What annoyed you today?

[spinner]

Trust me Chris, it's not just British journalists. It's amazing to hear the journalist here in North American (Cdn ones are just slightly less hysterical than Americans) talking on issues. You wonder if they're on the same planet you are. 

[spinner]

Realizing that despite the claim to rectify it, the delete feature in Lightroom 2.7 still sucks. How hard is it to rewrite the code? I mean Bridge does it in no time flat, Lightroom takes ages and virtually locks up the PC against other uses. 

[Eileen]

I with you on the coverage Chris. I turned Paxman off at one point because he was winding me up so much, and not actually obtaining any information from anyone because he wouldn't shut up long enough for them to get a word in. And I've stopped listening to the today programme because of John Humphreys.

As for those headlines: I'm sure we all appreciate the need for a snappy byline or soundbite, but endlessly repeating things you know to be untrue without any proper qualification means that a high proportion of listeners who aren't really paying that much attention to start with or don't understand the system may think it's a statement of fact. I think it's time for me to avoid news channels for a day or so in any event, as they're now into that endless speculation that they do when there's not much to actually report. Back to music for me!

[CML-1591]

What annoys me at work:

The amount of people that go up a No Entry way in the car park 

[Oldboy]

What annoys me at work:

The amount of people that go up a No Entry way in the car park 

You think that's bad! Down my way they go up a oneway street the wrong way!!! 

[chris@seary.com]

I with you on the coverage Chris. I turned Paxman off at one point because he was winding me up so much, and not actually obtaining any information from anyone because he wouldn't shut up long enough for them to get a word in. And I've stopped listening to the today programme because of John Humphreys.

As for those headlines: I'm sure we all appreciate the need for a snappy byline or soundbite, but endlessly repeating things you know to be untrue without any proper qualification means that a high proportion of listeners who aren't really paying that much attention to start with or don't understand the system may think it's a statement of fact. I think it's time for me to avoid news channels for a day or so in any event, as they're now into that endless speculation that they do when there's not much to actually report. Back to music for me!

This is a really interesting point, Eileen. I agree with you very much - Humphreys and Paxman are a pair of egotistical eejits now. Their glory days are over, and when I listen to them I feel I'm like listening to a drunken student having a rant. Just Cock and Bull.

You've put your finger on the button here - this endless repetition of nonsense can sway people's minds very much. It's the case now that the media are almost making the news. Instead of letting the machinery of the constitution work it's way through, they're almost persuading people to demand what the newspaper proprietors want.

For instance, Brown is doing things perfectly correctly. In fact, he's actually supposed to pursue a coalition before David Cameron does, but he's given the playing field over to the Conservatives.

Also, although most wouldn't know it, the Conservatives actually haven't won an election!

If they form a coalition, then the Conservatives and the Lib Dems will have a JOINT mandate, where the membership of both parties have to agree compromise. However, the endless rants would have you believe:

• it's just down to Clegg and Camaron making an agreement
• Brown shoud resign and let Cameron in

A real shame, because we're having a taste of what it's like when everyone's political choices still matter AFTER the election. A shame the TV pundits can't be more cerebral on this. The process is working very well, and I think most people will actually be pleased with the result if they leave it to complete.

[Hinfrance]

The voting system is broken, so all this talk of mandates is smoke and mirrors. Labour's last (huge) majority was on the back of 22% of the electorate voting for them. The Conservative vote this time was 24% of the electorate, but Labour have so gerrymandered the constituencies that even a higher share of the vote for the Conservatives means that they get no majority. As long a Scottish MPs form part of the UK Parliament it is, until reform, effectively impossible for any party other than Labour to obtain a clear majority. England, as always, voted unequivically Conservative.

And Gordon Brown was not elected - he's quite probably one of the most unpopular PMs the UK has ever had. He certainly doesn't have a mandate of any description.

The Lib Dems are now showing their true colours - all Clegg's talk about doing what's best for the country was standard political speak for 'I'm going to screw everything I can out of the others or nobody else gets anything'. Either that or they are as indecisive (read useless) as their reputation would have it.

[greypoint]

Whatever the actual facts of the constitution are, you can't just ignore people's perception of what has or is happening. And whatever the rights and wrongs of FPTP, that was the system we used.  Labour were rejected soundly in most of England where the Tories now have an over 60 seat majority - even in the places where counting the votes is academic there was a swing of up to 11% or so. If Labour had been bothered about electoral reform before they realised it was the only way of clinging to power they might have addressed the question of the over representation of Scotland especially after devolution, but why would they when they have such a majority there. I'm getting a bit fed up of hearing MPs spouting that we have a hung parliament because people voted for electoral reform. No they did'nt - the Libdems actually lost seats - England mostly voted to reject Labour - no way could the Tories hope to reverse the situation in Scotland. Just a few more reversals in England and Cameron would already be PM. I'm in agreement that the system needs tweaking but to attempt to push through legislation just to ensure Labour remain the majority party for evermore does'nt quite seem right somehow!
So we could end up with what's ridiculously called a rainbow coalition with Labour being propped up by nationalist parties giving their votes if they're given enough money [£300 million is the price of the Welsh according to their leader!] and England being ignored once again and having to pay the price. Nice to hear the reasoned voice of John Reid on this.
And however many times we're told that we don't vote for the PM, another Labour leader we did'nt get the chance to consider before voting ending up as PM is just taking the mick!  Oh well...another election before long I suppose. And with all those MPs who actually like FPTP electoral reform might not be the done deal some think 

[ABERS]

I'm amazed at the Tory press suggesting that Brown is 'clinging on by what's left of his fingertips', he's only fulfilling his constitutional requirements. Let's remember that no-one won the election as the rules stand today and we are presented with a shabby stitch-up of losers scrabbling for power with a perm any two from three situation, with the Lib-Dems as a banker.

The Tories are so desperate for power that they will now resort to a 'we'll top anything that Labour promises' strategy with Hague promising a referendum on voting reform after Labour promised the same thing a couple of hours earlier, with Lord Ashcroft hovering in the background wondering whether to throw more good money after bad.

I think it's wonderful sitting on the sidelines watching the frantic machinations of the three parties, each of which were rejected by the majority of the electorate last Thursday.

[greypoint]

In every election under the present  system the winning party has been rejected by the majority of those eligible to vote - so nothing new there What's totally bugging me is all these MPs telling me what I want and what I voted for! It's irrelevant from the point of view of the economy - we're stuffed -there will be cuts - massive cuts. They're all looking desperate but then, they're being told we must get something in place ASAP. Oh well, if we do get a LibLab pact at least we'll get the chance to vote again before the end of the year

[hevans]

I think, given the state of the economy and public finances that any party that goes into Govt. can expect to make some very unpopular and hard decisions - one of the reasons labour was probably happy to let the Tories form a coalition first.

I didn't watch the election coverage, just thought I'd wake in the morning and see what mess was created. I too am sick of journalists with no analytical or rational skills creating news rather than reporting it.

In the mean time, the Dutch Govt. collapsed in March, the elections won't be for a few months yet, and they are all still talking, talking, talking about the situation. At least in the UK, the election is called and then over with in a few weeks.

H.

[deetus]

Tory politicians going on about Gordon Brown being an unelected Prime Minister. We the voters don't elect a Prime Minister, we put a cross against the politician that we wish to represent us in our constituency.
We may well vote for the party that we wish to form the Government, we may be swayed by whoever is leader of that party but we do not vote for who is Prime Minister. We do not have the choice of who we would like as Prime Minister, we have Parliamentry elections, not Prime Ministerial elections.

[greypoint]

But when Gordon Brown walked into the job of PM he stated he had his own agenda and policies - the country had voted for Blair and his policies and he walked away - as I said, it's perception however much we're told we don't vote for PM. On the bright side, if we get full PR we won't need to bother with elections ever again - there will be an everlasting LibLab coalition so voting will become irrelevant

[Hinfrance]

 . .  unless part of the reform is cutting Scotland loose, in which case it'll be a Conservative monopoly in England.

French politics is much more fun. What is really going on between Carla Bruni's legs?

[spinner]

I suppose I should post this in the what bemused me thread but the thought was drawn out reading about your election. I find it ironic that at a time when what the whole world needs is good, strong sensible unbiased leadership what we have is a worsening of political divides. With each side voting strictly along their respective party lines and no thought given to the public good. I read it here, about Britain, I see it on my tv everyday about both U.S. and Cdn. politics and it's convinced me that 'democracy' is a sham and a badly run one at that.

Oh, there, I got annoyed at the end.