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…


203 Comments

  1. 1
    Anonymous says:

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

    Like

    • 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.

      Like

      • 37
        D.Sinner says:

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

        Like

        • 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.

          Like

          • The Paragnostic says:

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

            Like

          • D.Sinner says:

            Better hope the people have good sense and long memories.

            Like

          • 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.

            Like

        • 99
          Gordon ( SoldGoldAtThe ) BottomBrown says:

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

          Like

    • 43
      john in cheshire says:

      Mr Humphys is a Jeremy Hunt.

      Like

      • 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!

        Like

        • 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…

          Like

    • 58
      dutchy in scotland says:

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

      Like

      • 73
        The Paragnostic says:

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

        Like

        • 147
          Accidental Rapist says:

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

          Like

        • 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 !!.

          Like

    • 95
      Lord Lucan says:

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

      Like

    • 124
      BBC owned by Labour says:

      Cameron gave him a rogering.

      Like

    • 134
      Fubar Saunders says:

      +1

      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.

      Like

    • 140
      The Timbalone says:

      Humphries is stupid fucker

      Like

    • 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.

      Like

    • 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.

      Like

  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

    Like

  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.

    Like

  4. 4
    Bobby Mugabe says:

    Justin Webb had it in for Cleggy this morning too.

    Like

  5. 5
    alfa 101 says:

    Like

  6. 6
    Student Grant says:

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

    Like

    • 7
      Infuriated of West Mids says:

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

      Like

      • 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.

        Like

        • 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…

          Like

        • 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.

          Like

          • 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.

            Like

          • 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.

            Like

          • 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.

            Like

      • 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.

        Like

        • 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’.

          FUCK OFF TO AV.

          Like

          • 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’.

            FUCK OFF TO AV.

            Like

          • 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!

            Like

          • 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.

            Like

          • 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?

            Like

          • 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.

            Like

          • 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.

            Like

        • 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.

          Like

          • 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?

            Like

          • 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

            Like

  7. 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.

    Like

  8. 9
    Charlotte Corday says:

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

    Like

  9. 9
    Plato says:

    FAB pix :D

    Like

  10. 11
    Progressive Tory says:

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

    Like

  11. 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.

    Like

    • 18
      Sir William Waad says:

      Engineer, can you count to four?

      Like

      • 22
        Engineer says:

        Yes, but I can count to one much quicker.

        Like

      • 25
        AC1 says:

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

        Like

        • 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.

          Like

          • 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.

            Twat.

            Like

          • Another Engineer says:

            Guess again.

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

            Like

          • 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 :-)

            Like

          • 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.

            Like

          • 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).

            Like

          • 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).

            Like

          • 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.

            Like

          • 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.

            Like

          • 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.

            Like

          • sockpuppet #4 says:

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

            N=9.

            Like

          • 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.

            Like

        • 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.

          Like

        • 65
          Sir William Waad says:

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

          Like

    • 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 ?

      Like

      • 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…

        Like

      • 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.

        Like

        • 98
          ST says:

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

          Like

          • 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.

            Like

          • 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.

            Like

        • 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.

          Like

      • 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

        Like

    • 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.

      Like

  12. 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:

    Like

    • 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.

      Like

  13. 15
    Mave says:

    Ave Maria.

    Like

  14. 16
    Mystick1 says:

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

    Like

  15. 17
    Sir William Waad says:

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

    Like

    • 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.

      Like

      • 62
        Sir William Waad says:

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

        Like

        • 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.

          Like

      • 75
        sockpuppet #4 says:

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

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

        Like

      • 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.

        Like

    • 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?

      No!

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

      Like

      • 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.

        Like

  16. 19
  17. 20
    Trinny says:

    There is no post in first past the post.

    Is that irony?

    Like

  18. 21
    Weygand says:

    Humphrys got 4 things wrong.

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

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13260010

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

    Like

    • 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.

      Like

    • 182
      Alexsandr Orlov says:

      Be nice to the confused old bbc man

      Like

  19. 23
    The BBC says:

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

    Like

  20. 31
    Steve Miliband says:

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

    Like

  21. 32
    Anonymous says:

    Vote Yes to FPTP!

    Like

  22. 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.

    Like

  23. 44
    Her Maj says:

    No wonder the dense little fucker has never been knighted.

    Like

  24. 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

    Like

  25. 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.

    Like

  26. 57
    Dictatorships are less complex says:

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

    Like

  27. 59
    Seamaster says:

    The daft welsh spacker.

    Like

  28. 60
    Sir William Waad says:

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

    Like

  29. 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?

    Like

    • 78
      Anonymous says:

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

      Like

    • 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.

      Like

      • 169
        Edth Millibandth says:

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

        Like

  30. 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!

    Like

  31. 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.

    Like

  32. 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?

    Like

    • 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.

      Like

      • 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.

        Like

      • 170
        Paragnostic is a Welsh Wanker says:

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

        Like

  33. 90
    Yes he did. No he didn't. says:

    The taking of Osama is already unravelling.

    White House modifies Osama bin Laden account

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54162.html

    Like

  34. 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…

    Like

    • 103
      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.

      Like

    • 130
      Alexsandr Orlov says:

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

      Like

    • 166
      lola says:

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

      Like

  35. 103
    They're all smug, sneering cunts at the BBC, 'cept Kuenssbergs whom I wish to bum intensely says:

    Cu’nt

    Like

    • 117
      Implacable opponent of scope ambiguities says:

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

      Like

    • 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.

      Like

  36. 113
    Lord Bowden of Middlesex says:

    Hang the C-unts at the BBC!

    *Not out over night.

    Like

  37. 116
    LOOKING TO MAKE SOME EASYYYYYYY MONEYYYYYYYYYYYY says:

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

    Like

  38. 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.

    Like

    • 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.

      Like

  39. 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.

    Like

    • 137
      Infuriated of West Mids says:

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

      Like

    • 144
      sockpuppet #4 says:

      People are being very nasty to ukip supporters today.

      Like

    • 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!).

      Like

    • 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

      Like

  40. 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’

    Like

    • 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

      Like

  41. 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!!!!!!!

    Like

  42. 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

    Like

  43. 128
    Assange tips BL off says:

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

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/87933-interrogation-file-of-abu-faraj-al-libi.html#document/p5/a17091

    Like

  44. 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

    Like

  45. 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.

    Like

    • 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 !

      Like

      • 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!

        Like

    • 184
      Guido's spokesperson says:

      Over to you then

      What’s your bolg address?

      Like

  46. 138
    Tit for Tat says:

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

    Like

  47. 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.

    Like

  48. 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?

    Like

    • 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.

      Like

  49. 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].

    Like

  50. 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.

    Like

    • 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!

      Like

    • 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

      Like

    • 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

      Like

    • 173
      Gay Slayer says:

      It’s the other way around isn’t it

      Like

  51. 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.

    Like

  52. 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

    Like

  53. 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.

    Like

  54. 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.

    Like

  55. 181
    John says:

    I’m thinking of ‘entering myself’ on Mastermind

    Like

  56. 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!

    Like

  57. 191
    KEYSTONE COPS says:

    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

    Like

  58. 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.

    Like

  59. 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.

    Like

  60. 197
    A ? says:

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

    Like

  61. 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.

    Like

  62. 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.

    Like

  63. 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.

    Like


Seen Elsewhere

Double Standards of Police Leaks to Guardian | Mail
My Year in Court | Charlie Brooks
Legalise Pot | NY Times
Spooks Recruited IRA Paedo | Mirror
How Police Hack Phones and Email | Times
Labour’s Minimum Wage Pledge Not Ambitious | Alan Milburn
Lord Freud’s Comments | Ryan Bourne
Obama’s Credit Card Rejected in Restauarant | Washington Times
Reckless Was Shifting In July | Rob Hutton
Unions Given Free Office Space Size of Kremlin | Harry Phibbs
Feminism to Blame for Nursing Decline | Kathy Gyngell


VOTER-RECALL
Find out more about PLMR


Chris Bryant talks to the Times Diary about a famous gay actor:

“I don’t think I’ve had sex with him. He says we had sex in Clapham. I’m fairly certain I’ve never had sex south of the river”



Progressive Inclusion Champion says:

Great to hear Carswell call for inclusive policies and that UKIP must stand for first and second generation immigrants as much as the English.


Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:






RSS




AddThis Feed Button
Archive


Labels
Guido Reads
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,519 other followers