[mdavidford]

brooksby wrote:

;tldr

“i don’t like that Campagnolo doesn’t design its product range uniquely for my very specific requirements.”

[I think – I couldn’t be bothered to do more than skim it either.]

[mdavidford]

What about the tortoise

What about the tortoise though?

[mdavidford]

Steve K wrote:

I went past a car in (slow) moving traffic on the A24 (CS7) in South London earlier this week where the driver had both hands off the wheel as he was counting a wad of bank notes.

Was it this chap?

[mdavidford]

Second the recommendation,

Second the recommendation, but a minor correction for anyone trying to find it – it’s just “Things fell apart” – no ‘then’.

[mdavidford]

What I imagine a lot of

What I imagine a lot of people will see:

Pavement Parking is unsafe, unfair and illegal

And But you only risk being fined £100

and only if you’re very unlucky

I suspect it might actually be more effective if it didn’t mention the fine.

 

[mdavidford]

Wait – I think I know the

Wait – I think I know the answer to this one…

They need to, er, increase the speed limit to stop the law being brought into disrepute?

[mdavidford]

This doesn’t look right –

This doesn’t look right – there should be a lot more overlaps here.

[mdavidford]

Quote:

…a pdfile warlord…

…subjugating everyone with their army of savage ebooks.

[mdavidford]

Given that their house seems

Given that their house seems to think it’s a merchant ship, are we sure they weren’t rammed by pirates?

[mdavidford]

lonpfrb wrote:

lonpfrb wrote:

Whilst one may disagree with NF, there’s no suggestion that freedom of speech is at risk in the UK

Well, unless it’s your freedom to discuss gender issues or history through a racial lens in schools…

[mdavidford]

exilegareth wrote:

There’s no such thing as raw votes

I’m pretty sure I remember making a mark on a piece of paper and dropping it in a box. My understanding is those bits of paper then get counted to decide who won.

exhilarated wrote:

all the numbers are a function of party activity. Labour chose to prioritize getting their vote out in target seats, not all seats. […] activity by parties changes all the numbers.

Enthusiasm is a function of that activity; votes are an indication of that enthusiasm.

[mdavidford]

David9694 wrote:

fake Reform candidates

Were they actually bots?

[mdavidford]

David9694 wrote:

There are a couple of other variants (Alternative vote, single Transferable Vote) that try to offer a bit of both, but apart from having been rejected in the referendum of 2011, it’s all a bit “add 5 and then divide by the number you originally thought of and then come back next week” complicated.

It’s not really any more complicated than voting for Strictly, and the Great British Public™ seems to manage that OK.

[mdavidford]

hawkinspeter wrote:

Ultimately, FPTP favours the larger parties  but also has the effect of making parliament more effective by providing larger/more majorities.

Depends what you mean by ‘effective’. It allows governments to do more stuff, but that’s not necessarily a good thing, especially when it’s driven by dogma. Arguably, Parliament is often more effective when it’s doing less.

[mdavidford]

That works in theory, but not

That works in theory, but not always in practice. Often, having a fragile majority can encourage even critical backbenchers to be more compliant, for fear of the potential danger of causing trouble, whereas those with large majorities can end up getting distracted by trying to manage their diverse and fractious coalitions.

[Author]

Replies