Ashley Neal's 1st ride video (he gets left hooked)

It can work the other way.  As we're about to see again a rather small group of the electorate has historically had a disproportionate influence.  As the following article points out that's not a "given".  The core of parties has expanded in the past which can change the direction of the party (Corbyn would be an example):

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-truth-about-david-cameron-and-th...

Did Labour support AV when we had a referendum on it?

Apparently Labour had no official position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_refer...

If you don't support change then you effectively support the status quo.

If either of the two biggest parties had supported AV we'd likely have it now and we'd have a far healthier democracy as a result.

Unfortunately they both decided that wasn't something they wanted.

Conversely I admire politicians who can put political differences aside and treat each other with civility.

The alternative is far worse.

Thatcher was a big supporter of the EU's precursor and the Kinnocks went on to very lucrative 'careers' within that very organisation so maybe you're right...

Lots of people have got their noses in the trough joined in the fun though - didn't a certain euroskeptic N. Farage and some of his party take the Brussels euro?  (Detail: I know in 2017 he'd didn't deny he'd also take their pension as well as the other benefits - and in 2020 he was saying he wouldn't.  Can't find which way it went.)

Rich_cb wrote:

If you don't support change then you effectively support the status quo. If either of the two biggest parties had supported AV we'd likely have it now and we'd have a far healthier democracy as a result. Unfortunately they both decided that wasn't something they wanted.

Indeed - the only reason it even came to pass was horse-trading around the Lib / Con coalition and the Lib Dems later felt they were sold a pup.  As for "we'd likely have it now" - not certain about that.  All regions in the UK voted against the AV.  Compare the Brexit vote.  All the parties officially opposed Brexit - except the Conservatives (officially neutral - the PM was not in favour) and UKIP.  Yet the vote was still for that.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

If you don't support change then you effectively support the status quo. If either of the two biggest parties had supported AV we'd likely have it now and we'd have a far healthier democracy as a result. Unfortunately they both decided that wasn't something they wanted.

Indeed - the only reason it even came to pass was horse-trading around the Lib / Con coalition and the Lib Dems later felt they were sold a pup.  As for "we'd likely have it now" - not certain about that.  All regions in the UK voted against the AV.  Compare the Brexit vote.  All the parties officially opposed Brexit - except the Conservatives (officially neutral - the PM was not in favour) and UKIP.  Yet the vote was still for that.

AV isn't that good a system, and it's certainly not proper proportional representation.  All it really means is that you don't have to consider voting tactically - you can vote for your actual favourite candidate without risking letter your least favourite candidate win.  

Having said that, it's interesting that the MP stage of the Tory leadership campaign is a drawn out version of AV.

The removal of tactical voting alone would provide a huge boost to UK democracy.

It would force parties to broaden their appeal beyond their own bases reducing the partisan nature of our politics.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Totally agree about political parties and I think we should bin them and the first-past-the-post system. 

How do you ban both FPTP and politcal parties? If each individual is standing on their own merits and not as part of a party then proportional representation is not valid.

wycombewheeler wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Totally agree about political parties and I think we should bin them and the first-past-the-post system. 

How do you ban both FPTP and politcal parties? If each individual is standing on their own merits and not as part of a party then proportional representation is not valid.

You could still have an alternative / transferable vote or run-off type system, though.

You have explained in the past and I do accept it. More using your username as a point that alot thought you were the return of PBU then.So stating that we shouldn't engage and just report returning PBU to the mods is not easily done.

I know who we're talking about, but what is PBU? Previously Banned User?

quiff wrote:

I know who we're talking about, but what is PBU? Previously Banned User?

That's right.

Previously Banned User

Great Eastern is the PBU nigel garage

Permanently Banned User

Great Eastern is permanently banned (we hope it's a perma)

Rendel Harris wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

No, there are still some of the comments about on other threads.

Not direct comments from him though, only where other people have quoted him. His removal was confirmed to me last night by the site mods - along with the sensible request that if (as is sadly likely) he surfaces again, don't engage with him but report at once and he wil be dealt with.

Did they give any idea of what their criteria are for banning someone?  Do they wait until enough people complain about a particular user, or do they directly monitor what's going on on the site?

Without speaking for the editorial team (who are exceptionally helpful when asked, I must say) I believe that they certainly do keep an eye on the comments section and are aware of the people causing problems. Nigel was certainly banned in the past for comments to me about which I did not complain… I do recognise it's a very difficult job to weed out the more pernicious trolls, it can be perfectly obvious to everyone that somebody is only here as a wind up merchant but unless they transgress site rules it's easy for sanction to become censorship.

You only need to look at the number of comments on this thread - down to 141 when they were well over 200. A good third from that single account speaks volumes.

I think they have cleaned up the replies now as well. So not all him but states why I think the site secretly love having the controversials on as it drives visits. Just the way the internet is I suppose. 

Ah yes, the replies have gone too. I don't mind controversial, but when it over steps the mark, then it needs to be dealt with. Which the road.cc team have done.

I have been known to be controversial myself sometimes, which has seen me receive a blow from the ban hammer (not this site though). Still not sure why to be honest; I really thought my insightful opinions on cycling infrastructure, driver behaviour and Brexit were a positive contribution...

Quote:

Hello,

Your account has been permanently de- activated for going against the Community Guidelines.

You are no longer allowed to post on MailOnline the Daily Mail or other Associated Newspapers Ltd sites using this or any other user profile.

Regards,
Communities Editor
MailOnline

My god - what do you have to say to get banned from the Daily Heil website? 

Be reasonable?

brooksby wrote:

My god - what do you have to say to get banned from the Daily Heil website? 

You need to talk sense and quote facts. It doesn't sit well with sensationalism and rumour.

Most places don't allow wum - you can flag a post as baiting.
Then if there are too many complaints, then they get a perma.
Not much different from a pub landlord banning someone for continual poor behaviour to other customers.

Unfortunately the thread (and a couple of others it seems) has been left-hooked and now no-one's thinking about what we were doing before that.

Clearly there's a market for attention here in which I shouldn't be buying... actually, time for a ride.