pap

Are you only on this forum to attempt to make people look small, Wes? You are succeeding, sir. Just not in the way you might imagine.

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that there is no party political self-interest in voting for AV. Strip away that self-interest though, and AV has merits in its own right over and above our current electoral system.

I don't think anyone is arguing that gutter tactics are the exclusive province of the No campaign. Both campaign feature politicians with promotional literature dripping with condescension. That said, the No campaign is naturally more reliant on misinformation than the Yes campaign, as they are failing to show any of the benefits from FPTP. The sad thing is, they'll probably win with these tactics. While the various claims made by either campaign are worthy talking points, too much focus on the hi-jinks they orchestrate diverts from the issue at hand. I'm voting for AV despite some of the crap the Yes campaign have printed in their literature ( the key one being "Nick Griffin is voting no, so we will vote yes!" ). It's a very simple choice between two options. It is a shame that neither official campaign has credited the British public with enough intelligence to make the decision on their own, particularly as that is what we should all be doing on the big day.

I was listening to Ian Hislop on the Today programme this morning. He said that most of the super-injunctions were down to "slappers and football", but he had to challenge this one because of Marr's position and responsibilities. Of course, he'll have to go now. Forever compromised.

Left and right labels should not apply here, and in general, labels are damaging in the extreme. I support a number of party's viewpoints on specific views. Would I take the whole package of a political party? Of course not. It's idiotic in the extreme to begin with, and political parties have a nasty habit of doing things that you would not imagine them doing, such as tuition fees or expensive foreign adventures with the US. You made an interesting point earlier on about a referendum being the purest form of democracy. It really should be, but right now, it feels like we're in highly familiar territory, with campaigns instead of political parties. Neither camp has been entirely straightforward with the voters. It's a very simple question, and I feel that either option can be understood by most people. The big difference between the two campaigns is that despite the muck flying about, the Yes campaign does have better points to make. That's not down to their media strategy. It's because FPTP is utterly indefensible and AV beats it in every way. I haven't seen a single argument for FPTP that doesn't involve an element of self-interest.

And, er, you wonder why some fans call us arrogant?

There was a good argument on Any Answers yesterday about another benefit of AV - people will always be able to vote for their first preference. Presently, many voters will vote tactically, knowing that their first choice may well be a wasted vote in their consituency. The Conservatives are worried about this because of the second preference votes. Who's second preference will they be? BNP? UKIP? Then who? They have disproportionally benefited from FPTP, and while some Labour members might baulk at the prospect of having to form Coalition governments, it is the Conservatives who have most to lose from AV.

Parents should be responsible for their kids behaviour, but in reality, it's not going to happen. The only qualification you actually need to have children is fertility. I'm lucky to have two kids of my own, but it does annoy me that I've got mates who have been trying for years on one hand, and people who don't give a crap about potential offspring banging them out for England.

Indeed, if we had a blanket policy to install democracies across the world, however unworkable that might be, it'd at least be an ethos. Who we get into it with depends largely on what they're giving us at the time.

Yes, and this process involved voting multiple times to determine the two front runners.

Me too. It's a little bit delayed, but I think it's decent value for money. In truth, I have more access to Saints now than when we were in the Prem. Technology, eh? Blooming marvellous.

The Football League show, while tons better than the Championship, falls needlessly far from the production values of the programme that precedes it. The Match of the Day title sequence features a roll-call of Premiership legends, the Football League show a weird beardstear flailing a scarf about to a theme tune that's more in keeping with a toddlers show. It's as if the Beeb is saying that if you don't support a Premier League team, you're some kind of nutcase. Manesh fluffs his lines and gets stuff wrong every week. I would rather they removed the fan-feedback section altogether. The show needs to be twice as long and half as cack.

I think it'd have happened with either possible Coalition, tbh. The form for "parties getting on" hasn't been particularly good, particularly as relations between the parties have been historically combative. That said, Labour and the Liberal Democrats have tried to align on policy in the past, so maybe they would have had a slightly better shout. Most people stared wide-eyed at the notion of a Coalition lasting. I just think Clegg and his ministers-in-waiting were a little blind to the elephant in the room. Whatever the outcome of the vote, it'll be interesting to see the effect on the Coalition. This vote has done permanent damage, imo.

There was tons more coverage of the Huddersfield game (missed chances, etc). They really don't like talking about us, do they?

Sayeeda Warsi : "The principle that resonates with me the most is that there is a clear view in this country that we've had for many decades, generations before have followed, the world copy, and that is, it doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, black or white, where you come from, when you go into that ballot booth, every person has one vote, and every vote is of equal value". Any Questions 23/04/11. If she, and the rest of the No votin' Tories believe this, then their election for leader would have consisted of one vote, for one person, of equal value - and they would have elected the person with the highest number of votes at the first count. That didn't happen. They voted again, and in the second round, some voted for different people. So that's two votes. Now, you're contending that there is no hypocrisy because I am apparently indifferent to the nuances of this personally impenetrable system. Good luck with that, although I have to say, I hope you don't design logic circuits for a living. I'm simply illustrating that they abandoned a core plank of their belief when it suited them. If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what is. (Do you?)

I think I understand the differences just fine. I'm just refraining from assigning colourful descriptions to the candidates. If you cannot comprehend the meaning of someone's post, probably best not to comment on it.

Are all French people the same? If so, that means that Wenger is a potential sheep burner.

Why can't he be in the same mould and not be French?

I listened on SaintsPlayer. Their fans didn't come over as especially classy. I imagine they'll return to their seaside caves to fling faeces at the walls now. I'm glad we beat them. Not quite instant karma, but it arrived soon enough.

YES!!! Well done you beautiful Saints.

Yup, even a draw will suit us fine. Come on you Saints.

The only reason it is not AV is because people have to vote several times. Does that sound like one person, one vote? AV is a time-saving shortcut of this system, something which you are ostensibly ignoring. The only other difference is that voters do not express all preferences up front, and therefore can change their preferences after the initial ballot. And yes, there is an element of hypocrisy in the devolved Governments having PR, but there is also an element of pragmatism. There is no way, for example, that Stormont could run under FPTP.

If Delia Smith had said "Let's focking have them", she might have garnered more appreciation from the Canary faithful.

Yes, with some Brighton players waving imaginary cards before the player is sent off.

I'm not making any demand that parties elect their leader using the same system as for General Elections, just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Tory No campaign, your paragraph of jumbled apologism notwithstanding. The difference between Warsi and the two politicians you mention is that at some point, both were elected to public office. They are Lords now, but have at least been elected members of the lower house at some point in their political careers. Warsi, despite trying, has never been returned as a member of Parliament. And frankly, Izzard can at least claim some popular support ( he wouldn't have a career otherwise ).