Bother. The 2 links clearly have a limited lifetime, that I gave above to the Nuance pages on the Companies House website. Both links route you to the main database enquiry page (and there are several companies with Nuance in the name.).

The relevant company is:

Name & Registered Office:
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS UK LIMITED
ST GEORGE'S HOUSE
3 ST GEORGE'S PLACE
TWICKENHAM
TW1 3NE
Company No. 04090152

More information is available by clicking on the link with name "Order information on this company", on the right-hand side of the screen and slightly lower than the address of the registered office on the left. Clicking that link gets some free information (including recent changes in (some) directors); also access to the £1 ordering page.

Best regards

As you probably know, for £1 spent here: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/3258703e056113b... http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/3258703e056113b...
you might get the name of a real person of some seniority, and perhaps sense.

However, the real reason for the price difference is likely to be the same as with airline tickets:
(i) Mac owners will pay more; they are used to it and require style as much as functionality.
(ii) PC owners can pay what they like (because there are lots of them with different budgets) and get something that might, or might not, be worth what they actually pay. There are some upgrade paths, for those who get it wrong, but not too wrong.

Nuance are, confusingly, trying to be both British Airways and EasyJet. However, they don't have the benefit of being a regularly repeating business, so it is not really appropriate to have a market position that customers must learn by trial and error, let alone two.

Perhaps they have not noticed that operating system dominance is, on the desktop definitely, a thing of the past. Quite a few households now run as many operating systems as people; some run more. Those who do not understand this will lose out (are losing out) to those who do.

Best regards

Radiation risk chart here: http://xkcd.com/radiation/ (and I do hope it's not a XKCD joke).

Hat tip to Uncle Bill's Canadian blog: http://www.williamsticker.blogspot.com/

Best regards

STV/AV is more complicated for both voters and election processing, but we can cope. UK electors do have the wit of Australian voters, and sensible use of computers sorts the complexity of counting.

For the rest, my opponents must argue their own case and not require me to argue it for them: none of your rhetorical tricks here please Charles.

I have challenged several of your assertions against AV, including objecting to multiple seat constituencies and why. The purpose of each MP is to represent his/her constituency and every constituent in it, against the power of the executive. Since the executive moved from being led by the monarch to being led by the leader of the largest party (or coalition) in the HoC, it is quite clear that the HoC can no longer be viewed as independent of the executive.

Also, with a modest number of candidates standing from each of the main parties, they can quite easily field a 'hard-core' and a moderate candidate. They could also field candidates on either side of contentious divides with their party: eg pro-EU and anti-EU. This effect balances the benefits of STV/AV to predominantly single issue parties such as UKIP and BNP.

Back to the good points in my suggestions ...

In your main posting, you do not seem to acknowledge the possibility of more than one candidates being fielded by each political party (the combined open primary approach). This approach would allow 'better democracy', even in seats solidly for one party. Candidates who stand on their own ability as much as their party policy and as central party placemen would give us much better quality MPs and more useful ones: AV provides more of that.

Allowing a vote on the desirability of policies of smaller parties and independent candidates, even if they fail to win the seat, is a good thing.

STV/AV allows every voter to express a more complete view than with FPTP. I can give the detail on that, in terms of information theory entropy, should any require that.

Finally, the solution to the problem identified by the call for PR is not multi-seat constituencies: it is directly electing the head of government. This is because the PR objection is not the inability of independent MPs to call the executive to account, but the political flavour of the executive.

Best regards
Nigel Sedgwick

Disagreement on several aspects here I'm afraid Charles: http://www.directdemocracyuk.com/blog/2011/02/cam...

Best regards
Nigel Sedgwick

Well, I went though all that link. I also have to say I found it a pretty good analysis: nothing much to disagree with, but incomplete.

However, the biggest problem is that it lacks any synthesis: what should be done now. Though, admittedly, it does identify that the proposed referendum lacks adequacy of question on constitutional reform.

Personally, I think we should go for AV for our political elections, though also including the RON-option (effectively none of the remaining candidates). Of course, the RON option is specifically excluded from the Australian version of AV (in both its weak and strong options - and I'll leave explaining those to another mainline blog post).

There are three particular dangers in the upcoming referendum.

(i) It is a waste of a referendum. These events are very important and should only be used for asking very important questions. The 2-way choice is, itself, a hankering after disenfranchisement of the electorate. See, for example, my previous posting on AE and the link to The Beacon: http://angryexile.blogspot.com/2011/02/response-t... See also, more specifically, my recent comment (the first one) on Direct Democracy: http://www.directdemocracyuk.com/blog/2011/02/cam...

(ii) It disadvantages the two main political parties, IMHO at least a bit more than they need to be damaged (though I would like their power to be distinctly curtailed from its current excessive level). This is by not mixing in all those other options (directly elected head of government, but not head of state) and democratisation of the House of Lords (as distinctly different from a clone of the House of Commons - by having a different electorate: each citizen-taxpayer's pound, not just that citizen's existence). Thus, with just this change, minority interests will be as much out of balance above the mainstream as they are currently out of balance below it.

(iii) The electorate are disadvantaged, at the expense of too much power retained by the existing political oligarchies (largely through ruling cliques in those parties). This is by not giving the electorate the right to seek more frequent elections of national government: my proposed annual election by rotation between the 3 parts of national government: executive, HoC and HoL/HoT).

So, analysis is helpful, but needs the support of synthesis: what we should use in place of the current (faulty and outdated) system.

Best regards
Nigel Sedgwick

The biggest trouble with education, in both the UK and the USA, is the existence of a substantial near-monopoly supplier. A voucher system, priced to cover the basics for everyone (even the poorest of families) together with independent schools and selection and top-up fees paid by families, would solve this problem within one generation of students.

The same is true, in the UK, of the NHS. If the NHS had separation of funding (through tax transfers for health insurance - and charities) and supply (through independent hospitals and doctors), things would be vastly better. Again, the level of healthcare funded solely through tax should be a suitably set minimum. In the absence of a better method, for the UK I'd suggest a bit below 5% of GDP per capita.

For both education and healthcare, funding of this sort of minimum level through tax is no bad thing: and the simpler the better. However, expanding this to a vastly more extensive and near-monopoly supply is clearly not called for by the common welfare. Not everyone needs their most basic provision as charity; that some do does not call for removing market choice from the majority. That way lies the poor quality provision of our current times.

Best regards
Nigel Sedgwick

So, 12/17ths minus one half.

It's a struggle to remember these things, but I suspect that one might have made it onto the 11+ paper.

Still, it's always good to start an interview with a question every applicant can answer: breaks the ice (unless the applicant thinks you're taking the mick).

?!!?

Best regards
Nigel Sedgwick

A good analysis: I thought of daughters, just before I got to the quote by O'Rourke about girlfriends.

And who would be without any of them!

Best regards
Nigel Sedgwick

The situation in the Arab world throws up some useful and more general questions about the legitimacy and choice of government in the 'democratic' world.

One of the things about most people is that, on the whole, they are not very interested in government - that is until it gets too bad. This is actually exploited by political parties, who are only too happy to be allowed to get on with things without the (large and silent majority of the) electorate interfering. With only 'activists' taking an interest,

For this reason, and because I believe the large and silent majority do have more to contribute than all the activists put together, I am in favour of annual elections.

The trouble with such frequent elections is that (perhaps with cause) politicians argue that they would never get anything done because there would be not enough time before they might lose office. I have a solution to that, and experience in the USA (biennial federal elections) shows that it is not too bad.

My solution is 3-years terms of office (sufficient for usefully thought-out activity) for each of the following, with staggered terms to give annual elections:

(i) House of Commons;
(ii) House of Lords;
(iii) Executive Prime Minister (head of government, not head of state).

With this arrangement, the whole of national government would be able to benefit from the view of the mostly silent majority on a regular annual basis.

All the mostly silent majority would need to do is take 15 to 30 minutes, once a year, to vote according to the opinions they hold at that time. It is, of course, possible that more frequent and regular elections would instill, for most people, a somewhat greater interest in how well we are all governed. This is especially given their greater authority to decide on that.

Best regards
Nigel Sedgwick