Meenzer

And aye, it's inherently flawed as (precisely because some people don't understand the system) you almost always get more votes for the candidates from each party who come earlier in the alphabet. Plus doing it this way means you're stuck with the exact same make-up of the council for four years instead of being able to reflect local developments in your area by voting for someone else next year. The end result is less accountability because, round here at least, the councillors tend to be conspicuous by their absence for three and a half years only to turn up and do a bit of campaigning ahead of election day, whereas at least when you have elections most years, they have to be seen to be doing something along the way even if it's not their turn to be up for re-election, as otherwise the candidate from their party is less likely to get in. On the other hand, it costs £ to hold elections and Lewisham is broke, so there we are.

The former. Nope - one big ballot paper with all the candidates on, and you mark up to three candidates. This kind of thing:

Unless you mean using STV at ward level, in which case you'd end up with essentially the same result anyway.

I'm all for forms of proportional representation, but it seems least relevant of all when it comes to electing someone to deal with dogshit and potholes in your immediate neighbourhood.

Thrrrrrrreeeeeeeeee.

There are three vacancies. You have three votes. Each of the main parties typically puts up three candidates. The three candidates that get the most votes are elected as the three councillors. In this way, the three vacancies are filled. Three. It's a funny word when you look at it for long enough, isn't it? Three.

Ah, got you. What Renton said, then. Although some councils (like the London ones) elect all three councillors at once, so you only get local elections every four years but you have three votes. Seems daft to me, other than cutting down on election costs I suppose, but then I grew up with the other system so I suppose I would think that.

We vote and the one with most votes wins.

We've solved our unemployment crisis by putting people on nonexistent jobs, so at least it'd be consistent.

Also you're fucking mental.

https://newsthump.com/2019/05/01/are-you-an-anti-semite-take-our-interactive-test-to-find-out/ HTH

You can hear it starting just in the background both times they score here, especially the second one: https://www.skysports.com/efl/championship/video/11708112/fleetwood-2-1-sunderland

At the risk of doing a Quiff, I've had this saved for a couple of days and can't remember if I got it off here or Twitter, so I'm posting it (again?) here just in case: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p077fzfd

Ballista, there's a word I haven't thought about since Roland In Time.

Eeeeerm, Quiff mate?

Ee, I even learned something new today

Penny farthings on the street, riding. Motor cars were funny things, frightening. Bow and hoops and spinning tops. Penny dreadfuls, lollipops. Comic Cuts, all different things.

That's one difference to usual.

Inevitably: https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2019/apr/23/david-squires-on-wayne-hennessey-and-the-nazis?CMP=share_btn_tw

If you genuinely feel I was in any way "bailed out" by acrossthepond, I think that only highlights your own inconsistency

When you keep saying you learn new things with practically every post, maybe, just maybe, it's possible you knew nothing in the first place?

Are you saying that it's preferable to parachute people - actual human beings with actual human lives - into a place in which they have literally no connection, than one in which they at least form part of the shared history in some shape or form?

Let's have a suggestion then. Marseilles? Munich? Middlesbrough?

Aaaaaand gone.