dieseltaylor

Yes they are not charities. However let us consider water companies as a proxy and how would you feel if they were able to charge what they liked to provide drinking water? And then paid their CEO's at the ratesof the US health companies.? Is there a competitive market or is there a cartel in operation making a mint whilst holding a reasonably effective monopoly on a necessity. Extreme wages because you can is really a manifestation of the cosy relationship of remuneration committees and the CEO. Board Directors get selected by whom?

Just as an aside - here in the UK we equate health of the population as a part of our civilisation. OK it costs a lot for a freee health service and we look with horror at the situation in the US. Health professionals like charities are meant to be good guys:

I disagree Tero. The reaction of Cameron is to illustrate what a wanker he is to the general public. I do not see any special laws being brought in from this and I am hopeful that people will realise that policing needs to be freer of politicians. It also has reminded people in general that without police anarchy is not far away.

The technique coming from America, is an employee management tool but primarily a wages constrainer. The unheralded part on introduction is that it is expected that 20% of a workforce will underperform and this is a method of taggibf them and /or managing them out of the business. This creates stress and tension and provides a churn where cheaper people can be hired in. You will note that this theory never applies to Boards of Directors. In a totality of say 5000 employees this may be true however once you decide to allocate this theory to small teams across the organisation you can see that it has a problem where a section manager with a team of ten is tasked to grade so mnay as worthy of bonus, so many as adequate and two for special attention. They may all be above average but thats not relevant. Some mangers rotate the the low performance tag around the tea, others just throw it on the guy/gal they least like, and others on the new guy/gal in that year, or on a person leaving to another section. You can see on that basis you could get two low performance tags in quite quickly whilst still being more than adequate. It is a very sucky system. One of the reasons I left my last serious job was being required to finger who it would be easiest to finger as under- performing. And of course some going throgh a divorce, sick parents/child would be often performing less well. A hateful system when the section leader will be tagged if he does not deliver his 20%.

As to the percentage of local businesses attacked and looted here in my borough the losses were almost entirely local businesses not chains. Call it 90%. My neighbour lost his shop, nine others went in the same parade and 18 flats. However on the sense of something is not right/fair etc and why people are pissed off read this and weep - seriously: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-the-sec-covering-up-wall-street-crimes-20110817 Whilst they are on opposite sides of the Atlantic the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism is pretty much the same and some of the same firms are playing all around the world. And that is just the start of an unbelievable story showing one law for the powerful and screw the rest.

: ) Well done GAJ. And I am sure that BF will be grateful. I am. Even if I am not playing.

I have woried my archived stuff is being lost but this looks to solve the problem big-time. One thousand years storage? http://www.gizmag.com/m-disc-permanent-optical-disc-storage/19534/

On interpreting the figures of who pays what as a percentage. There are lies dammed lies and statistics. The most egrious is percentages. So lets deal in real numbers and look at the people who earn under 33000$ p.a.. Assuming they have electricity, gas, water and eat, pay local sale and state taxes, pay for a roof over their head how much spendable income do they have ? The tax system, as no doubt you would agree actually obscures what really is going on in the way of real income and real wealth - even the figures above only relate to income. If I am wealthy most of my money will be arranged not to produce income but capital growth. I was training as an account before I went into banking and believe me in that world 2+2 is not 4 the answer is what do you want it to be. And the bigger the range of tax breaks the easier it becomes. The US is going the same route as Greece where only the stupid paid taxes However in financially sophisticated countries it is not the shadow economy that is the problem it isd the clever write offs and specially cases that mean the Government does not collect what you might think. Off course I do agree that less spending would be a very good idea but when you have rich mates who want something off the gravy train and you want to be re-elected......... The US, and probably most Governments, could do with a squad to root out pork, and queston extensions of Govt. involvement.

And guess who gets the most benefit from these special interest looting. I agree it is probably the biggest sore in American society. The attack on Iraq was an interesting case of the military complex and the oil industry having a vested interest in spending the tax-payers money for the two industries benefit. $19.3 bn to Haliburton as at 2007 end. The cost to the US at least $3trillion dollars. And by 2017 $1 trillion on interest costs on the money borrowed for the war. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/iraq.afghanistan I could almost weep for the stupidity behind that attack and the cost to hundreds of thousands of people in the US and Iraq. Imagine a US that had never bothered with Iraq and had concentrated solely on Al-q. Must have been a hell of a lot smarter ... but less lucrative.

I think this shows the highest paid employees. The income is about £147 million. There were 3 employees (2009: 1) whose emoluments were in the range £60,000 - £69,999. There were 4 employees (2009: 2) whose emoluments were in the range £70,000 - £79,999. There was 1 employee (2009: 0) whose emoluments were in the range £80,000 - £89,999. There was 1 employee (2009: 1) whose emoluments were in the range £90,000 - £99,999

You and me both. A good reason to record all TV and FF through the adverts. If I want a guilt trip I read the news but when at home I want to relax when I want to relax and fret when I choose to fret. I do have one I really like Sightsavers. Best value and really important to the sufferers.

I am happy to admit that she may have done an excellent job. My problem is the spiralling of salaries as they are bench-marked by recruitmernt companies as to what is the right salary. You do raise a valid point. I do knoow of selection procedures where the qualifying includes something like the candidate should already be earning x - laughable really. As for the CEO of a bank being paid a huge bonus to do what any good CEO should be doing that really gets my goat. Good customer service should be the aim of all businesses - well any that want to keep in business for the long-term. I thought I would throw Buffett views in as that article is 15/8/11 and relates to wealth and an unfair society. Waren Buffett probably understands more than you SO on wealth and the US, so lets give him some respect. And if you think it right that 400 individuals have an income of $91billion a year feel free to justify them.

From the NYT: OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched. While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors. These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places. Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent. If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot. To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends. I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation. Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent. The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.) I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering. Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality. Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get. But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate. My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice. Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.

$1m is a massive salary - look at the split below. And I would not mind betting that there are extras in there like healthcare, pension, and sundry costs. And if you were like Neutron Jack you arranged for lots of perks after you left the company. As for off-shoring funds. Rather like off-shoring industry, service centres etc what is good for the "firm" is actually harmful to the country in terms of less jobs, less money being pushed into the economy. That you read about $1M being bandied about it the media does not make it uncommon, rather like toddler noshing dogs, or lethal shark attacks. Lethal shark attacks 64ish a year out of 6 billion people. You might be forgiven for thinking it more. BTW there is a hell of a difference in a salary of $1m given every year and people getting bonuses or winning it in one offs. There is the point that being top of the heap is not actually a recommendation of being the best. The problem comes from hiring from a smaller and smaller pool of apparently eligible candidates. One only has to look at politicians and realise that when there is a very small pool of people to choose from crp will float to the top. BGCA apparently recruits in firm, and it probably looks one/two level down from the top. Now in the wide world there may be a hundred thousand people who could do the job better than the new guy. However they have not worked in BGCA for decades and are therefore ineligible for the $1m job - according to the Board who make the choice. I know of a guy who has been head-hunted in on a $1m+ salary to head his speciality at a company. However in his new role he is actually a manager and that does not interest him, in fact he is amazingly poor at it. He has 1500 staff and he does not wish to manage. Great choice. That actually happens a lot despite it being a well-known promotion error. http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/ Hell of a discussion there.

The people of BC were given the chance to redesign the electoral system and choosing by random selection from the various ridings got a group of 160 non-political people to consider the problem and the solution. And it came within 2% of being accepted. Curiously 58% was not a majority enough. From my reading it looks like it would be pretty acceptable in most parts of the world compared to FPTP. And the claims for improved governance are probably good. (MSWord text version, without graphics) The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform Final Report December 2004 We are here to invent a new way to engage citizens in the practice of democracy…. The Final Report of the British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform To the Honourable Geoff Plant, Attorney General, and To the people of British Columbia The members of the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform feel exceptionally honoured to have been given this historic opportunity to serve British Columbians on a matter so central to our democracy. Our mandate was to assess different models for electing members of the Legislative Assembly and to recommend whether our current system for provincial elections should be retained or whether a new model should be adopted. Elsewhere, such a task has been given to politicians or to electoral experts. Instead, British Columbia chose to make history and to give this task to the voters. For eleven months we have studied voting systems, we have listened to thousands of British Columbians in 50 public hearings and received and read 1,603 written submissions. What we most wanted to learn was what values, hopes and desires should underlie our electoral system and which principles should direct our decisions and recommendation. This work has led us to the following recommendation: The Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform recommends our province adopt a new voting system, which we call “BC-STV.” This single transferable vote system is customized for this province. It is fair and easy to use, and it gives more power to voters. BC-STV is easy to use.Voters rank candidates according to their preferences. BC-STV gives fair results. The object is to make every vote count so that each party’s share of seats in the legislature reflects its share of voter support. BC-STV gives more power to voters. Voters decide which candidates within a party, or across all parties, are elected. All candidates must work hard to earn every vote, thereby strengthening effective local representation. BC-STV gives greater voter choice. Choosing more than one member from a riding means that voters will select members of the Legislative Assembly from a greater range of possible candidates. On May 17, 2005 the referendum question placed before all voters will be this: Should British Columbia change to the BC-STV electoral system as recommended by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform? Yes/No We know that a new voting system will take time to become a smooth working part of our political life and we believe that it should be reviewed after it has been used for three provincial elections and that citizens should be involved in the review. In the rest of this report we compare our current voting system with BC-STV. We outline how BC-STV will work and why we believe this system will best serve this diverse province. A second volume, the Technical Report, addresses all aspects of our work and deliberations in detail. Information on how to get a copy of the Technical Report can be found on the last page of this report. Together these two reports complete our work. The next decision belongs to all British Columbians. BBasic values Through our work and by listening to British Columbians, we have identified three basic values which we believe should form the basis of our electoral system. These are: Fair Election Results through Proportionality Democracy is “rule by the people,” therefore, the results of an election—the number of seats won by each party—should reflect the number of votes each party has earned from the voters. The results—votes to seats—should be “proportional.” No electoral system does this perfectly, but that does not reduce the importance of proportionality. Proportional election results are the fairest election results. The preference of voters should determine who sits in our legislature. That is fair. Effective Local Representation Each community has a distinct personality; each makes its own unique contribution to our provincial life. To be effectively represented, each community needs the opportunity to choose the people who speak for it in the legislature, and to hold them accountable in democratic elections. Effective local representation has long been a principle of our democratic tradition. It is central to our electoral politics. Strengthening local representation should be a test of any electoral reform. Greater Voter Choice As citizens, we all are responsible for the health of our democracy, and therefore we must have the fullest possible opportunity to choose the candidates that best represent our interests. Our choice in elections should include choosing among party candidates, as well as across all parties. To give voters a stronger voice, greater voter choice should be part of our voting system. In addition to these values, two issues were consistently highlighted in our discussions on choosing an electoral system. The Voter and Political Parties There is a groundswell of opposition in this province to the current imbalance of power between voters and parties. Indeed, some of the submissions we received called for banning parties on the grounds that they so dominate electoral politics that local representation is undermined by party discipline and practices, and voter choice is stifled. While concerned about this imbalance, we recognize that parliamentary government depends on parties to conduct elections, organize the work of the legislature and carry out the business of government. We believe that the solution lies in adopting an electoral system that encourages voters and politicians to work together in a balanced partnership. The Voter and Majority, Coalition and Minority Governments Most often in Canada—both provincially and federally—parties that form majority governments earn much less than half of the vote, but take well over half of the seats. These are called “artificial majorities.” Nonetheless, Canadians are so familiar with single-party majority governments that we easily assume they are the natural outcome of elections. A majority government, real or artificial, will claim a mandate and act on it. And it can easily be held accountable at the next election. However, we are convinced that the simple nature of majority governments should not override the basic values of fair election results, effective local representation, and greater voter choice. Most other successful western democracies do not depend on majorities, yet have stable and effective governments, governments that often are both inclusive of different interests and consensual in making decisions. We have all seen ineffective or divisive majority governments, and we have seen progressive and successful minority governments that work through legislative coalitions, particularly the federal governments of the 1960s. We believe that our electoral system should not override fairness and choice in favour of producing artificial single-party majority governments. The current system of voting in BC The Case for Majority Government For most of our history this province has used a “single-member plurality” electoral system, popularly referred to as “First-Past-the-Post” (FPTP). The first candidate to cross the finish line—the one with the most votes—wins the seat and represents the local district in the legislature. Governments are formed by the party with the most seats. It is a simple system. Supporters of FPTP typically argue for its ability to produce majority governments, often cautioning against the unequal power small parties might exercise in coalition or minority governments. Governments with a legislative majority may claim a mandate for action. They do not have to bargain with other parties to act on their policies, but can plan and take the administrative and financial decisions necessary to implement their program. Similarly, at election time, voters know who is responsible for the government’s successes or failures and can clearly indicate which party they wish to govern the province. This tendency toward majority government is FPTP’s most important feature: without it, British Columbia would not have had majority governments throughout much of its recent history. In fact, British Columbians have only rarely given one party a majority of their votes. Does FPTP Meet the Needs of British Columbia? A basic principle of FPTP is local representation—every corner of the province is represented in the legislature. Voters directly choose who they wish to represent them and their community, with every area of the province choosing one representative. We believe local representation must be a fundamental objective of any British Columbian electoral system. However, although local representation based on the FPTP system has worked in the past, it is now seen as too easily compromised in at least two ways. Citizens wishing to support a particular party must vote for the single candidate the party offers and not necessarily for the local candidate they may prefer. This often means that the real competition is for a party’s nomination and not for the voters’ support on election day. Party discipline quickly turns members of the Legislative Assembly into party advocates rather than local advocates. Many British Columbians now see MLAs as providing “Victoria’s” voice to the people, rather than the people’s voice to Victoria. FPTP is a simple system—voters need only place an “X” beside the name of an individual. However, FPTP does not promise or provide fair election results. There is no logical or systematic relationship between a party’s total share of the votes cast and its seats in the legislature. Local candidates do not have to win a majority in their district to win a seat. In exceptional cases—for example, in British Columbia in 1996—this meant that the party with the most votes lost the election. Governments elected with fewer votes than their opponents are not legitimate in a modern democracy. The FPTP system can produce other undesirable outcomes. In the 2001 election, the opposition was reduced to two of 79 seats in the legislature, despite winning 42% of the popular vote. Not only is this obviously unfair, it weakens the opposition so greatly that the legislature cannot hold Government to account. The very principle of responsible government, the heart of our constitution, is thrown into question. Many citizens understand that the current system is responsible for these results and believe that they are neither fair nor acceptable. A great many British Columbians told us that political parties too easily dominate this system, that it produces a style of local representation that is easily stifled by party discipline, that it fails to connect voters’ decisions with election results, and that it offers minimal choices to voters. We agree. BC-STV: A new way of voting in BC BC-STV is a “single transferable vote” (STV) system. The main feature of these systems is that, rather than marking an “X” beside one name, voters number candidates from most favourite to least favourite (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.). If a voter’s favourite candidate (#1) is not elected, or has more votes than are needed to be elected, then the voter’s vote is “moved” to his or her next most favourite candidate (#2). The vote is transferred rather than wasted. The aim of this system is to make all votes count. We are recommending that British Columbians adopt BC-STV as their voting system. We are convinced that this system best incorporates the values of fair election results, effective local representation, and greater voter choice. Fair Election Results Proportionality—ensuring that each party’s share of seats in the legislature reflects its actual share of votes—is the basis of fair election results. A proportional system needs multi-member districts so that the share of seats in the legislature can reflect the votes cast by British Columbians and that voters can elect candidates that represent their true preferences. Proportionality is not possible in our current single-member districts, so electoral districts will be amalgamated to provide between two and seven members for each new district. To provide for the fairest results, districts will be designed to have as many members as possible. The number of MLAs in the legislature will not necessarily change; nor will the number of MLAs for any particular region change. BC-STV will produce fair results but not the kind of extreme fragmentation that different proportional systems have promoted in countries such as Israel. Effective Local Representation There are two road blocks to effective local representation in British Columbia. The first is geographic, the second political. BC-STV removes both of these. Geographic: MLAs are expected to represent their local communities. In British Columbia this can mean providing effective representation for citizens that live in relatively small, densely populated urban areas, or in large, thinly populated rural areas of the province. Those of us from the rural and more remote corners of the province understand the problems that long distances create for participating in public meetings or contacting an MLA. B How BC-STV Works* Electoral districts have more than one MLA. Voters rank the candidates in the order of their preference – 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. The number of votes needed for election (called the quota) is calculated. Every one’s first preference vote is counted. Any candidates that reach the quota are elected. If a candidate has more votes than necessary those votes are not wasted but transferred to the voter’s second choice. If no one is elected the person with the fewest votes is dropped and their votes transferred to the voter’s next preference. The process continues until a district has elected all its MLAs. Few votes are wasted so most voters make a difference to getting someone elected. Because this is a proportional system the number of seats a party wins matches their share of the popular vote. C-STV will adapt to different regional needs. Electoral districts in our new system will be organized to reduce these difficulties while ensuring proportionality. In the north and south-east this means adopting districts of two to three members. In the south-central and south-west of the province this means new districts of between four and seven members. The number of members for each region will remain the same; no region will lose representation, but each will contribute to better proportionality. Political: In our current electoral systems, political parties, not voters, control the way MLAs represent their communities. BC-STV corrects this imbalance by being voter-centred and candidate-focused: to be elected, candidates will need to put communities first. Greater Voter Choice BC-STV increases choices, allowing voters a much greater say in determining who will be their local representatives. It allows voters to choose between candidates and parties, it lets voters show which candidates they prefer and in what order, and it ensures that their preferences count. This will provide increased opportunities for candidates from under-represented groups. BC-STV is also the only proportional system that allows independent candidates a real chance to be elected. Although increasingly rare, we believe that independents must have opportunities to participate in our provincial elections equal to candidates who work through political parties. *A full description of the technical aspects of the proposed system can be found in the section entitled “The Recommended BC-STV Electoral System” in the Technical Report. BC-STV responds to British Columbia’s basic values. It provides for fair election results, effective local representation, and greater voter choice, and it best balances these three values of electoral politics. Similar systems have been used successfully—in some cases for decades—to elect members to various positions in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland, countries that share our Westminster parliamentary tradition. The Irish government has twice tried to use referendums to abolish STV, but the voters said “No.” This is a system designed by voters for voters. Ballots and By-elections Ballots in multi-member districts can be organized in a number of ways. Because we know that parties play an important role in our parliamentary system, and because some British Columbians will want to vote for a party, we are recommending that candidates be grouped by party on the ballot. However, in order to ensure that no candidate or party benefits from the order that names appear on the ballot, we recommend that both be randomly ordered on individual ballots. We further recommend that when a legislative seat becomes vacant, the by-election to fill the seat should use the same ballots. Where there is only one seat to be filled, the winning candidate will need to get 50% + one of the votes cast to be elected. What happens if we adopt BC-STV in BC? If British Columbians vote to accept the BC-STV electoral system on May 17, 2005, the politics and governance of our province will change. For some British Columbians it is clear that the greatest change—and the greatest regret—will be the loss of easily achieved majority governments. BC-STV can produce a majority government if a majority of voters vote for one party. While this is possible, the province’s history suggests that governments under the new system will likely be a minority or a coalition of two or more parties. This will mean a change in party organization and practices; parties will need to be more responsive to the voters and less adversarial with their opponents and partners. Our electoral districts will grow geographically under BC-STV, but the number of voters per MLA will not change. Voters will have more than one MLA representing them in Victoria, more than one person to turn to for help. Because each district is likely to elect members from different parties in proportion to the votes cast, voters may well be able to go to an MLA who shares their political views. This will help provide more effective local representation. Perhaps the most significant change for voters and candidates will strike closer to home. There will be no more “safe seats” that a party can win no matter who it runs as its candidate. Changes for Voters Voters will have more power. This means voters will make more and different kinds of choices. For example, voters will be able to consider candidates and parties, rather than simply putting an “X” beside one person’s name. Staunch party supporters will be able to rank their party’s candidates. Both of these changes will mean that candidates will have to work hard to earn voters’ first preference support. Changes for Candidates and MLAs With the loss of safe seats, no candidate, including sitting MLAs, will be able to count on winning election. Under BC-STV, voters will decide which of a party’s several candidates are elected in each district. A party’s candidates will compete not only against those in other parties for first preference support, they will also compete against candidates from their own party. Recognizing that they may not be “first preference” on enough ballots to win a seat, candidates will need to encourage supporters of other candidates to mark them as their second or third preference. This need to appeal to a greater number of voters should lower the adversarial tone of election contests: voters are unlikely to respond positively to someone who aggressively insults their first choice. In order to stand out from other candidates, MLAs will need to clearly represent their districts. This will reinforce effective local representation and encourage MLAs to resist party discipline when it is not in the community’s interests. MLAs will have to work harder to ensure that their party’s positions reflect their constituents’ views. Changes for Parties Parties will run several candidates in the new multi-member electoral districts. This should encourage parties to nominate a diversity of candidates within a district so that they can appeal to the groups and interests that have been under-represented or ignored in our current “winner-take-all” FPTP system. Because the voter will have real power in determining who is elected, parties will have a reason to involve more citizens in their organizations and to make their nominating processes more open and accessible. Because legislative caucuses will include MLAs whose continuing electoral success will depend on representing their local communities, regardless of party policies, the pressures of party discipline will decrease. Our politicians will be better able to represent faithfully the interests of our communities, as well as the province as a whole. And finally, a party’s strength in the legislature will reflect its actual support among voters—not more, not less. Having lost the ability to win artificial majorities, parties will have to learn to work together. This will not reduce the competitive character of British Columbia’s politics, but it may engender a more consensual style of decision-making in which broad agreement is sought for major policy changes. Changes for the Legislative Assembly The most immediate and dramatic change to the Legislative Assembly will be that its power to choose and effectively supervise governments will be restored. The basic theory of our parliamentary system is that governments are chosen by, and are responsible to, the legislature. However, the presence of strictly disciplined parties, enlarged by artificial majorities, has reversed this principle, making the legislature a creature of the government. BC-STV will end false majorities. Governments will need to depend on winning the support of a majority of the legislature and will be able to pass only those laws that a majority of MLAs support. The Legislative Assembly will adapt to these new realities. MLAs will be more sensitive to local interests, and the concerns and hopes of voters will be more commonly heard in the legislature. At the same time, legislative committees will take on a more important role in debating and deciding important public policy issues. Changes for Provincial Governments The BC-STV system will end majority governments built on a minority of votes. No single party will be able to implement a platform without meaningful public debate in the legislature. Unless a majority of voters support candidates from one party, future governments will likely be minorities or coalitions of more than one party. Some coalitions will form before elections in the hope of attracting enough votes to gain a majority; others will form when the elected members find out how much support the voters have given them. Coalition governments, and the more consensual decision-making they require, are normal in most western democracies. The experience of coalition governments in other successful parliamentary systems has been positive and we expect no less from our elected representatives and parties. Governments will depend on members from different parties deciding to work together and making agreements that command broad public support. With BC-STV, the people will get the government they vote for. In conclusion We are convinced that British Columbia will improve its practice of democracy by adopting BC-STV. Election results will be fairer, reflecting a balance between votes and seats, voters will have more choice and candidates will work harder to earn their support. Political parties will remain at the centre of the electoral process, but they will give up some of the excesses of party discipline and the adversarial style that alienates many voters. The Legislative Assembly will be strengthened in its ability to hold governments accountable. No one in the Assembly is so naive as to think that BC-STV will answer every call for change or correct every inequality or inefficiency in our province’s political system. We have come to believe, however, that by changing the electoral system we can build a political climate that is more faithful to the values that most British Columbians want as the foundations of our political life. British Columbians have an unprecedented opportunity to take control of some of the most important rules of democracy. After considering all of the options—including doing nothing—we are convinced that by adopting the BC-STV electoral system the voters will create a system where they, the voters themselves, are closer to the centre of the system. In a democracy, that is what “fair” is about. <<<Signature>>> On behalf of the 160 members of the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform Other issues raised by British Columbians Our mandate as a Citizens’ Assembly was focused and clear. This helped us complete the task we were given on time and on budget, and led us to our decision to recommend the BC-STV electoral system. A number of other issues were also raised by the thousands of British Columbians who spoke to us at public hearings, community meetings and through their formal presentations and submissions. As these issues are beyond our mandate, we deliberately did not engage in sustained debate on them, nor do we presume to make any recommendations or discuss them in detail here. However, the fact that they speak to the deep concern many citizens have for the health of our democracy gives them a place in our second volume, the Technical Report. In brief, the non-mandate issues dealt with: Enthusiasm for citizen involvement in electoral reform. This discussion reflects both the wide public approval of the government’s decision to create a Citizens’ Assembly and the importance of encouraging public debate and involvement on issues important to our democracy. Facilities for access to local MLAs. British Columbians attach a great deal of importance to strong local representation and the need for MLAs to stay in touch with their districts. This is of particular concern in Northern and rural ridings. The role and operation of political parties. British Columbians recognize the central role of political parties in the democratic process, but believe that more openness and responsiveness—particularly in the nomination process and issues related to parliamentary reform—would help reduce what are often referred to as gaps in the democratic process. Public participation in BC's democracy. British Columbians are concerned with declining voter turnout and increased public cynicism, believing that we need to build a more participatory political process. A system that fully involves women, First Nations peoples and minorities would make a major contribution to strengthening our province’s democracy. FFrom selection to decision-making: How the Assembly ccompleted its work Prior to the last election the Liberal party made a commitment to: Appoint a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform to assess all possible models for electing MLAs, including preferential ballots, proportional representation, and our current electoral system; Give the Citizens' Assembly a mandate to hold public hearings throughout B.C., and if it recommends changes to the current electoral system, that option will be put to a province-wide referendum. The membership of the assembly “is to be appointed by a random selection process.” In September 2002, the government appointed Gordon Gibson to advise on the mandate and make up of a citizens’ assembly. Mr. Gibson’s Report on the Constitution of the Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform, tabled on December 23, 2002, led on April 30, 2003 to the creation of a Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. On May 8, 2003, the legislature unanimously appointed Jack Blaney, former president of Simon Fraser University, to the chair of the Citizens’ Assembly. The chair brought together the core staff for the Assembly The following sections briefly describe the Assembly, how it was formed, how members were selected, the training members participated in and the deliberations that took place from September 2003 to December 2004. A detailed description of the work of the Assembly can be found in the Technical Report. Choosing the Assembly The members of the Citizens’ Assembly were chosen at random from the province’s 79 electoral districts. The process began with Elections BC, “a non-partisan Office of the Legislature,” updating the BC voters list in the late summer of 2003. From that list, Elections BC drew a randomized list of 200 names for each electoral district—100 males and 100 females per district. These names were grouped by age (i.e., 18-24, 25-39, 40-55, 56-70, 71+) and gender to produce a list representative of the provincial population. In mid-September 2003, Assembly staff sent an initial letter to 15,800 British Columbians randomly selected by Elections BC. This letter explained the purpose of the Assembly, outlined the major tasks and responsibilities of an Assembly member, and asked recipients to consider participating in the Assembly. Responses to the letter were grouped by electoral district, gender and age cohort. Elections BC produced a second set of 200 randomly selected names for districts where not enough responses were received to represent the district adequately. In the end, a total of 23,034 letters produced a positive response from 1,715 men and women. This pool of names provided the basis for invitations to one of 27 selection meetings held at various locations across the province. Nine hundred and sixty-four men and women attended these meetings where staff provided an overview of the Citizens’ Assembly and described what would be expected of members, as well as the eligibility criteria set by the legislature. Attendees confirmed their eligibility and willingness to serve, then had their names placed in a hat. A draw was then held and one female and one male from each electoral district were selected until 158 members had been chosen. A review of the Assembly members at that point made it clear that the province’s First Nations peoples were not represented. To address this, the government was asked to amend the Terms of Reference so that two people could be selected from the aboriginal community. This was done, and every person who attended a selection meeting but was not selected in the first round was canvassed to determine their aboriginal status. People who confirmed aboriginal status (and their interest and eligibility) had their names placed in a hat and one man and one woman were selected, bringing the number of members to 161, including the chair of the Assembly. Over the course of the selection process, but before the Assembly met in session, eight people who had been selected withdrew for different reasons. They were replaced by random draws taken from the pool of names of people who had put their names forward at the selection meeting for their area. A detailed examination of the Selection Phase is included in the Assembly’s Technical Report. Learning The members of the Citizens’ Assembly presented a wide variety of backgrounds and experience: they reflected the diversity of this province. They also had varying degrees of knowledge and understanding of electoral systems, so a three-month Learning Phase was provided to prepare members for the tasks and challenges represented by the mandate. The Learning Phase consisted of six weekend sessions held between January 11th and March 26th, 2004. The sessions were conducted in Simon Fraser University’s Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue located in Vancouver. Kenneth Carty and Campbell Sharman, political scientists from the University of British Columbia, designed and delivered the learning sessions. An advisory committee of experts from various universities and other groups assisted with the design of the program. Leading international experts Elizabeth McLeay from New Zealand and David Farrell from the United Kingdom conducted one weekend session. David Farrell was also the author of the primary text provided to all Assembly members. Each weekend session typically consisted of three major presentations, each delivered in an interactive lecture style, supported by presentation and pre-session reading materials. Following each presentation, the Assembly broke into 12 discussion groups facilitated by political science graduate students from the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University. The discussion groups provided the members an opportunity to increase their understanding of the learning materials and the lectures, and to discuss the principles and practices of electoral systems. The Learning Phase was supported with a well-maintained website. Assembly members also learned how to work together, developing a set of “Shared Values” and approved policies to guide their work and the deliberative decision processes of the Assembly. The Learning Phase culminated in the publication of the Preliminary Statement to the People of British Columbia. The Statement outlined the Assembly’s progress and expressed the values the Assembly thought should be part of the province’s electoral system. The Statement also provided a basis for discussion during the public hearings. A detailed examination of the Learning Phase is included in Assembly’s Technical Report. Public Hearings and Submissions Fifty public hearings were organized throughout the province during the months of May and June 2004. Hearing locations were chosen to allow the greatest number of citizens to attend. The hearings were scheduled from 6:30 to 9:30 pm on weekdays (Monday to Thursday) and from 1:30 to 4:30 pm on Saturdays. From four to sixteen Assembly members attended each hearing. Each of these Assembly panels included members from the local electoral districts, the neighbouring districts and at least one member from another region of the province. This mix helped Assembly members to gain an understanding of the local issues and concerns of citizens in all parts of the province. In the course of the public hearings, approximately 3,000 British Columbians attended presentations given by 383 people. Following the formal presentations, the hearings were opened to all attendees for comments and suggestions, and for discussions with Assembly members. A summary of each formal presentation was posted to the Assembly website where it was available to other members of the Assembly and the public. The dominant themes of the presentations included the need for change, more proportionality, local representation and increased voter choice. Contact with the public continued throughout the province as Assembly members met with community groups, service clubs and schools. Many presenters and attendees commended the government for initiating the Citizens' Assembly. The other significant opportunity for public participation was through written submissions. Over 1,430 individuals made 1,603 submissions to the Assembly, the majority via the Assembly’s website where they were posted for public scrutiny. Over time, submissions began to refer to previously posted submissions, creating a running dialogue. A research staff member read each submission as it was received and prepared an abstract. A full set of abstracts was then provided to each Assembly member along with a summary of submissions and a searchable data file organized by category. As with the presentations, the submissions overwhelmingly supported the adoption of a new electoral system. Many provided detailed examples and arguments supporting their position. At the conclusion of the public hearings, the Assembly met in Prince George to review what they had heard and read. The Assembly also approved a plan on how it would approach deliberations and decision-making in the fall. A detailed examination of the Public Hearings Phase is included in the Assembly’s Technical Report. Deliberation and Decisions The Deliberation Phase brought the Assembly’s work to a conclusion. During sessions held at the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue from September to November 2004, Assembly members considered what they had learned through study and research, and what the people of British Columbia had told them. Members framed their discussions within a well-defined set of democratic values: fair (proportional) electoral results, effective local representation, and greater voter choice. The first sessions focused on the features of electoral systems that best reflected these values. This included a series of formal presentations on various electoral systems from people that the Assembly had identified in public hearings as excellent representatives of their respective positions. Members then moved from a discussion of fundamental principles to an examination of what a new electoral system for British Columbia might look like, and how it would operate. The Assembly did this by building two detailed models, one a “single transferable vote” (STV) system, the other a “mixed-member proportional” (MMP) system. Each system addressed the basic values, but they did so in quite different ways. The final discussions involved a careful and systematic comparison of the two alternatives. Members explored not only how each system worked and the consequences of adopting one or the other, they also considered the effect each system would have on how our political parties work, on the legislature, and on the pattern of government in the province. At the end of a thoughtful and comprehensive debate, the members made their choice. ASSEMBLY VOTE – OCT 23, 2004 Which of the two alternatives would best serve British Columbia? MMP - 31 STV – 123 Having clearly identified an electoral system that could provide effective local representation, fair election results, and greater voter choice, the Assembly then went through a thorough review of the current electoral system. Members had decided to recommend a change only if they were convinced that the proposed alternative was demonstrably superior to the current system. This led to a comparison between the STV system and the current FPTP process. Members then took two important decisions. ASSEMBLY VOTE – OCT 24, 2004 Do we recommend retaining the current First-Past-the-Post electoral system in British Columbia? YES - 11 NO – 142 Do we recommend the STV (BC-STV) system to the people of British Columbia in a referendum on May 17, 2005? YES - 146 NO – 7 The final sessions of the Deliberative Phase were devoted to shaping the STV system to meet the particular needs of British Columbia, and producing the Assembly’s final report and recommendation. A detailed examination of the Deliberation Phase is included in the Assembly’s Technical Report. Mandate The mandate of the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform is outlined in the Order-in-Council: Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform Terms of Reference – issued May 16, 2003. The complete Terms of Reference and Duties of the Chair can be found in the Assembly’s Technical Report. The Terms of Reference which speak most directly to the Assembly’s mandate are: The Citizens’ Assembly must assess models for electing Members of the Legislative Assembly and issue a report recommending whether the current model for these elections should be retained or another model should be adopted. In carrying out the assessment described in section 1, the Citizens’ Assembly must consult with British Columbians and provide British Columbians with the opportunity to make submissions to the Citizens’ Assembly in writing, and orally at public meetings. If the Citizens’ Assembly recommends under section 1 the adoption of a model for electing Members of the Legislative Assembly that is different from the current model: the model must be consistent with both the Constitution of Canada and the Westminster parliamentary system; and the model must be described clearly and in detail in its report. [*]The assessment described in section 1 must: be limited to the manner by which voters’ ballots are translated into elected members; and take into account the potential effect of its recommended model on the government, the Legislative Assembly and the political parties. In addition, the Terms of Reference speak to the Assembly’s responsibility to produce a report on its final recommendation. 10. The Citizens’ Assembly must present its final version of the report described in section 1 to the Attorney-General no later than December 15, 2004, for tabling in the Legislative Assembly. 11. On presentation of the final version of the report to the Attorney General, the chair may arrange for the publication of the report. Note from the Chair Never before in modern history has a democratic government given to unelected, “ordinary” citizens the power to review an important public policy, then seek from all citizens approval of any proposed changes to that policy. The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform has had this power and responsibility and, throughout its life, complete independence from government. I want to acknowledge this unique gift by first thanking Premier Gordon Campbell for creating the Assembly. While several community leaders promoted the idea, it was the premier, in collaboration with Attorney General Geoff Plant, who took the steps necessary to create and secure the Assembly. I also want to recognize the role of the provincial legislature. The Terms of Reference, as well as the conditions governing any referendum, were approved by the Legislative Assembly in unanimous votes. Members of our Legislative Assembly united in making history. The members of the Citizens’ Assembly—British Columbians who unstintingly gave their time and energy—demonstrated how extraordinary ordinary citizens are when given an important task and the resources and independence to do it right. Over the eleven-month course of the Assembly, only one of 161 members withdrew and attendance was close to perfect. Their great and lasting achievement is the birth of a new tool for democratic governance. With an impressive commitment to learning so many new concepts and skills, and with a grace and respect for one another in their discussions that was truly remarkable, the Assembly members demonstrated a quality of citizenship that inspired us all. My deepest thanks and regard go to each and every one of them. The idea of a citizens’ assembly—its unique authority and its importance as a democratic process—clearly exerted a powerful force, attracting highly-talented staff, researchers and administrators to its cause. Their work enriched the Assembly’s work, and all staff members performed their tasks with exceptional professionalism and integrity. Twelve-hour days, seven-days-a-week were common: they willingly provided anything that the Assembly needed to get the job done and done right. In each session’s evaluation Assembly members consistently gave to staff their highest marks. The facilitators—graduate students in political science from Simon Fraser University and the University of British Columbia—were also exceptional. These outstanding, exemplary colleagues deserve enormous credit for the Assembly’s achievements. All Assembly members and staff are indebted to Gordon Gibson. At the government’s request, he prepared the Constitution of the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. With few variations, we followed Mr. Gibson’s clear and sensible plan. And, during the Assembly’s tenure, I often consulted Mr. Gibson for his wise, helpful and objective advice. I also want to thank and recognize the contributions of Harry Neufeld, Chief Electoral Officer, and Linda Johnson, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, of Elections BC who were essential and very helpful partners throughout the Assembly’s work; Neil Reimer, David Winkler and Carol Anne Rolf of the Attorney General’s ministry who helped us use government services in ways that supported our independence; members of the Research Advisory Committee from the University of BC, Simon Fraser University and the University of Victoria; community leaders who helped to promote the idea of a citizens’ assembly; and the staff of the Delta Vancouver Suites and Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue, who adopted us as a special family. And the heartiest of thanks to those citizens who attended hearings and made presentations and submissions, and to all British Columbians—your support made possible this wonderful invention in the practice of democracy. Jack Blaney, Chair Further reading The source book used by the Citizens’ Assembly for a general discussion of STV is: Farrell, David M, Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, 2001), especially chapter 6. References to a range of information on the STV electoral system from a variety of countries can be found on the Citizens’ Assembly website. Go to: http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public and enter ‘STV resources’ in the search box. A lively animation of how the BC-STV system works can be found on the Assembly website. Technical Report: Contents Final Report The Recommended BC-STV Electoral System Other Issues Designing and Implementing the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform Selection Phase Learning Phase Public Hearings Phase Deliberation Phase Communications Supporting Materials _____________________________ Copies of the Final Report and the Technical Report are available at public libraries, universities and colleges throughout the province. They are also available at www.citizensassembly.bc.ca. The provincial government intends to open a Referendum Information Office. Phone Enquiry British Columbia (604-660-2421 or 1-800-663-7867) or email EnquiryBC@gems3.gov.bc.ca for contact information.

Yes it does. Lack of trust in US banks? Better interest rates? Easier to move money?

I have to admit to being a trifle shocked. Deloittes splitting on the elite like that - where is the loyalty these days? And Warren Buffoon is an old man who is obviously going senile. http://www.alternet.org/story/151999/meet_the_global_financial_elites_controlling_%2446_trillion_in_wealth?akid=7394.215334.eDzl-l&rd=1&t=6 the underlying article here: http://ampedstatus.org/exclusive-analysis-of-financial-terrorism-in-america-over-1-million-deaths-annually-62-million-people-with-zero-net-worth-as-the-economic-elite-make-off-with-46-trillion/ it does seem quite shrill in its tone but then the figures and the suffering [and being American] probably explains that.

The assumption that large salaries means an effective executive obviously is totally bogus. You may have noticed that the recent economic meltdown was handled by extremely well paid people. Furthermore in most organisations the effective work is down by the level below the CEO. Edit. SHe retires next year when she will be about 63. Her replacement will be another BGCA employee. Spillett worked for BCGA for 30 years so whether she would have cut it elsewhere is an unknown. I have a strong suspicion her salary is a reflecton on the amount on income generated from corporations etc. I understand that it is not uncommon for effective fundraisers to be well rewarded. And I think she has been fortunate in taking advantage of the boom years and the decline in schools to make some big increases in size and membership. However does that mean she is worth $1M a year? ANd should US charities hold money off-shore?

Yes but that does overlook the comparative costs. Is taking/or adding a man to the squad actually going to cost more? Simple vehicle which actually has more carrying capacity than the mule and is steered by a Mk1 brain so should have much more capability. I am also confused as to where this is meant to be fighting - is it just built for scrubby deserts? Hows it work in paddyfields and jungles, mountainous areas, in built up areas where going off road may be the smart thing to do. So a UC may also be rendered less useful but then it is a hell of a lot cheaper I am sure.

http://www.gizmag.com/squad-mission-support-system-set-for-afghanistan/17246/ For a video on the system. A load of waffle really if you consider the cost and what it would be to have a universal carrier with a driver!!! Universal carrier the most built armoured vehicle of the WW2 era : ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Carrier It really does seem insane to be going for such a high-tech unit. The cost has to be huge. How about cheap and low-tech for Petes sake. FEB 2011

This is an interesting one. My gut reaction is that charities should keep their money in the country where they raise it or where they spend it. My second reaction is . WTF are they doing with $50 m anyway. I assume that a lot of money is onshore also. For background and details of the club see Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_%26_Girls_Clubs_of_America I have always had problems with the concept of highly paid charity bosses. There are enough retiring CEO's/ officers/ good intentioned smart folk to fill the charity CEO role at a fraction of that salary.

And for JonS. How did this play in NZ? http://www.reportingproject.net/offshore/index.php/offshore-registration-business-forced-to-halt-operations

AH! the voice of reason. Bear in mind the start of the school holidays providing lots of extra testosterone and stupidty and gullibility. However ther is no doubt that the collusion of the Met, News International, and the stupidity of Cameron/Osborne in using Coulson does reinforce the view that there is a "power" elite in the UK. And it is a corrupt triumvirate so therefore this justifies "protest". Of course they do not articulate it quite that way. I think there is a widespread feeling of disgust with the situation including the niddle classes that punishment for the bubble and corruption seems not to happen. However the big winners still control the media and the parties so you do not see much about it in terms of sorting out the status quo. The knowledge that 10trillion US$ is floating around the worlds economic system and is the proceeds of money laundering, crime, crooked dictators, and people avoiding tax - I find especially irksome. Most of it is invested through London and New York so the freezing of all these funds and confiscation if not legitimately claimed would bolster most of the worlds economy. The World Bank: One wonders if the existence of these special places for the rich and the crooked were taught at school and college how long they would be allowed to last. However a pre-emptive strike to grab this money would be the boldest and most sensible thing to do. It is all invested somewhere so simply making sure no money can be taken out of the country, or assets sold before a legitimate ownership was proved would be a huge revenge.

Bugger. If I had known my election rested on posting here I would have been more careful in my spelfink

Looters. If it were simply protest why are they stealing? Why destroy businesses that give jobs. Why burn flats? Flexing their "gang" muscle is empowering, and getting stuff to use or flog on eBay is a nice bonus. Have they any genuine beef. Well if you don't work at school and you don't like to work anyway then you are likely to end up at the bottom of the economic heap. And whilst being a rapper/star looks good in the videos the odds against are higher than being struck by lightning. I do know lots of working coloured folks both professional - doctors and dentists, and delivery drivers and refuse collectors. It is not impossible to be employed and to go up the ladder - its just some folk don't see the need to try.