The K M Links Game - November 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Puigdemont Is Being Sprung
At least some German judges get it right.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“NJ; I wish the Acacia Avenue residents the best of luck, but I doubt if their credentials for being considered for independence match those of Catalonia :0)”
I don’t know, Khandro. Some historians say that the history of the Acacians (as they insist on being called) can be traced all the way back as far as 1978 when the new “Bovis” homes were built on the site of the former sewage works that ran across the end of the Avenue. Until then the road was occupied by a variety of people, some from as far afield as Epsom, Sevenoaks and even Tunbridge Wells. Nobody knows the true origins of the new Acacians who first occupied the Bovis settlement. However, when they moved in they all seemed to share the same characteristics: they all drove the latest Ford Granada “Ghia X” (supplied by their employers) which they could be seen ritually polishing in the morning of the Sabbath; after that was completed they would all repair to the “Pig and Woodchopper” to take the ceremonial firewater; and on weekday mornings they could all be seen walking in unison to the local railway station to catch the 07:56 to London Bridge (usually delayed by 12 minutes due to “signalling difficulties in the Paddock Wood area”).
Since then they and their descendants have grown apart from the rest of their community. The elders have retired, some moving to the Dorset Coast. Their descendants now drive top of the range Mercedes-Benz and BMW cars (supplied by their employers). They no longer undertake the ritual Sunday polishing of their ancestors, preferring instead to entrust that task to the Polish lads who provide a very good “Inside and Out” valet service from the local Sainsbury’s car park. The “Pig and Woodchopper” closed about ten years ago but has recently been reborn as “El Matador” Tapas and Wine Bar where they may repair for some “Small Plates” and appropriate Tinctures. But their trips to town are less frequent (as are the trains), with many of them now “working from home”.
But their sense of difference and independence has strengthened. They pay huge sums in Council Tax (their homes all being in “Band H”) and they see the taxes and charges they pay as being squandered on the less productive parts of the country. They almost all voted to Remain in the referendum and will seek full EU membership immediately their independence is granted.
Theirs is a worthy cause and they have access to large sums of money to pay for Counsel to support represent their cause. The government would be foolish to ignore the residents of this affluent area in one of London’s most salubrious suburbs.
I don’t know, Khandro. Some historians say that the history of the Acacians (as they insist on being called) can be traced all the way back as far as 1978 when the new “Bovis” homes were built on the site of the former sewage works that ran across the end of the Avenue. Until then the road was occupied by a variety of people, some from as far afield as Epsom, Sevenoaks and even Tunbridge Wells. Nobody knows the true origins of the new Acacians who first occupied the Bovis settlement. However, when they moved in they all seemed to share the same characteristics: they all drove the latest Ford Granada “Ghia X” (supplied by their employers) which they could be seen ritually polishing in the morning of the Sabbath; after that was completed they would all repair to the “Pig and Woodchopper” to take the ceremonial firewater; and on weekday mornings they could all be seen walking in unison to the local railway station to catch the 07:56 to London Bridge (usually delayed by 12 minutes due to “signalling difficulties in the Paddock Wood area”).
Since then they and their descendants have grown apart from the rest of their community. The elders have retired, some moving to the Dorset Coast. Their descendants now drive top of the range Mercedes-Benz and BMW cars (supplied by their employers). They no longer undertake the ritual Sunday polishing of their ancestors, preferring instead to entrust that task to the Polish lads who provide a very good “Inside and Out” valet service from the local Sainsbury’s car park. The “Pig and Woodchopper” closed about ten years ago but has recently been reborn as “El Matador” Tapas and Wine Bar where they may repair for some “Small Plates” and appropriate Tinctures. But their trips to town are less frequent (as are the trains), with many of them now “working from home”.
But their sense of difference and independence has strengthened. They pay huge sums in Council Tax (their homes all being in “Band H”) and they see the taxes and charges they pay as being squandered on the less productive parts of the country. They almost all voted to Remain in the referendum and will seek full EU membership immediately their independence is granted.
Theirs is a worthy cause and they have access to large sums of money to pay for Counsel to support represent their cause. The government would be foolish to ignore the residents of this affluent area in one of London’s most salubrious suburbs.
“In my opinion if you don’t have A or B then a simple majority is all that should be needed, but if you already have A then it should take a greater majority to force a change to B.”
I don’t see why. I don’t see the need for any different rules in order to change from nothing to something than those needed to change from something to something else. If the majority of the electorate don’t like the current arrangements and vote for a change they should not be held hostage to a minority who want to retain the status quo. Further than that (leaving aside the vagaries of our “first past the post” system) every General Election entails the possibility of changing ‘A’ (the current government) for ‘B’ (a different one).
I don’t see why. I don’t see the need for any different rules in order to change from nothing to something than those needed to change from something to something else. If the majority of the electorate don’t like the current arrangements and vote for a change they should not be held hostage to a minority who want to retain the status quo. Further than that (leaving aside the vagaries of our “first past the post” system) every General Election entails the possibility of changing ‘A’ (the current government) for ‘B’ (a different one).
There is a difference between deciding between two options when you have to pick one of the two, and deciding whether to make a change you don't have to make.
I was president of our residents committee when I lived in Madrid (perhaps it's a task they give the English), and an example of what I am saying is written in the guidelines for communities. The type of majority you need varies depending on the matter in question. Most major changes that would be costly. like installing a lift in the building, require a minimum of 60% in favour. However, if you were deciding which lift, it would only require a simple majority.
I was president of our residents committee when I lived in Madrid (perhaps it's a task they give the English), and an example of what I am saying is written in the guidelines for communities. The type of majority you need varies depending on the matter in question. Most major changes that would be costly. like installing a lift in the building, require a minimum of 60% in favour. However, if you were deciding which lift, it would only require a simple majority.
Just to be clear, NJ, regarding your general election analogy. Picking the government would fall into my category of having to pick one from X, so a simple majority would suffice. A government is elected to serve a term, after which we have to decide who will serve the next term. An example of the other category would be voting to adopt the euro – we don’t have to change our currency and it would be a costly exercise, so to go through that because a tiny majority wanted it would in my view be ridiculous. If it was a tiny majority, there would be every chance that they wouldn’t even be the majority by the time the change was implemented.
“If it was a tiny majority, there would be every chance that they wouldn’t even be the majority by the time the change was implemented.”
And, of course, it could grow into a larger majority. You can only go on the results on the day the vote was taken.
If the government of the day offered the vote whilst fully aware of the consequences it should accept the will of a simple majority. To do otherwise would to bestow an unfair advantage on those wishing to retain the status quo. If in you “60%” example 59.9% voted for the change it would mean ignoring the wishes of a sizeable proportion of the electorate. The only reasonable alternative would be to offer no vote at all.
And, of course, it could grow into a larger majority. You can only go on the results on the day the vote was taken.
If the government of the day offered the vote whilst fully aware of the consequences it should accept the will of a simple majority. To do otherwise would to bestow an unfair advantage on those wishing to retain the status quo. If in you “60%” example 59.9% voted for the change it would mean ignoring the wishes of a sizeable proportion of the electorate. The only reasonable alternative would be to offer no vote at all.
Under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, general elections are to be held every five years unless two scenarios apply.
The first is a vote to have an early election. In that case, at least two-thirds of the total number of MPs (including any vacant seats) must vote in favour. Currently, that means 434 must vote in favour.
The second scenario is winning a vote of no confidence in the Government by a simple majority of voting MPs. As long as forty MPs (including the one in the Chair) have taken part in a Division, it's valid.
Hundreds must vote in favour of a vote for an early election but in theory, as few as twenty could win a no confidence motion for the same outcome.
The first is a vote to have an early election. In that case, at least two-thirds of the total number of MPs (including any vacant seats) must vote in favour. Currently, that means 434 must vote in favour.
The second scenario is winning a vote of no confidence in the Government by a simple majority of voting MPs. As long as forty MPs (including the one in the Chair) have taken part in a Division, it's valid.
Hundreds must vote in favour of a vote for an early election but in theory, as few as twenty could win a no confidence motion for the same outcome.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.