way.

  144. 144
    sockpuppet #4 says:

    People are being very nasty to ukip supporters today.

  145. 145
    Her Maj says:

    I like Canada but I wouldn’t want to go there for the whole day

  146. 146
    I agree with Nick says:

    The BNP support FPTP so if you vote no, you are a BNP racist.

    In other news, Cats hate Dogs, so if you hate Dogs you must be a Cat.

  147. 147
    Accidental Rapist says:

    Not with your fat ugly missus, that’s for sure

  148. 148
    AC1 says:

    Was the loser, Michael Ignatief, ex AlJaBeebya?

  149. 149
    Drop a daisy cutter on the BBC says:

    Muslim lover Frank Gardner spouting his one sided love for Islam on Radio 5 right now.

    Remind us Frank, just who put you in a wheelchair for life?

  150. 150
    Accidental Rapist says:

    Nope, he got it wrong

  151. 151
    Rat's arse says:

    I have always worked on the premise that if it aint broken then don’t try to fix it. I am sick and tired of hearing about mathematical equations and topping up votes and so on. If the Limp Dumbs and Eddie Millitw@t think it’s a great idea, you can bet your bottom dollar that it’s a no-brainer.

    As for Humphrys, he can go and f@ck himself. I have never heard that b@stard let anyone finish their sentence. I don’t know why they bother interviewing anyone on Radio 4, as they never have their full say [unless you happen to be a Lieber ‘tard of course].

  152. 152
    Andy says:

    What’s so difficult about AV? Just put 5 points against your favourite candidate, 4 against your next favourite etc, right down to the one you hate most who gets only 1 point. Simples.

  153. 153
    dutchy in scotland says:

    Most of us ‘normal’ people have already had our children long before we are 60. The only ‘type of people’ who father children at 60 are Humphreys obviously and dear old Elton John. All I need now is to see John Cleese father a child with is latest ‘bidie in’ and then I will know the world has gone mad !!.

  154. 154
    Rat's arse says:

    Thanks Andy. Why don’t the so called experts put it so simply? Probably trying to be clever b@stards!

  155. 155
  156. 156
    Bercow's Best Friend says:

    Humphreys is shagging a Guardian Columnist. That alone is enough to ban him from the airwaves ion grounds of good taste

  157. 157

    al-Jabeeba, Chris Hoon, a bunch of D-list slebs, Nick Clegg, the Electoral Reform Society, all the other Libdem tossers, take your pick.

    By the way thanks for the kind word about the blog – you must have been there more recently than I have.

  158. 158
    Andy says:

    This morning’s John Humphrys vs Dave debacle on Radio 4 Today starts at 2hr 10min into the #iPlayer stream. #yes2av #no2av

  159. 159
    The BBC ...its what WE do says:

    Well you shouldn’t be surprised from 2 Sept 2009 -4 May 2010 they were actively campaigning for a “Balanced Parliament at every opportunity”(Hung to you and me)on the premise that that would be best for the country particularly a Lib?Lab pact with Saint Vince as Chancellor. When the electorate delivered the Tories as the largest party but without a overall majority if you recall in the 5 days after the election they then were actively giving air-time to those in Labour and LibDems who were canvassing for a “Progressive Alliance of the Left”..then when Labour walked away from Coalition talks the BBC could not hide its bitter dis-appointment that Cameron would be PM after all and that the LibDems under the Clegg faction were supporting him and went on to actively campaign for the Coalition’s failure and still are at every opportunity.What of course happens if they succeed and the economy goes into melt-down(in the present circumstances irrespective of whom you support the impact for the UK of any go it Labour or not would be catastrophic for the country) they are strangely silent about

  160. 160
    knob crow says:

    Oh yeah a wedding which if it didn’t happen I wouldn’t be a penny better off so don’t care ! should take preference over a change to the whole way we vote and the way we are governed !
    maybe you should go to lefty foot what ever if you want a mouthpiece for swp/Labour Britain !

  161. 161
    "We were confused before now we're totally confused"... UK Voters says:

    Hang that can’t be right can it ? Don’t you put “1” against your first choice and so on ? What you’re suggesting is the other way around ….I think I’ll just vote NO and save all the bother of this AV malarkey

  162. 162
    lola says:

    Clearly it was for Gordon. That and adding up.

  163. 163
    Moley says:

    The other point that is wrong is that all preferences carry equal weight when the votes are counted.

    So the fifth preference of a Monster Raving Looney Voter is equal to the first preference of an Ed Miliband Supporter.

    (Loud cry of “Sounds Fair to me!).

  164. 164
    Minekiller says:

    The problem is what happens after the voting…then the fun starts as larger parties negotiate with smaller parties to create working majorities and so minority parties often on single or a narrow range of issues gain disproportional influence. This is what happend in many European countries in the 1920s and 1930s as majority parties ability to govern properly was emasculated by their smaller ‘allies’ demands in exchange for support in power. France, Rumania, Austria and Czechoslovakia are four examples. Germany is another. All of these countries either became politically corrupted in the best case and fell to extremism in the worst.

    AV or whatever you want to call it is not a good idea. A pity our politician cannot learn from history.

  165. 165
    lola says:

    …and end up in more private deals between politicians as to who will form a government – which is in itself anti-democratic. One thing FPTP has done is to polarise politics. It also allows us to hurl out a governemnt / party that we don’t like. The more I think about AV/PR the more it seesm that it will empower lots of petty little kingmakers (a la Clegg) and that fill sme with horror.

    If you want more accountability get on with setting up open primaries. That msy do more to remove the power of the party machines that so bedevil independnently minded candidates.

  166. 166
    lola says:

    They – New Liebour etc etc – deliberately seek to confuise ‘fair’ with ‘equitable’, that is ‘fair and just’.

  167. 167
    Accidental Rapist says:

    Can’t be titwank with your flat chest

  168. 168
    lola says:

    Men that own land, yes, and no-one who works for the state. On the subject of which, ONLY those that work for the state will pay income tax.

  169. 169
    Edth Millibandth says:

    I didnth shagth Alice Milesth. I once touchedth her breasths though. Yay secondth basth

  170. 170
    Paragnostic is a Welsh Wanker says:

    Listen to me, I know everything. I spout Welsh shite all day spitting on everyone around me.

  171. 171
    Accidental Rapist says:

    Oh here we go. It’s all a conspiracy….JFK….Princess Diana……Aliens……..yawn fucking yawn

  172. 172
    Angie "the Eagle" Edwards says:

    I heard it live. Dave completely dicked him over. Told old leather face to go back to school. ’twas fantastic. Also that fat prick “comedian” Eddie Izzard supports the Yes campaign so there’s another reason to vote against.

  173. 173
    Gay Slayer says:

    It’s the other way around isn’t it

  174. 174
    Torontory says:

    Given the cost to the Candians/Torotonians of the G8/G20 meeting last year, oh that that was true!

  175. 175
    The Paraplegic says:

    I just need me cathatar bag changing now chap.

  176. 176
    They're all smug, sneering cunts at the BBC, 'cept Robinson whom I wish to bum intensely says:

    Both. Up the bum, no harm done.

  177. 177
    Logan says:

    That was the G20, or G24 or something like that.

  178. 178
    Logan says:

    That wedding was mostly paid for by the two families involved and as a national event, it made a very large profit for the tax-payer.

    It was also brilliant to see so many genuinely happy people on TV enjoying themselves and being proud to be British, Royalist and patriotic.

    As an additional personal benefit, I loved watching the BBC commentators reporting on all this ‘national pride and enjoyment’ whilst simultaneously trying to avoid vomiting blood!

  179. 179
    Logan says:

    The audio of that specific row is on this page:

    About half way down.

  180. 180
    ichabod says:

    Didn’t Frank as he lay on the ground in Riyadh, with 3-4 bullets in him, hold up a copy of the Koran, claiming loudly that he was a Moslem as well. Now either he is a follower and therefore isn’t to be trusted when discussing the religion of peace (sarcasm alert) or he isn’t and was lying (understandably enuf. in the circs.) and therefore should be a bit more sceptical about the virtues of Islam Of course it could have been the Jews who shot him. No, they wouldn’t have botched it.

  181. 181
    John says:

    I’m thinking of ‘entering myself’ on Mastermind

  182. 182
    Alexsandr Orlov says:

    Be nice to the confused old bbc man

  183. 183
    Alexsandr Orlov says:

    If I vote for the person who comes top in the poll it’s likely that my second preference won’t be used at all.

    Well D’uh

  184. 184
    Guido's spokesperson says:

    Over to you then

    What’s your bolg address?

  185. 185
    No To AV I says:

    AV is not proportional representation.

    AV is suitable for electing to a single post, not for electing to a representative body.

    AV is complex. You are standing in the polling booth. There are 10 candidates on the ballot paper. Are you seriously going to stand there and pick through the list? Bear in mind that if a later preference is eliminated before an earlier preference, it is wasted.

    Even for a simple system like FPTP, we often have recounts that produce a slightly different result. Can you imagine recounts for AV? One vote could produce a different elimination order, and a radically different result. In this sense it is unstable, unlike both FPTP and PR.

    With FPTP (and PR), it’s just a cross in a box. Little scope for ambiguity. Easy to count. With AV, counters must interpret handwriting. Cue Kinnock the Communist Eurocrat offering e-voting ‘services’.

    AV is unfair. Voters who list more preferences have a greater influence on the outcome. How is that fair?

    AV is corrupt. Crony corporations offering electronic vote riggingcounting ‘services’, with backing from vermin like Kinnock.

    Want to rig an AV election for Labour? No need to print ballots and risk detection because of those pesky unique IDs. Just add Labour as the next preference on a few hundred ballots. A few Labourite counters could even do this during the count. Under FPTP, a ballot with more than one mark on it is considered ‘spoilt’. Not so with AV.

    The eco-scamming EU-worshippers of the Illiberal Undemocrats are pushing AV for no other reason than because it will turn an entrenched two-party system into an even further entrenched three-party system, with a permanent place at the trough for their own greedy snouts.

  186. 186
    No to AV campaign says:

    Fuck off to AV is a rather pithy and concise soundbite. I wish we had thought of it earlier. We will suggest the PM uses it in interviews from now on.

  187. 187
    Anonymous says:

    Jeremy c unt

  188. 188
    If it's bad for you I want it says:

    The warnings from google about “offensive” sites remind me of the “parental advisory” stickers which single handedly saved the record industry in the 1990’s.

  189. 189
    GOD says:

    Who is this joker ?

  190. 190
    Kill the Telly tax says:

    I think Cameron should have pointed out that no other democratic country has a TV Licence. That might have shut the Beeboid turd up!

  191. 191

    The copper who murdered Ian Tomlinson could now face manslaughter charges as the inquest jury found him guilty unreasonable force and unlawfull killing !
    the CPS (Coverup Police Scandals ) will now have to re open the file on Simon Harwood who will also now face disiplinary action from his own force
    who should have disiplined him in the first place

  192. 192
    Peter MangledBum (Lord of the Rings) says:

    I’m just thinking of Entering Myself

  193. 193
    Peter Carter-Fuck says:

    To be fair Eddie’s arse only looks big in some of his dresses.

  194. 194
    ichabod says:

    But the BBC will always look after their own–especially if one of them is in dispute with a Conservative politician; hence the PM programme will this evening seek to revive the spat. I have the feeling that the exercise will be one that attempts to exonerate Humphries and ‘prove’ he was right all along and that the one who was in the wrong was the Prime Minister. Very touchy types at the BBC…

  195. 195
    Saved Dave says:

    Humphrys has just become a tired old mouth piece for half baked labour spinners. Whupped him again Davey, well done. Time someone in the BBC banned Lord Haw Haw impressions and listened to a bit of common sense from those who pay its bills.

  196. 196
    Andy says:

    What was that quote on HIGNFY last week about the royal wedding? “Literally millions of people couldn’t give the tiniest shit”? Same with AV.

  197. 197
    A ? says:

    That nice Mr Frost knew, what to do, when to go and to do so with dignity.

  198. 198
    Poor Bill says:

    My fucking God. The worst of all systems.

    You vote for one wanker. Then to make sure that the ‘top party Bosses’ don’t have to worry about being voted out of a job you fix it so they will always get a Seat.

    Fucking hell. If only Uncle Joe Stalin and old Chairperson Mao had had the foresight.

    You fucking Euro-Monkeys.

    Never understood democray before and don’t now.

  199. 199
    Alexsandr Orlov says:

    With FPTP (and PR), it’s just a cross in a box.

  200. 200
    bbc delenda est says:

    Humphreys and the rest of the dullards at the bbc have descended into parody of themselves.

    If a beeboid has a different viewpoint from someone he or she is interviewing (though more likely he, as despite being a bunch of lefty gayers, for some reason there is a lot of misogyny at the bbc), regardless of whether the person is a politician, a scientist or an “ordinary” member of the public, the beeoid will talk all over them and interrupt constantly, making it impossible for the interviewee to make one point, let alone a coherent argument.

    It really is time for the licence fee (“bbc tax”) to be scrapped.

  201. 201
    Duncan says:

    Okay, the first and last of the remarks are unambiguously mistaken, but the second is not. Without wanting to sound pretentious it depends on what you mean by ‘voting twice’ and more generally what you mean by ‘voting’. Under AV each voters preferences are afforded equal weight in the proceedings, something which doesn’t happen under the status quo (unless you support one of the top two candidates you preferences are irrelevant to the final outcome) thus maintaining parity between voters. Whether this is a violation of ‘one man one vote’ is a weird question a) because it’s not obvious what that means (if it means ‘one vote simpliciter’ then the claimant suggests that democracy REQUIRES FPTP which is, under most (if not all) models of democratic preference analysis, a democratically flawed system, so that would seem an odd claim and if it means either b) one vote which is significant then AV maintains this or c) equality of preference weighting between voters then AV better delivers this than FPTP. Really what AV gives you is what its alternative name would suggest more obviously; a series of run-off elections. No one thinks the principle of one man one vote is violated in the French Presidential election, yet the AV system gives you in a single election what happens there over multiple elections – a series of elections in which the candidate pool shrinks each time and in which you are under no obligation to keep voting if you don’t want to. Of course, under this model it’s not difficult to see FPTP as a run-off election wherein all those who didn’t vote for one of the candidates to make it to the final round are denied the chance to vote. This is why FPTP is inferior as a model of preference representation and as such is inferior as a democratic system for electing representatives to AV.

    Look, if you’re a Tory and want to keep FPTP for purely political reasons (or a hardcore Labourite dreaming of 1997-style landslides) fair enough – I don’t think that’s really a fair way to vote about an election system but it’s up to you how to use your vote. But all this bollocks about AV being ‘undemocratic’ is just that; bollocks. Silly word games about whether ‘people vote multiple times’ when those terms are never explained to any degree of philosophical soundness and the claim quickly falls apart if they are.

  202. 202
    NOWOTIMEEN says:

    All that waffle about wasted votes is bollox mate.

  203. 203
    Paul Marks says:

    The problem is that most people who listen to Mr Humphrys do not know that what he says is not true.

    Even now most listeners still trust the “nice man” on the BBC.

    The last truthful presenter of the Today Programme was got rid of almost 40 years ago – because he was known to be against the campaign of lies desined to get Britain into the (then) E.E.C.

    Supporting lies (or telling them yourself) is part of the de facto job description for a BBC presenter – but most British people have no idea that this is so.

Seen Elsewhere

Users of Gay Hook-Up App Grindr Infected | TechnoGuido
ISIS Raising Funds Online Using Bitcoin | TechnoGuido
UKIP’s Youth Challenge | BBC
ISIS Operative: This Is How We Send Jihadis To Europe | BuzzFeed
Shapps Defends Bashir Defection | Seb Payne
Tory Leadership Contenders Jostle Over Europe | Alex Wickham
Cutting Taxes is Good For You | Art Laffer
Suspects Will Now Have to Prove Innocence | Laura Perrins
Labour Cllr: Cops Shouldn’t Stop Petrol Thieves | HandF Forum
Creeping Cultural Acceptance of Anti-Semitism | Eric Pickles
Time For Greece to Leave Eurozone | Allister Heath

Rising Stars
Find out more about PLMR AD-MS

Boris on British Jihadis. Apparently based on MI5 intel:

“If you look at all the psychological profiling about bombers, they typically will look at porn. They are literally w***ers. Severe onanists. They are tortured. They will be very badly adjusted in their relations with women, and that is a symptom of their feeling of being failures and that the world is against them. They are not making it with girls, and so they turn to other forms of spiritual comfort — which of course is no comfort.”

Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:


AddThis Feed Button

Guido Reads

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,716 other followers