Time for Change? (UK General Election)

[DGiant2000]

Is it not the case that the law simply makes a provision for schools that want to have such assemblies, but doesn't compel schools to have them? My primary school (albeit not in England & Wales) did have a weekly prayer session (Christian) for which the Muslim kids got an exemption. This fact alone was probably responsible for atleast a few conversions to Islam

Exactly right TM, where I work there are some schools for example who have Islamic assemblies daily as the makeup of the pupils is primarily Islam. They are not breaking the law, imagine telling them they had to have a daily act of Christian worship

Without meaning to sound condescending, I hold a leadership position in a highly successful comprehensive school and so am pretty clued up on what you can/can't/have to do regarding the students education.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Read it again

Section 70 of the 1998 Act states that, subject to the parental right of excusal or other special arrangements, "…each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship."

I think that's pretty clear. How exactly is a community school not a comprehensive school then?

These are not standard state comprehensive schools and have slightly different rules for several things.

In England and Wales, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 states that all pupils in state schools must take part in a daily act of collective worship, unless their parents request that they be excused from attending.[3] The majority of these acts of collective worship are required to be "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character",

[/quote]
That's the quote from the wikipedia article provided purely to give you a slightly less bias idea. But the fact remains my previous source is a direct quote from the act in question.

Most comprehensive schools ignore these guidelines anyway (and I work in several different secondary schools as part of my job) and have no Christian assemblies, as I stated my school certainly does not have any kind of daily collective worship, however we were judged an outstanding school by ofsted in November (under the new framework) and this was not mentioned once in our report.

I'm well aware most comprehensive schools ignore it, I've even said that they do. But again, the fact is that it is the law.

I don't really know how this thread stands to gain any further from this line of discussion.

 

[DGiant2000]

A community school is a public school that acts as the hub of its community by engaging community resources to offer a range of on-site programs and services that support the success of students and their families. Every community school looks slightly different, because it is developed through mutually beneficial partnerships with students, families, community agencies, businesses, and residents that are unique to that community. The community school model is often characterized by these four components:

1. Partnership between the school and at least one community-based organization;
2. Development of an advisory board with broad representation from the community;
3. Programs and services that support the academic success of students, and;
4. A full-time community school director or coordinator to manage all out-of-school time activities.

Only 61% of comprehensive schools are community schools. As I have said, I work in a leadership capacity in a school (a community one at that if you will) as well as in an advisory capacity for the local authority. I know what the rules and regs are and I know it is not compulsory to have "a daily act of Christian worship everyday" which is what the poster is objecting to in the BNP's manifesto. It is a little known (and as we stated widely ignored) law that schools should have a daily gathering, the majority of which should be Christian but the fact that OFSTED are now ignoring it sums up the previous governments take on it (it was put into place before they came into power). I agree that continuing to debate this will not add to the thread, however if the BNP did put through this law ( I know they have no choice) it would have massive ramifications to schools as I'm sure they would enforce this vigourously, their aim being, I would imagine, to upset any minorities (or majorities in many schools) who are from a different religion (if they haven't had them all deported by then!).

 

[Seismica]

Did everyone see Nick Griffin's face when he saw the Labour candidate for Barking come out with 18k more votes than him?

Here it is:

4 words. Ha ha ha hahaha!

 

[Ardius]

Be careful mocking, it can cause people to give such parties the "innocence" vote, no matter how stupid or idiotic the party is. Its better to ignore and mock their policies rather than the politicians themselves. I think people are beating the BNP up a little too much at times, although they deserve it, we should be careful not to go too far with it.

 

[Famine]

Nevertheless, he does look like someone's tattooed a stroke victim's face onto a fat man's thumb.

 

[Moglet]

Nevertheless, he does look like someone's tattooed a stroke victim's face onto a fat man's thumb.

He is a bit odd looking....

 

[Jondot]

I've always found it funny that his personal site's address is nickgriffin.eu. Evidently he never saw the irony.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-jenkins/cry-for-help-from-uk-to-u_b_568948.html

"By favouring the two big parties, the British system usually yields a decisive victor who can get decisions quickly delivered through a parliamentary majority. The cost is a legislature that is grossly unfair to minorities. It has just taken an average of 285,000 votes to get one Green MP into the Commons and 119,000 votes to get one Liberal Democrat. This compares with an average of 33,000 for a Conservative or Labour MP.

Yet if parliamentary representation were proportional to votes, the minority parties would almost always be able to hold the executive to ransom. The outcome can be seen in many European countries -- and in Israel. If the choice is between being unfair to minorities and unfair to the majorities, the former is surely the preferable evil.

The British constitution is rubbish."

-Simon Jenkins

 

[Touring Mars]

Clegg: "I'd look up to him, because he is Upper Class"
Cameron: "I look down on him, because he is Lower Class"
Brown: "I know my place"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0DUsGSMwZY

 

[ExigeEvan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-jenkins/cry-for-help-from-uk-to-u_b_568948.html

"By favouring the two big parties, the British system usually yields a decisive victor who can get decisions quickly delivered through a parliamentary majority. The cost is a legislature that is grossly unfair to minorities. It has just taken an average of 285,000 votes to get one Green MP into the Commons and 119,000 votes to get one Liberal Democrat. This compares with an average of 33,000 for a Conservative or Labour MP.

Yet if parliamentary representation were proportional to votes, the minority parties would almost always be able to hold the executive to ransom. The outcome can be seen in many European countries -- and in Israel. If the choice is between being unfair to minorities and unfair to the majorities, the former is surely the preferable evil.

The British constitution is rubbish."

-Simon Jenkins

On the face of it the Lib Dems recieved a comparable number of votes to Labour, but far fewer seats.

The fact is, Lib Dems are very good at coming second in Labour/Tory strongholds, which is what happens when you position yourself as an alternative party.

 

[Sphinx]

I'm hoping Glegg doesn't become known as the leader who threw the Liberal Holy Grail (PR) out of the window in order to strike a deal with the Tories. Surely, it just won't happen considering Labour has already offered it?

 

[Touring Mars]

It would be worse than that, I reckon - if Clegg abandons electoral reform for a few cosy seats in Cameron's cabinet, the Lib Dems will effectively cease to exist and the party would be permanently split.

The SNP have announced that they would support a Labour-Lib Dem coalition and are urging the other nationalists to join them... Brown could yet live to fight another day.

 

[DK]

Personally I think Labour should vote on whether or not they should keep Brown. In my opinion a fresh face may save them.

 

[Touring Mars]

Balls?

 

[Sphinx]

It would be worse than that, I reckon - if Clegg abandons electoral reform for a few cosy seats in Cameron's cabinet, the Lib Dems will effectively cease to exist and the party would be permanently split.

Indeed, then why even contemplate it? Could this simply be a smoke screen so that the Libs are seen by the electorate to be talking to both sides for the 'greater good' of the country that will ultimately lead to a Lib Lab deal?

Personally I think Labour should vote on whether or not they should keep Brown. In my opinion a fresh face may save them.

That's not something that can be done quickly. I'm thinlking if there is a Lib Lab deal then Brown will remain PM until another leader is found. Glegg? lol.

 

[Famine]

I'm hoping Glegg doesn't become known as the leader who threw the Liberal Holy Grail (PR) out of the window in order to strike a deal with the Tories. Surely, it just won't happen considering Labour has already offered it?

Labour have offered PR? Since when? They'd stand the most to lose from it.

1987 General Election
Conservative - FPTP 376 seats; PR 274 seats (-102)
Labour - FPTP 229 seats; PR 200 seats (-29)
Liberal Alliance - FPTP 22 seats; PR 147 seats (+125)
Result - FPTP Conservative majority of 51; PR Hung parliament

1992 General Election
Conservative - FPTP 336 seats; PR 273 seats (-63)
Labour - FPTP 271 seats; PR 224 seats (-47)
Lib Dem - FPTP 20 seats; PR 116 seats (+96)
Result - FPTP Conservative majority of 10; PR Hung parliament

1997 General Election
Labour - FPTP 418 seats; PR 284 seats (-134)
Conservative - FPTP 165 seats; PR 202 seats (+37)
Lib Dem - FPTP 46 seats; PR 110 seats (+64)
Result - FPTP Labour majority of 88; PR Hung parliament

2001 General Election
Labour - FPTP 413 seats; PR 268 seats (-145)
Conservative - FPTP 166 seats; PR 209 seats (+43)
Lib Dem - FPTP 52 seats; PR 121 seats (+69)
Result - FPTP Labour majority of 83; PR Hung parliament

2005 General Election
Labour - FPTP 356 seats; PR 228 seats (-128)
Conservative - FPTP 198 seats; PR 209 seats (+11)
Lib Dem - FPTP 62 seats; PR 143 seats (+81)
Result - FPTP Labour majority of 33; PR Hung parliament

2010 General Election
Conservative - FPTP 305 seats; PR 235 seats (-70)
Labour - FPTP 258 seats; PR 188 seats (-70)
Lib Dem - FPTP 57 seats; PR 150 seats (+93)
Result - FPTP Hung parliament; PR Hung parliament

Generally speaking, whomever is in power has most to lose from PR, but Labour would have had a reduced share under PR in every election since 1959 compared to FPTP whether in power or not. Even the absolute landslide in 1997 - in fact even when Labour nearly managed a 50% vote share in 1945 they'd have lost 76 seats under PR...

I can't see the current Labour party ever approving any attempts at PR - it suits them even less when they're in opposition than in power. To be entirely fair, it's not exactly the Tories' cup of tea either, but they get more seats through PR when they lose which would mean they'd slightly more powerful in opposition at the expense of no-one ever actually being in power.


That aside, I can't see for the life of me how PR can ever actually work grafted onto the current setup. The BNP would, as an example, get 11 MPs returned. Given that no constituency returned them, how will their constituencies be chosen? Which 11 members of the BNP would be chosen as the MPs and by whom? At the less extreme end, where would the 93 extra Lib Dem MPs come from?

I think we need to get away from the entire concept of constituencies and local MPs representing our interests nationally. After all, our local interests are best served... well... locally. And we have local councillors for that - and this system confused many people. The sheer number of people who didn't get why they were voting for two different people (local elections and parliamentary elections) in some areas on Thursday is staggering and I can't say I blame them.

Perhaps then, once we've got local issues addressed locally, by local councils and councillors, PR can select MPs to deal with national issues nationally - and we'd need fewer of them (our lower house has 650 members; the American lower house has 453 members - our upper house has 733 unelected members; the American upper house has 100 elected members; why do we need so many more people in charge nationally for a considerably smaller and less populated country?).

 

[Touring Mars]

Nice analysis 👍 The offer of PR is the trump card here, and is obviously going to get alot of the smaller parties on board too - I reckon despite the fact that the two major parties have the most to lose under PR, they have to face facts and realise that the days of being able to dominate government with under 40% of the popular vote are probably over.

Also, isn't 24 hour live news such a load of crap when nothing is happening. Apparently Nick Clegg is 'wearing his Sunday dress' today and Gillian Duffy (the bigoted woman!) has a 'human face'.

 

[Famine]

I should add that my definition of "majority" seems to differ from the official one. When I say a majority of 88, I mean they have 88 seats more than the amount required for overall control - which equates to 165/6 seats more than the combined opposition. Might cause confusion, so I should clear it up.

 

[Sphinx]

Labour have offered PR? Since when? They'd stand the most to lose from it.

1987 General Election
Conservative - FPTP 376 seats; PR 274 seats (-102)
Labour - FPTP 229 seats; PR 200 seats (-29)
Liberal Alliance - FPTP 22 seats; PR 147 seats (+125)
Result - FPTP Conservative majority of 51; PR Hung parliament

1992 General Election
Conservative - FPTP 336 seats; PR 273 seats (-63)
Labour - FPTP 271 seats; PR 224 seats (-47)
Lib Dem - FPTP 20 seats; PR 116 seats (+96)
Result - FPTP Conservative majority of 10; PR Hung parliament

1997 General Election
Labour - FPTP 418 seats; PR 284 seats (-134)
Conservative - FPTP 165 seats; PR 202 seats (+37)
Lib Dem - FPTP 46 seats; PR 110 seats (+64)
Result - FPTP Labour majority of 88; PR Hung parliament

2001 General Election
Labour - FPTP 413 seats; PR 268 seats (-145)
Conservative - FPTP 166 seats; PR 209 seats (+43)
Lib Dem - FPTP 52 seats; PR 121 seats (+69)
Result - FPTP Labour majority of 83; PR Hung parliament

2005 General Election
Labour - FPTP 356 seats; PR 228 seats (-128)
Conservative - FPTP 198 seats; PR 209 seats (+11)
Lib Dem - FPTP 62 seats; PR 143 seats (+81)
Result - FPTP Labour majority of 33; PR Hung parliament

2010 General Election
Conservative - FPTP 305 seats; PR 235 seats (-70)
Labour - FPTP 258 seats; PR 188 seats (-70)
Lib Dem - FPTP 57 seats; PR 150 seats (+93)
Result - FPTP Hung parliament; PR Hung parliament

Generally speaking, whomever is in power has most to lose from PR, but Labour would have had a reduced share under PR in every election since 1959 compared to FPTP whether in power or not. Even the absolute landslide in 1997 - in fact even when Labour nearly managed a 50% vote share in 1945 they'd have lost 76 seats under PR...

I can't see the current Labour party ever approving any attempts at PR - it suits them even less when they're in opposition than in power. To be entirely fair, it's not exactly the Tories' cup of tea either, but they get more seats through PR when they lose which would mean they'd slightly more powerful in opposition at the expense of no-one ever actually being in power.


That aside, I can't see for the life of me how PR can ever actually work grafted onto the current setup. The BNP would, as an example, get 11 MPs returned. Given that no constituency returned them, how will their constituencies be chosen? Which 11 members of the BNP would be chosen as the MPs and by whom? At the less extreme end, where would the 93 extra Lib Dem MPs come from?

I think we need to get away from the entire concept of constituencies and local MPs representing our interests nationally. After all, our local interests are best served... well... locally. And we have local councillors for that - and this system confused many people. The sheer number of people who didn't get why they were voting for two different people (local elections and parliamentary elections) in some areas on Thursday is staggering and I can't say I blame them.

Perhaps then, once we've got local issues addressed locally, by local councils and councillors, PR can select MPs to deal with national issues nationally - and we'd need fewer of them (our lower house has 650 members; the American lower house has 453 members - our upper house has 733 unelected members; the American upper house has 100 elected members; why do we need so many more people in charge nationally for a considerably smaller and less populated country?).

Ok, Labour has promised a referendum on an alternative vote. Now, seeing that in a recent yougov poll showed that 62% were in favour of a PR system, and only a mere 13% still in favour of the current system, I would therefore say that the 'promised' referendum would give a clear path to PR?

There are differing methods of PR so I don't believe your stats reflect a true picture of which parties would be advantaged or disadvantaged under a PR system.

 

[Famine]

Ok, Labour has promised a referendum on an alternative vote. Now, seeing that in a recent yougov poll showed that 62% were in favour of a PR system, and only a mere 13% still in favour of the current system, I would therefore say that the 'promised' referendum would give a clear path to PR?

No-one's going to fall for Labour promising a referendum. Not after the last time - when they promised a referendum on the EU Constitution as part of their 2005 General Election campaign and reneged on it when they signed up to the Lisbon treaty in 2007 without the referendum.

There are differing methods of PR so I don't believe your stats reflect a true picture of which parties would be advantaged or disadvantaged under a PR system.

Indeed. My numbers are for true PR - which is what the Liberal Democrats actually want. The eventual compromise they meet with whomever will likely not be true PR. No-one can say how it'd work under something like the Single Transferrable Vote system (though I suspect most people would vote Red-Yellow-marginal-independant or Blue-Yellow-marginal-independant - which would again result in gains for Lib Dems and losses of varying levels for Labour and Conservative).

 

[Sphinx]

No-one's going to fall for Labour promising a referendum. Not after the last time - when they promised a referendum on the EU Constitution as part of their 2005 General Election campaign and reneged on it when they signed up to the Lisbon treaty in 2007 without the referendum.

What was that latin phrase you used to post?

Actually, I think the broken promise of voting reform back in the 70's would;ve been a better example seeing that it was promised to the Lib's by Labour. Was it Wilson?

Edit:

Forgot to add the all important public comments made by Brown that puts extra weight to the promise:

"The first is the plan to ensure continuing economic stability, where there is substantial common ground, and the plan to carry through far-reaching political reforms, including changes to the voting system.

"Both of us have made clear our commitment to this in our manifestos and the electorate has sent us a very strong message which must be heard.

"My view is clear, there needs to be immediate legislation on this to begin to restore the public trust in politics and to improve Parliament's standing and reputation, a fairer voting system is central.

"And I believe that you the British people should be able to decide in a referendum what the system should be.

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...statement-in-full-14799249.html#ixzz0nQwwkAil

 

[Famine]

What was that latin phrase you used to post?

"Stercus, moriturus sum."

 

[Scaff]

The BNP would, as an example, get 11 MPs returned. Given that no constituency returned them, how will their constituencies be chosen? Which 11 members of the BNP would be chosen as the MPs and by whom?

Not always the case. Most PR systems have a minimum number of votes required or percentage share of the vote before a seat or seats are given.

In countries that use PR the minimum percentage varies:

Germany - 5%
New Zealand - 5%
Poland - 5%
Israel - 2%
Turkey - 10%
Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_threshold


Just a few examples, but they do show that in all these countries the BNP, with 1.8% of the vote, would still not get a single seat.

This is of course specific to the Party List PR system.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Jondot]

If anyone's interested in what the Facebook generation seem to want...

Which is almost certainly not a true representation of anything, but it's fun to post things.

Also not remotely helpful, as god knows who or what that 32% would then go ahead and vote for.

 

[Famine]

In those states, how is the extra percentage absorbed?

Say four parties get 1.5% and the minimum is 2%. That means the parties that qualified got 94%. Would 6% of the House be empty, or would it be divided up by the percentage of vote gained in the qualifying 94%, or assigned in some other manner?

 

[Stevisiov]

If anyone's interested in what the Facebook generation seem to want...

Which is almost certainly not a true representation of anything, but it's fun to post things.

Also not remotely helpful, as god knows who or what that 32% would then go ahead and vote for.

Facebook also had Nick Clegg as favourite as prime minister, which tells us two things.

Nick Clegg is the most popular among the 'younger' generation.

Facebook is useless at indicating which party is most likely to win an general election.

 

[DK]

"Stercus, moriturus sum."

I've just googled that it means, "Oh 🤬, I'm going to die." Does that mean you can get away with swearing in a different language on GTP, e.g. German?

 

[Famine]

Actually it means "Oh excrement". There was no appropriate word for 🤬 in Latin. And no.

 

[Jondot]

Facebook also had Nick Clegg as favourite as prime minister, which tells us two things.

Nick Clegg is the most popular among the 'younger' generation.

Facebook is useless at indicating which party is most likely to win an general election.

Facebook is also full of people that join groups like this:

So to be fair, Facebook was probably accurate - it's just that half the people that pledged to vote Lib Dem were unable to do so because, on polling day, they'd managed to get trapped in their own jumpers.