<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: MPs: incumbancy and miscommunication</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/01/12/mps-incumbancy-and-miscommunication/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/01/12/mps-incumbancy-and-miscommunication/</link>
	<description>crass, boorish and more a bruiser than blogger</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:08:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: James Graham</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/01/12/mps-incumbancy-and-miscommunication/#comment-150018</link>
		<dc:creator>James Graham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:03:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/01/12/mps-incumbancy-and-miscommunication/#comment-150018</guid>
		<description>"anon", I didn't miss that point I simply reject it completely.  To suggest that the current system results in objective reports and that it is better to give MPs a free rein than allow a right of reply is simply laughable.

There is no such thing as an "objective" report.  If humans were capable of objectivity we'd have no need for the checks and balances that are necessary in any functioning democracy.  It's better to recognise that than to quest for objectivity and create a system which either uses rather crass minimal rules to achieve them (as at present) or some bizarre Byzantine system which would almost certainly render reports unreadable and of no interest to constituents whatsoever.

MPs are politicians performing political roles.  Deal with it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;anon&#8221;, I didn&#8217;t miss that point I simply reject it completely.  To suggest that the current system results in objective reports and that it is better to give MPs a free rein than allow a right of reply is simply laughable.</p>
<p>There is no such thing as an &#8220;objective&#8221; report.  If humans were capable of objectivity we&#8217;d have no need for the checks and balances that are necessary in any functioning democracy.  It&#8217;s better to recognise that than to quest for objectivity and create a system which either uses rather crass minimal rules to achieve them (as at present) or some bizarre Byzantine system which would almost certainly render reports unreadable and of no interest to constituents whatsoever.</p>
<p>MPs are politicians performing political roles.  Deal with it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anon</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/01/12/mps-incumbancy-and-miscommunication/#comment-149866</link>
		<dc:creator>Anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:45:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/01/12/mps-incumbancy-and-miscommunication/#comment-149866</guid>
		<description>Sadly your proposal completely misses the problem, by using your suggestion communications automatically become campaigning material rather than an objective report - the problem would be worse, not better.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sadly your proposal completely misses the problem, by using your suggestion communications automatically become campaigning material rather than an objective report - the problem would be worse, not better.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Graham</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/01/12/mps-incumbancy-and-miscommunication/#comment-149853</link>
		<dc:creator>James Graham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:58:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/01/12/mps-incumbancy-and-miscommunication/#comment-149853</guid>
		<description>Lee, the page count I really just plucked out of the air but for what its worth the rationale was that four sides of A4 - a double sided A3 leaflet - was the size of a typical MP's constituency report (at least from what I've seen).  As  it happens, my MP just sent me 8 sides of A4 but he could have fitted the content into half the space if it had been typeset with any imagination.

As for what the MPs and their rivals do with the space is up to them.  I would guess that parties would do their best to combine content with getting their message across.  Competition would be intense.

Tim, you are absolutely correct and if I hadn't had one foot out of the door when I was struggling to finish the post I would have covered this.  The number I was playing with was something like 10% of the popular vote.  That would relatively tough for a fourth placed candidate to achieve but would give them an incentive to campaign nonetheless.  I would guess that a significant number of reports would end up having contributions from three parties.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lee, the page count I really just plucked out of the air but for what its worth the rationale was that four sides of A4 - a double sided A3 leaflet - was the size of a typical MP&#8217;s constituency report (at least from what I&#8217;ve seen).  As  it happens, my MP just sent me 8 sides of A4 but he could have fitted the content into half the space if it had been typeset with any imagination.</p>
<p>As for what the MPs and their rivals do with the space is up to them.  I would guess that parties would do their best to combine content with getting their message across.  Competition would be intense.</p>
<p>Tim, you are absolutely correct and if I hadn&#8217;t had one foot out of the door when I was struggling to finish the post I would have covered this.  The number I was playing with was something like 10% of the popular vote.  That would relatively tough for a fourth placed candidate to achieve but would give them an incentive to campaign nonetheless.  I would guess that a significant number of reports would end up having contributions from three parties.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Leunig</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/01/12/mps-incumbancy-and-miscommunication/#comment-149841</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Leunig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:07:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/01/12/mps-incumbancy-and-miscommunication/#comment-149841</guid>
		<description>I think this would be useful, but I think that there should be a minimum proportion of the vote needed to get in the booklet - we don't want to be giving space to people who lost their deposit, for example. Last time round the fourth placed candidate got 657 votes in Kingston and Surbiton. I don't think this is uncommon.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think this would be useful, but I think that there should be a minimum proportion of the vote needed to get in the booklet - we don&#8217;t want to be giving space to people who lost their deposit, for example. Last time round the fourth placed candidate got 657 votes in Kingston and Surbiton. I don&#8217;t think this is uncommon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lee Griffin</title>
		<link>http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/01/12/mps-incumbancy-and-miscommunication/#comment-149789</link>
		<dc:creator>Lee Griffin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:27:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2008/01/12/mps-incumbancy-and-miscommunication/#comment-149789</guid>
		<description>Very interesting ideas, though with the attention span of the busy member of the public these days having less pages could be more benefitial ;) All in all, the order in which they are presented is as much of an advantage for "coming first" with such time consious individuals in mind. All in all though I definitely agree!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very interesting ideas, though with the attention span of the busy member of the public these days having less pages could be more benefitial <img src='http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> All in all, the order in which they are presented is as much of an advantage for &#8220;coming first&#8221; with such time consious individuals in mind. All in all though I definitely agree!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
