I quite agree that many Catholic clerics have been far too indulgent to the Republican movement in Ireland, nevertheless the leadership of the RC Church in Ireland has tended towards the moderate e.g. it was pro-treaty in the civil war.

While members of the PIRA may certainly be culturally Catholic, they have avoided overt mention of Catholicism in their propaganda, as I said. Ever heard Adams or McGuinness saying they are fighting for Catholicism? Or even mentioning it?
Sure, they make a thing about private devotion, and in that I find the position of RC clerics who indulge them sickening, I wish more had the courage to turn them away, but maybe that’s easy to say here.

As for funerals for suicides, I think the time when they were buried without ceremony has long gone. What you assert to be RC practice isn’t – I can think of several full RC funerals of people who committed suicide in my own experience in just the past few years.

1. I seem to be accused of smearing and siding with Livingstone in equal measure. Fair enough.

2. I reject the claim that any of my “smears” are dishonest. Referring to the De Menezes case, Sunny seems to have forgotten that the Old Bailey found the Met had failed in their duty of care to the public and yet chose not to lay the blame lower in the chain of command. The buck has to stop somewhere and for justice to be seen to be done someone should have taken the fall. An innocent man was killed in quite a shocking manner. Actions speak louder than words. Backing Blair while condemning the shooting is a typical example of Livingstone having it both ways.

3. I also maintain that it is fair to say that Livingstone is a difficult person to work with. He has an appallingly thin skin that gets him into trouble all the time. He is incapable of accepting criticism. Incidents such as the al Qaradawi lovefest and calling the Standard journalist a concentration camp guard are perfect examples of him refusing to back down and show a degree of magnamity even when he is clearly in the wrong. That is bad for London.

4. In fairness to Livingstone I have to admit to finding the charges of corruption a little overblown. Livingstone has been under more intense scrutiny than any other politician in recent history, especially from the Rothermere Press. He is clearly guilty of extreme cronyism but cronyism, like (gasp!) whipping does have its place in any political system. More to the point, cronyism is all but encouraged by the way the Greater London Authority is constituted. Johnson and even Paddick will inevitably have their cronies. Johnson however appears utterly disinterested in changing the system. I therefore see how it is a distinguishing issue between him and Livingstone.

5. Sian Berry has not merely expressed personal support of Livingstone; she is urging her supporters to give Livingstone their second choices.

6. Saying that giving Sian Berry a second preference vote is a waste is a simple matter of fact. If we were using a less pernicious electoral system, such as AV, there would of course be no problem with giving the Greens a number 2 – it might not achieve anything but it would at least be an honest choice. But the SV system used means that is a luxury we can’t afford.

7. The bottom line is that if you would rather have Paddick than either Johnson or Livingstone, your only rational course of action is to vote Paddick 1, and whichever out of Tweedledee and Tweedledumb you least object to 2. Giving any other candidate your first choice is merely to guarantee that the election is between Labour and the Tories.

I fear that, if anything, you understand the system too well, Diversity – hence your somewhat verbose explanation. Please allow me to provide my own advice for London voters.

First preference: State your first preference for Mayor of London.
Second preference: State your second preference for Mayor of London.

Because it really is as simple as that.

Couldn’t agree more. Two weeks to go. Let’s get the anoraks off and go to work.

In an election where second preferences only count as between the top two candidates on first preferences:
- The logical priorities for a supporter of candidate A are first to get A into the last two, and second to keep the most likely challenger, B, out of the last two. If the supporter is sure enough of A being in the last two, the supporter should give first preference to C in the hope of excluding B from the last two. If C does not reach the last two, the supporter’s second preference for A will count as much as his/her first preference would have done. The only risk is that C, after scraping into the last two, will win on massive second preferences. Therefore the supporter should tell others to give second prefernces to D, not C. This is part of why Ken has tied to encourage second preferences for Sian Berry (Ken, of course, does not care where his first preferences’ second prefs go); if Brian should get into the last two, it is better for Ken that Brian has fewer second prefs from those eliminated.
- If someone is a keen opponent of (e.g.) B, and not particularly a supporter of any other candidate, the priority is to keep B out of the last two. The way the opponent of B is most likely to achieve this is to give a first preference to C. If C does not crowd B out of the last two, the opponent’s second preference for A will still count as a vote against B. So the tactic sacrifices nothing.

It follows that the logical tactic for those more opposed to Boris than pro-Ken is to give vote Paddick 1, Livingstone 2. By the same token, the best tactic for those more opposed to Ken than pro Boris is to vote Paddick 1, Johnson 2.

It also follows that anyone who is keen on Ken, afraid of Boris and thinks that Ken will beat Brian in a run off should vote Paddick 1, Livingstone 2; and vice versa the keen on Boris, afraid of Ken group who are confident that Boris will beat Brian in a run off should vote Paddick 1, Johnson 2.

There are some massive tactical first preferences for Paddick out there. We should be chasing them; not worrying so much about our second preferences.

Newmy (if I may call you that) am I anywhere near the truth? Go on mate, give me a clue.

Everybody on the About Us page has administrator status, so we can all go in and moderate, but it’s really a question of when someone has five minutes spare to do it.

I meanwhile am just a phantom AI construct who evaporates into thin air as soon as my keyboard is removed …

Please remember that this is basically a voluntary activist-run site. There really isn’t a great ghostly team of party moderators sitting out there watching the forums. We all have lives and jobs that do not allow us to hang around LDV and take care of trolls’ feelings all the time.

Incioentally I have had two comments deleted . Typical and sums it up.