Excellent thread lead Mike and Nojam. The peculiarities of Labour's voting system will be exposed most by a polarising figure such as Corbyn (much more so than the Ed Miliband or Harman elections). Corbyn is likely to win quite comfortably on the 1st voting preference, but unless he exceeds or is as close as exceeding 50% on the first round, he's not going to win.
It is quite simple, Corbyn just isn't going to pick up any second preferences from any of the others.
Now that I have got my head around the voting system- it naturally has checks and balances to stop a decisive figure becoming leader
You have posted a nice hostage to fortune there. Corbyn should never really have been on the ballot - never mind become such a divisive figure. Labour MPs threw the checks and balances out with the bath water. Why should Corbyn voters give anyone their second preferences?
That is going to be a tricky one, if he wins, he almost by definition justifies his place on the ballot. If there are sufficient batshit crazy members and 3-quid members of the Labour Party that they manage to elect Corbyn, clearly he will have been vindicated as an appropriate and representative candidate.
Lots of people seem very confident that Corbyn will be receiving minimal second preference votes. However YouGov's polling showed both Burnham and Cooper supporters were only splitting 2:1 in favour of the other over Corbyn as a second pref.
So, if he gets 45% of 1st pref, I think he's a certainty. I expect 42% would make it about a 50/50 shot.
If Corbyn manages to take a third of the Burnham / Cooper transfers, then he should be pretty much home on 40%, never mind 42% - and that's assuming that 9/10 of the Kendall votes end up with Andy or Yvette and the rest are non-transferable.
.......and a good one. His ordinariness is quite a USP. It would be impossible to cast his family and friends better. Definitely improved my view of him. Perhaps it's time for an 'Ordinary Man' to become a party leader. The 5 minute clip is well worth watching
Lots of people seem very confident that Corbyn will be receiving minimal second preference votes. However YouGov's polling showed both Burnham and Cooper supporters were only splitting 2:1 in favour of the other over Corbyn as a second pref.
So, if he gets 45% of 1st pref, I think he's a certainty. I expect 42% would make it about a 50/50 shot.
If Corbyn manages to take a third of the Burnham / Cooper transfers, then he should be pretty much home on 40%, never mind 42% - and that's assuming that 9/10 of the Kendall votes end up with Andy or Yvette and the rest are non-transferable.
My mistake - I've given Kendall's transfers going via Cooper / Burnham a one-third rating, which they shouldn't have. So yes, I'd agree with your 42% tipping point on the rest of the assumptions.
If it wasn't for Edward Heath we'd have no migrant crisis in Calais, little threat from ISIS, no Rotherham child abuse scandal... And no ukip!
Remind me, which PM signed the Channel Tunnel agreement? Just what are you accusing Heath of over child abuse?
African migrants wouldn't be storming the channel tunnel if we weren't part of the EU
Yes, they would. Unless we clamp down on those who employ them illegally, handing out 5 year sentences to those who give them work.
If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
Programme on bbc Parliament now, 'who won the UK general election and why'
Quite amazing. If the Tory Immigration Minister "conceded that he should have checked his cleaner’s background “more thoroughly”. ", how can they expect ordinary businesses to do so (and they should expect ordinary businesses to do so).
.......and a good one. His ordinariness is quite a USP. It would be impossible to cast his family and friends better. Definitely improved my view of him. Perhaps it's time for an 'Ordinary Man' to become a party leader. The 5 minute clip is well worth watching
If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Bleurgh...
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
Quite amazing. If the Tory Immigration Minister "conceded that he should have checked his cleaner’s background “more thoroughly”. ", how can they expect ordinary businesses to do so (and they should expect ordinary businesses to do so).
One regularly observes that politicians find that rules that they have to comply with can be very onerous. Astonishingly, none of them ever draw the conclusion that perhaps some of the rules need to be simplified or repealed, or even that they should not be added to in a hurry.
likewise I couldn't get into the head of a Tory member- the Tory mind must be full of some rather unpleasant prejudices that fortunately I cannot relate to.
Au contraire, it is a most jolly place, freed as it is from the petty vindictive humourless small-minded prejudiced pre-judged group-think assumptions of Lefties.
Life is one long party if you are a Tory.
Life is one long party political broadcast if you are a Lefty.
"freed as it is from the petty vindictive humourless small-minded prejudiced pre-judged group-think assumptions of Lefties." Irony isn't dead.
A troubled coalition government is followed by a weak majority administration, at the fag-end of a failing hegemonic consensus. A radical, unorthodox leader of the opposition emerges to be ridiculed by the press and establishment. They win the next election and usher in a new consensus that last for decades. Maybe we are going back to the 70s after all?
Quite amazing. If the Tory Immigration Minister "conceded that he should have checked his cleaner’s background “more thoroughly”. ", how can they expect ordinary businesses to do so (and they should expect ordinary businesses to do so).
We can expert Mark Harper to and we can expect businesses to.
The majority of the illegal workforce are concentrated in particular areas, often with distinct middle men. For example, agency cleaning work or crop harvesting.
Lots of people seem very confident that Corbyn will be receiving minimal second preference votes. However YouGov's polling showed both Burnham and Cooper supporters were only splitting 2:1 in favour of the other over Corbyn as a second pref.
So, if he gets 45% of 1st pref, I think he's a certainty. I expect 42% would make it about a 50/50 shot.
If Corbyn manages to take a third of the Burnham / Cooper transfers, then he should be pretty much home on 40%, never mind 42% - and that's assuming that 9/10 of the Kendall votes end up with Andy or Yvette and the rest are non-transferable.
My mistake - I've given Kendall's transfers going via Cooper / Burnham a one-third rating, which they shouldn't have. So yes, I'd agree with your 42% tipping point on the rest of the assumptions.
I added your/shadsy scenario under "Split 2:1" above. Corbyn does win under that.
likewise I couldn't get into the head of a Tory member- the Tory mind must be full of some rather unpleasant prejudices that fortunately I cannot relate to.
Au contraire, it is a most jolly place, freed as it is from the petty vindictive humourless small-minded prejudiced pre-judged group-think assumptions of Lefties.
Life is one long party if you are a Tory.
Life is one long party political broadcast if you are a Lefty.
"freed as it is from the petty vindictive humourless small-minded prejudiced pre-judged group-think assumptions of Lefties." Irony isn't dead.
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Bleurgh...
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
But AV is a silly system, you can end up worse off by voting than staying home, and you can harm a candidate's chances of winning by voting that candidate higher, or help a candidate by voting that candidate lower.
So a taxpayer who pays the marginal 20% rate is already more than a grand a year better off just on the tax allowance increase. The minimum wage has also risen in real terms over the same period. I remain to be convinced that the tax credit changes are any more than the undoing of the unaffordable largesse of Gordon Brown before and during the recession, now that the economy is doing well. The other big change with Universal Credit is the elimination of the 16 hours a week rules which limited working hours for benefits recipients.
Can anyone explain who is significantly worse off, apart from the parents of as yet unborn 3rd children?
Those who are just below that tax threshold, but earning just above the minimum wage or having to work reduced hours, with 2-3 children. That's actually quite a significant constituency and includes some members of my own family. It wasn't a great budget for them.
However, since they hated the tax credit system with a passion having been overpaid (and then received threatening letters) or underpaid (and then having to go through the time-consuming and expensive ritual of appealing) for five consecutive years, I imagine they will somehow live with their loss.
The tax credit system is an absolute joke, or it would be if it were funny. It was by far the worst and most costly mistake Labour ever made, not forgetting the Iraq War - and what was even more bizarre is that they are still very proud of it because they believe that expensively cocking up every year and then being smug about it was in some way helping the poorest!
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Bleurgh...
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
But AV is a silly system, you can end up worse off by voting than staying home, and you can harm a candidate's chances of winning by voting that candidate higher, or help a candidate by voting that candidate lower.
I sort of see your point, but to say "you can end up worse off by voting than staying home" is just errant nonsense.
If I only have one preference and I vote for that then I am effectively casting my vote as FPtP. And I should accept the result, whatever that is.
If I cast two or more preferences, then I must also accept that others who are voting are also casting their votes similarly and the winner will be decided on who has enough over-all support.
All this moaning about not ending up with who you want is just not accepting that you are on the losing side.
If everybody is an honest actor in the vote, then whilst there can be some statistical anomalies, the result should be accepted as the will of the electorate.
AV has problems, as do STV, FPtP and AV^2, but that's not the point of my post.
.......and a good one. His ordinariness is quite a USP. It would be impossible to cast his family and friends better. Definitely improved my view of him. Perhaps it's time for an 'Ordinary Man' to become a party leader. The 5 minute clip is well worth watching
Except his wife says that on the very first day at Uni he told her he wanted to be an MP. Nothing wrong in that in itself, but it does rather undermine his argument a little.
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Bleurgh...
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
There's no contradiction under AV between voting for who you want and listing further preferences for X and Y to stop Z.
But will it really split like that when faced with the reality of the voting slip?
Polls and results do not necessarily have a close correlation.
That's a quite plausible scenario IMO. Interestingly, Corbyn wins with a bit of room to spare on those figures.
Of course we have only very limited information on the intentions of Labour members, and still less on the intentions of the union sign-ups and the £3 brigade. All the same I think Corbyn should be clear favourite.
Quite amazing. If the Tory Immigration Minister "conceded that he should have checked his cleaner’s background “more thoroughly”. ", how can they expect ordinary businesses to do so (and they should expect ordinary businesses to do so).
It depends very much on the situation, and the punishments on offer need to be suitable for both the case of an individual not spotting an error in their cleaner's paperwork and a farmer who pays 20 quid a day each for 50 people to a middleman to harvest the crops, no questions asked.
The former case is like a stoner caught with a spliff and deserves a fine the first time, the latter case is more like two dealers exchanging drugs by the suitcase and they should be looking at the same long stretch of porridge.
I saw Martin Lewis on Sky earlier saying that a new EU directive about mortgage affordability is coming in and lenders here are already complying with it.
It means that if you already have a mortgage and get a cheaper deal - in many cases you CAN'T get it because the new rules bar you. So if you're paying say £750pcm, get a deal for £500pcm - you're ineligible on the revised criteria.
It's a complete nonsense and he's making a big fuss about it - but seriously - who thought this stupid policy up?
Quite amazing. If the Tory Immigration Minister "conceded that he should have checked his cleaner’s background “more thoroughly”. ", how can they expect ordinary businesses to do so (and they should expect ordinary businesses to do so).
One regularly observes that politicians find that rules that they have to comply with can be very onerous. Astonishingly, none of them ever draw the conclusion that perhaps some of the rules need to be simplified or repealed, or even that they should not be added to in a hurry.
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Bleurgh...
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
But AV is a silly system, you can end up worse off by voting than staying home, and you can harm a candidate's chances of winning by voting that candidate higher, or help a candidate by voting that candidate lower.
I sort of see your point, but to say "you can end up worse off by voting than staying home" is just errant nonsense.
9x B>C>A 8x A>B>C 7x C>A>B
In this case A wins after C is eliminated. If 3 of the first group stayed at home C would have won which would have been preferable to them to A winning. (http://rangevoting.org/TBlecture.html#partic)
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Bleurgh...
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
There's no contradiction under AV between voting for who you want and listing further preferences for X and Y to stop Z.
That's not quite what I said.
If you cast your votes trying to game the system and end up with somebody you didn't really want then you shouldn't moan about it. Vote for who you want, then at least if you don't get the result, you can at least recognise that it was not the will of the electorate rather than a mix-up of tactical voting.
Mr. Barber, there was a video before the referendum on AV which explained how getting fewer first preferences votes could actually lead to someone winning when they would've lost if they'd had more (due to the impact on other candidates for the seat).
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Bleurgh...
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
There's no contradiction under AV between voting for who you want and listing further preferences for X and Y to stop Z.
That's not quite what I said.
If you cast your votes trying to game the system and end up with somebody you didn't really want then you shouldn't moan about it. Vote for who you want, then at least if you don't get the result, you can at least recognise that it was not the will of the electorate rather than a mix-up of tactical voting.
Quite. And one wonders why the general public, when offered AV for Parliamentary elections, rejected the idea with a clear majority.
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Bleurgh...
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
But AV is a silly system, you can end up worse off by voting than staying home, and you can harm a candidate's chances of winning by voting that candidate higher, or help a candidate by voting that candidate lower.
I sort of see your point, but to say "you can end up worse off by voting than staying home" is just errant nonsense.
9x B>C>A 8x A>B>C 7x C>A>B
In this case A wins after C is eliminated. If 3 of the first group stayed at home C would have won which would have been preferable to them to A winning. (http://rangevoting.org/TBlecture.html#partic)
they cast a vote for A (yes it was the 3rd pref, but it was still a vote). If they didn't want A at all, they didn't have to cast a vote for them Would the result have been the same if the 3rd prefs for A were not cast?
His ordinariness is quite a USP. ... Perhaps it's time for an 'Ordinary Man' to become a party leader. The 5 minute clip is well worth watching
Roger's unbroken streak continues...
@GuidoFawkes: That career trajectory in full: Wanted to be an MP aged 18 > Researcher > SpAd > MP > Minister > Leadership contender http://t.co/rwUH7LQFnK
I saw Martin Lewis on Sky earlier saying that a new EU directive about mortgage affordability is coming in and lenders here are already complying with it.
It means that if you already have a mortgage and get a cheaper deal - in many cases you CAN'T get it because the new rules bar you. So if you're paying say £750pcm, get a deal for £500pcm - you're ineligible on the revised criteria.
It's a complete nonsense and he's making a big fuss about it - but seriously - who thought this stupid policy up?
One regularly observes that politicians find that rules that they have to comply with can be very onerous. Astonishingly, none of them ever draw the conclusion that perhaps some of the rules need to be simplified or repealed, or even that they should not be added to in a hurry.
I have written to Baroness Altmann, copy to Sajid Javid & Charles Counsell (at the Pensions Regulator), regarding the nonsense of small companies having to set up autoenrolment pension schemes which will never have any members.
We shall see whether the government will really does want to get rid of lunatic red tape, as you couldn't find a better example or one which could be so easily sorted out with zero downside.
Mr. Barber, there was a video before the referendum on AV which explained how getting fewer first preferences votes could actually lead to someone winning when they would've lost if they'd had more (due to the impact on other candidates for the seat).
It's a ridiculous system.
Before we go too far down the rabbit-hole, I'm not an advocate for or defending AV. I just think that whatever the system, you should honestly vote for whom you want to win. AV allows you to express this in preferential order, this is all.
A troubled coalition government is followed by a weak majority administration, at the fag-end of a failing hegemonic consensus. A radical, unorthodox leader of the opposition emerges to be ridiculed by the press and establishment. They win the next election and usher in a new consensus that last for decades. Maybe we are going back to the 70s after all?
and then you woke up from your wet dream.......and realised it was 2020 and the tories had just won a landslide victory
The lunatic left's call to arms? Votes for cash! If the Tories had been using the call, at least the cash would be coming your way. It does however underline the left's grip on economics and its attitude to democracy.
A troubled coalition government is followed by a weak majority administration, at the fag-end of a failing hegemonic consensus. A radical, unorthodox leader of the opposition emerges to be ridiculed by the press and establishment. They win the next election and usher in a new consensus that last for decades. Maybe we are going back to the 70s after all?
and then you woke up from your wet dream.......and realised it was 2020 and the tories had just won a landslide victory
I'm honestly trying to work out which bit is which ...
A troubled coalition government is followed by a weak majority administration, at the fag-end of a failing hegemonic consensus. A radical, unorthodox leader of the opposition emerges to be ridiculed by the press and establishment. They win the next election and usher in a new consensus that last for decades. Maybe we are going back to the 70s after all?
and then you woke up from your wet dream.......and realised it was 2020 and the tories had just won a landslide victory
I'm honestly trying to work out which bit is which ...
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Bleurgh...
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of it
A troubled coalition government is followed by a weak majority administration, at the fag-end of a failing hegemonic consensus. A radical, unorthodox leader of the opposition emerges to be ridiculed by the press and establishment. They win the next election and usher in a new consensus that last for decades. Maybe we are going back to the 70s after all?
About the only bit that can be considered true is: "A radical, unorthodox leader of the opposition emerges to be ridiculed by the press and establishment."
Troubled coalition: No. Whilst it had its faults, it was a stable government that did surprisingly well considering the economic situation (amongst other things)
followed by a weak majority administration: No, this is a majority government. Time will tell if that lasts especially with the EU ref. But Labour's naval gazing is making life easy for the Tories ATM.
at the fag-end of a failing hegemonic consensus: nice turn of phrase, but still nonsense.
Maybe we are going back to the 70s after all?: Only perhaps in fashion. I blame the hipsters.
Speaking of hipsters... Why did the hipster burn his lips?
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Bleurgh...
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
But AV is a silly system, you can end up worse off by voting than staying home, and you can harm a candidate's chances of winning by voting that candidate higher, or help a candidate by voting that candidate lower.
I sort of see your point, but to say "you can end up worse off by voting than staying home" is just errant nonsense.
9x B>C 8x A>B>C 7x C>A>B
In this case A wins after C is eliminated. If 3 of the first group stayed at home C would have won which would have been preferable to them to A winning. (http://rangevoting.org/TBlecture.html#partic)
they cast a vote for A (yes it was the 3rd pref, but it was still a vote). If they didn't want A at all, they didn't have to cast a vote for them Would the result have been the same if the 3rd prefs for A were not cast?
In this case. Yes.
9x B>C 8x A>B>C 7x C>A>B
Is a win for A after C is eliminated in the second round. If 3 B>C stay at home we get
8x A>B>C 7x C>A>B 6x B>C
B is now eliminated leaving C to win with 13 votes to 8
I have a question - will we get to see the second and third preferences of all of the candidates? So if Corbyn were to be beaten in a runoff with Burnham/Cooper, will we get to find out if it would have been beneficial for some of Corbyn's supporters to have backed Burnham or Cooper to get a different opponent in the runoff?
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Bleurgh...
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
But AV is a silly system, you can end up worse off by voting than staying home, and you can harm a candidate's chances of winning by voting that candidate higher, or help a candidate by voting that candidate lower.
I sort of see your point, but to say "you can end up worse off by voting than staying home" is just errant nonsense.
9x B>C>A 8x A>B>C 7x C>A>B
In this case A wins after C is eliminated. If 3 of the first group stayed at home C would have won which would have been preferable to them to A winning. (http://rangevoting.org/TBlecture.html#partic)
they cast a vote for A (yes it was the 3rd pref, but it was still a vote). If they didn't want A at all, they didn't have to cast a vote for them Would the result have been the same if the 3rd prefs for A were not cast?
Yes, of course. There's only three candidates, your third preference never actually gets counted
Which does AV calculations is exquisite detail with a whole range of different voting options and lots of generated output to consider, fun for a few minutes
If it wasn't for Edward Heath we'd have no migrant crisis in Calais, little threat from ISIS, no Rotherham child abuse scandal... And no ukip!
Remind me, which PM signed the Channel Tunnel agreement? Just what are you accusing Heath of over child abuse?
I would imagine he is trying in his own unique way to say we would have control of our own borders. The ability to not admit, and to expel undesirables would certainly have heavily reduced the problems cited above. However the problem isn't so much Heath and the lamentable European Communities Act, as the EHCR and the extraordinarily abused Article 8.
Although a lot of the problems seem to be our fault.
Judicial interpretation of Article 8, which could - if done carefully - be limited by Parliamentary guidance.
This health insurance scam today seems to be (a) the NHS issuing cards too easily and (b) the NHS not checking that foreign claims comply with the requirements (principally emergency).
There is a lot we can do ourselves to fix the problems. It's not just the EU's fault.
.......and a good one. His ordinariness is quite a USP. It would be impossible to cast his family and friends better. Definitely improved my view of him. Perhaps it's time for an 'Ordinary Man' to become a party leader. The 5 minute clip is well worth watching
I don't really think an ordinary person is necessary in any way, I really don't mind if someone is pretty darn odd if they seem effective and competent. That said, it does appear to put people off, and as weak a campaign as I think Burnham has had, he does seem very very ordinary, so he has that at least.
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Bleurgh...
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
But AV is a silly system, you can end up worse off by voting than staying home, and you can harm a candidate's chances of winning by voting that candidate higher, or help a candidate by voting that candidate lower.
I sort of see your point, but to say "you can end up worse off by voting than staying home" is just errant nonsense.
9x B>C 8x A>B>C 7x C>A>B
In this case A wins after C is eliminated. If 3 of the first group stayed at home C would have won which would have been preferable to them to A winning. (http://rangevoting.org/TBlecture.html#partic)
they cast a vote for A (yes it was the 3rd pref, but it was still a vote). If they didn't want A at all, they didn't have to cast a vote for them Would the result have been the same if the 3rd prefs for A were not cast?
In this case. Yes.
9x B>C 8x A>B>C 7x C>A>B
Is a win for A after C is eliminated in the second round. If 3 B>C stay at home we get
8x A>B>C 7x C>A>B 6x B>C
B is now eliminated leaving C to win with 13 votes to 8
OK, I see your point... but as I said back down-thread: there are statistical anomalies. In the most cases these perverse outcomes are just not all that relevant. Besides, I wouldn't choose AV over FPtP let alone STV or AV^2
In relation to Ferguson protests, I notice that the likes of the BBC keep repeating "white police officer shot unarmed black teenager"...rather than criminal was shot after attempting to wrestle gun from police officer and refused arrest.
There have been other incidents where the police have not acted properly, but an investigation of all the evidence found that in this case the officer acted properly.
I think it is very dangerous to keep repeating half the story, as this is how it all kicked off in the first place.
In relation to Ferguson protests, I notice that the likes of the BBC keep repeating "white police officer shot unarmed black teenager"...rather than criminal was shot after attempting to wrestle gun from police officer and refused arrest.
There have been other incidents where the police have not acted properly, but an investigation of all the evidence found that in this case the officer acted properly.
I think it is very dangerous to keep repeating half the story, as this is how it all kicked off in the first place.
I wonder if they'll organise a 'Songs of Praise' from Alabama?
I saw Martin Lewis on Sky earlier saying that a new EU directive about mortgage affordability is coming in and lenders here are already complying with it.
It means that if you already have a mortgage and get a cheaper deal - in many cases you CAN'T get it because the new rules bar you. So if you're paying say £750pcm, get a deal for £500pcm - you're ineligible on the revised criteria.
It's a complete nonsense and he's making a big fuss about it - but seriously - who thought this stupid policy up?
Quite amazing. If the Tory Immigration Minister "conceded that he should have checked his cleaner’s background “more thoroughly”. ", how can they expect ordinary businesses to do so (and they should expect ordinary businesses to do so).
One regularly observes that politicians find that rules that they have to comply with can be very onerous. Astonishingly, none of them ever draw the conclusion that perhaps some of the rules need to be simplified or repealed, or even that they should not be added to in a hurry.
That's already the case with our own mortgage regulations.
Some of the contortions that I've seen people go through are really very amusing.
"Ok, Mr X. your total assets are $3 billion and your annual income is $150 million. You want to borrow $20 million to buy a house in the country. How much do you spend on gas and electricity each month?"
Is a win for A after C is eliminated in the second round. If 3 B>C stay at home we get
8x A>B>C 7x C>A>B 6x B>C
B is now eliminated leaving C to win with 13 votes to 8
OK, I see your point... but as I said back down-thread: there are statistical anomalies. In the most cases these perverse outcomes are just not all that relevant. Besides, I wouldn't choose AV over FPtP let alone STV or AV^2
The Tory system while less democratic at least means that the MPs don't get saddled with a leader they cant work with, a problem Labour is likely to discover shortly.
Regarding the statistical anomalies, the research appears to show (as I mentioned down thread) that if you get a different result from AV than you would have done under FPtP, its 50% likely that some of the voters would have got a preferable result if they had stayed at home.
If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of it
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.
If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of it
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.
... and if they don't behave impeccably so you cant give them citizenship, you have the same problem as now, only they are even more pissed off!
If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of it
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.
So does free movement of labour within the EU but enough people seem to be in favour of it.
Anyway if the deterrent works it won't be a problem
If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of it
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.
... and if they don't behave impeccably so you cant give them citizenship, you have the same problem as now, only they are even more pissed off!
If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of it
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.
... and if they don't behave impeccably so you cant give them citizenship, you have the same problem as now, only they are even more pissed off!
They stay in prison
at 70k or so a year, it would be cheaper to pay them benefits and have done with it!
The answer is proper border security, don't let the wrong people in and you wont have a problem deciding what to do with them, and proper deterrent sentences from people giving these criminals jobs. Personally I would take the Swiss model further and outlaw rough sleeping and at the same time fund sufficient government/charity hostels to house the rough sleeping population.
.......and a good one. His ordinariness is quite a USP. It would be impossible to cast his family and friends better. Definitely improved my view of him. Perhaps it's time for an 'Ordinary Man' to become a party leader. The 5 minute clip is well worth watching
I don't really think an ordinary person is necessary in any way, I really don't mind if someone is pretty darn odd if they seem effective and competent. That said, it does appear to put people off, and as weak a campaign as I think Burnham has had, he does seem very very ordinary, so he has that at least.
If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of it
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.
Random silly idea of the day - allow prisons charge farmers minimum wage for the use of the chain gangs, to earn some money for the Justice department? Or would 'Uman Rights get in the way?
If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of it
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.
... and if they don't behave impeccably so you cant give them citizenship, you have the same problem as now, only they are even more pissed off!
They stay in prison
at 70k or so a year, it would be cheaper to pay them benefits and have done with it!
The answer is proper border security, don't let the wrong people in and you wont have a problem deciding what to do with them, and proper deterrent sentences from people giving these criminals jobs. Personally I would take the Swiss model further and outlaw rough sleeping and at the same time fund sufficient government/charity hostels to house the rough sleeping population.
They'll be working 12 hours a day 7 days a week so that should pay some of the 70k back.
It will be money well spent if it deters the bogus asylum seekers
Yeah being PM who defeated Salmond in a referendum to keep Scotland in the UK, then winning a national election the following year to keep a national Conservative government in power in Scotland. What a dreadful deal for the Scottish Conservatives Cameron has been.
If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of it
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.
... and if they don't behave impeccably so you cant give them citizenship, you have the same problem as now, only they are even more pissed off!
They stay in prison
at 70k or so a year, it would be cheaper to pay them benefits and have done with it!
The answer is proper border security, don't let the wrong people in and you wont have a problem deciding what to do with them, and proper deterrent sentences from people giving these criminals jobs. Personally I would take the Swiss model further and outlaw rough sleeping and at the same time fund sufficient government/charity hostels to house the rough sleeping population.
They'll be working 12 hours a day 7 days a week so that should pay some of the 70k back.
It will be money well spent if it deters the bogus asylum seekers
Almost certain you will violate ECHR Article 4 with that one, its all fun
"For seven out of 10 of all couples claiming WTC, one adult (usually the woman) doesn’t work at all.
And for couples who claim WTC, only two thirds have a main breadwinner who works 35 or more hours a week, with a third of claimant households having no one working full-time at all"
If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of it
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.
... and if they don't behave impeccably so you cant give them citizenship, you have the same problem as now, only they are even more pissed off!
They stay in prison
Maybe its just me but I'd rather use prison spaces to house actual criminals.
If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of it
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.
Random silly idea of the day - allow prisons charge farmers minimum wage for the use of the chain gangs, to earn some money for the Justice department? Or would 'Uman Rights get in the way?
I'd imagine that you would have to pay the workers the minimum wage, although you could make a charge for bed and board, I suppose.
You'd also have to bear in mind the cost of monitoring prisoners in the field to avoid absconding.
Yeah being PM who defeated Salmond in a referendum to keep Scotland in the UK, then winning a national election the following year to keep a national Conservative government in power in Scotland. What a dreadful deal for the Scottish Conservatives Cameron has been.
Yeah being PM who defeated Salmond in a referendum to keep Scotland in the UK, then winning a national election the following year to keep a national Conservative government in power in Scotland. What a dreadful deal for the Scottish Conservatives Cameron has been.
Touched a raw nerve there !!
If you mean you touched a nerve of mine, then no I just found it incredibly bemusing. If you didn't sorry it wasn't clear to me.
I have a question - will we get to see the second and third preferences of all of the candidates? So if Corbyn were to be beaten in a runoff with Burnham/Cooper, will we get to find out if it would have been beneficial for some of Corbyn's supporters to have backed Burnham or Cooper to get a different opponent in the runoff?
Safe to assume Corbyn supporters are likely to vote for Corbyn 1st with no further prefences as the Welfare Bill showed all his 3 opponents are the same.It needs to be remembered each candidate will have a GOTV operation.If Corbyn continues to recruit young people with lots of energy,his is likely to show a distinct benefit.People are genuinely enthused by his campaign but that will need turning into envelopes being delivered to post boxes.Such a campaign could just get him over the edge on a higher than expected 1st prefence vote and Andy Burnham's 2nd preferences.Kendall's vote will bump up Cooper to beat Burnham. First time I have said this and believed it,Jeremy Corbyn is going to win.
If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of it
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.
... and if they don't behave impeccably so you cant give them citizenship, you have the same problem as now, only they are even more pissed off!
They stay in prison
Maybe its just me but I'd rather use prison spaces to house actual criminals.
Maybe it's just me but I'd say the word 'illegal' in 'illegal immigrants' means they are actual criminals
Just seen an interesting piece about Kids Company. The board of trustee's was / are
Yentob (chairman); Richard Handover, chief executive of W H Smith Sunetra Atkinson, ex wife of the entertainer Rowan Atkinson, a former BBC make-up artist Erica Bolton (2005), an arts world PR. Jayne Tyler, a law firm partner who lists herself as an expert in EU law and company acquisitions Francesca Robinson – a recruitment firm principal. Andrew Webster – who has been a Trustee of the Astrozeneca Pension Fund, and worked earlier in his career as a HR manager for an engineering company.
Not a single person with any experience of or qualifications relating to child protection.
The Tory system while less democratic at least means that the MPs don't get saddled with a leader they cant work with, a problem Labour is likely to discover shortly.
TBF the Labour system had a way to prevent that as well, the MPs just had the bright idea of working around it...
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Bleurgh...
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
Quite. It's only 'sophisticated' electorates, such as Labour MPs, who try to game the system that mess things up.
.......and a good one. His ordinariness is quite a USP. It would be impossible to cast his family and friends better. Definitely improved my view of him. Perhaps it's time for an 'Ordinary Man' to become a party leader. The 5 minute clip is well worth watching
I don't really think an ordinary person is necessary in any way, I really don't mind if someone is pretty darn odd if they seem effective and competent. That said, it does appear to put people off, and as weak a campaign as I think Burnham has had, he does seem very very ordinary, so he has that at least.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10626150/Mark-Harper-resigns-after-hiring-illegal-immigrant.html
"Burnham's pitch"
.......and a good one. His ordinariness is quite a USP. It would be impossible to cast his family and friends better. Definitely improved my view of him. Perhaps it's time for an 'Ordinary Man' to become a party leader. The 5 minute clip is well worth watching
'The MP, seen as one of the rising stars of the Conservative Party, conceded that he should have checked his cleaner’s background “more thoroughly”.'
Programme on bbc Parliament now, 'who won the UK general election and why'
(and they should expect ordinary businesses to do so).
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
Irony isn't dead.
The majority of the illegal workforce are concentrated in particular areas, often with distinct middle men. For example, agency cleaning work or crop harvesting.
I added your/shadsy scenario under "Split 2:1" above. Corbyn does win under that.
Direct link: http://show.nojam.com/a2sU/feature1.php?c=0&b=10
But will it really split like that when faced with the reality of the voting slip?
Polls and results do not necessarily have a close correlation.
If I only have one preference and I vote for that then I am effectively casting my vote as FPtP. And I should accept the result, whatever that is.
If I cast two or more preferences, then I must also accept that others who are voting are also casting their votes similarly and the winner will be decided on who has enough over-all support.
All this moaning about not ending up with who you want is just not accepting that you are on the losing side.
If everybody is an honest actor in the vote, then whilst there can be some statistical anomalies, the result should be accepted as the will of the electorate.
AV has problems, as do STV, FPtP and AV^2, but that's not the point of my post.
Of course we have only very limited information on the intentions of Labour members, and still less on the intentions of the union sign-ups and the £3 brigade. All the same I think Corbyn should be clear favourite.
The former case is like a stoner caught with a spliff and deserves a fine the first time, the latter case is more like two dealers exchanging drugs by the suitcase and they should be looking at the same long stretch of porridge.
We need more AV themed threads.
It means that if you already have a mortgage and get a cheaper deal - in many cases you CAN'T get it because the new rules bar you. So if you're paying say £750pcm, get a deal for £500pcm - you're ineligible on the revised criteria.
It's a complete nonsense and he's making a big fuss about it - but seriously - who thought this stupid policy up?
8x A>B>C
7x C>A>B
In this case A wins after C is eliminated. If 3 of the first group stayed at home C would have won which would have been preferable to them to A winning.
(http://rangevoting.org/TBlecture.html#partic)
If you cast your votes trying to game the system and end up with somebody you didn't really want then you shouldn't moan about it. Vote for who you want, then at least if you don't get the result, you can at least recognise that it was not the will of the electorate rather than a mix-up of tactical voting.
It's a ridiculous system.
If they didn't want A at all, they didn't have to cast a vote for them
Would the result have been the same if the 3rd prefs for A were not cast?
I can't access the fantasy football league table this morning.
Can you let me know if I'm above you in the league table.
*Innocent face*
@GuidoFawkes: That career trajectory in full: Wanted to be an MP aged 18 > Researcher > SpAd > MP > Minister > Leadership contender http://t.co/rwUH7LQFnK
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/mortgages/2015/04/mortgages-warning-EU?utm_source=MSE_Newsletter&utm_medium=hiya&utm_term=29-Apr-15-v4&utm_campaign=news&utm_content=5
We shall see whether the government will really does want to get rid of lunatic red tape, as you couldn't find a better example or one which could be so easily sorted out with zero downside.
I'm not holding my breath..
I just think that whatever the system, you should honestly vote for whom you want to win.
AV allows you to express this in preferential order, this is all.
After today, everyone on here will fully understand AV, and there will never be arguments over it again...
What's the problem>
Troubled coalition: No. Whilst it had its faults, it was a stable government that did surprisingly well considering the economic situation (amongst other things)
followed by a weak majority administration: No, this is a majority government. Time will tell if that lasts especially with the EU ref. But Labour's naval gazing is making life easy for the Tories ATM.
at the fag-end of a failing hegemonic consensus: nice turn of phrase, but still nonsense.
Maybe we are going back to the 70s after all?: Only perhaps in fashion. I blame the hipsters.
Speaking of hipsters... Why did the hipster burn his lips?
In China they darent even answer the teachers back
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/630693513324314624
9x B>C
8x A>B>C
7x C>A>B
Is a win for A after C is eliminated in the second round. If 3 B>C stay at home we get
8x A>B>C
7x C>A>B
6x B>C
B is now eliminated leaving C to win with 13 votes to 8
Meaningless flim-flam: 1/10
Substantive reply but no action: 10/1
Actually doing something: 1000/1
http://www.ericgorr.net/condorcet/
Which does AV calculations is exquisite detail with a whole range of different voting options and lots of generated output to consider, fun for a few minutes
Judicial interpretation of Article 8, which could - if done carefully - be limited by Parliamentary guidance.
This health insurance scam today seems to be (a) the NHS issuing cards too easily and (b) the NHS not checking that foreign claims comply with the requirements (principally emergency).
There is a lot we can do ourselves to fix the problems. It's not just the EU's fault.
There have been other incidents where the police have not acted properly, but an investigation of all the evidence found that in this case the officer acted properly.
I think it is very dangerous to keep repeating half the story, as this is how it all kicked off in the first place.
Some of the contortions that I've seen people go through are really very amusing.
"Ok, Mr X. your total assets are $3 billion and your annual income is $150 million. You want to borrow $20 million to buy a house in the country. How much do you spend on gas and electricity each month?"
Regarding the statistical anomalies, the research appears to show (as I mentioned down thread) that if you get a different result from AV than you would have done under FPtP, its 50% likely that some of the voters would have got a preferable result if they had stayed at home.
Anyway if the deterrent works it won't be a problem
The answer is proper border security, don't let the wrong people in and you wont have a problem deciding what to do with them, and proper deterrent sentences from people giving these criminals jobs. Personally I would take the Swiss model further and outlaw rough sleeping and at the same time fund sufficient government/charity hostels to house the rough sleeping population.
http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news/snp-holds-poll-lead-in-spite-of-mixed-views-on-record-in-government
It will be money well spent if it deters the bogus asylum seekers
"97% of those who voted SNP in the general election plan to do so again for Holyrood."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/11794114/Tax-credits-betray-the-hard-working-majority.-Scrapping-them-only-harms-the-workshy.html
"For seven out of 10 of all couples claiming WTC, one adult (usually the woman) doesn’t work at all.
And for couples who claim WTC, only two thirds have a main breadwinner who works 35 or more hours a week, with a third of claimant households having no one working full-time at all"
You'd also have to bear in mind the cost of monitoring prisoners in the field to avoid absconding.
First time I have said this and believed it,Jeremy Corbyn is going to win.
I thought the criticism over swarm was nonsense but I guess I'm taking Hammond's too literally.
My OED says marauders are thieves and attackers of people.
I took it he was lumping all illegal immigrants in the marauder category
SNP - 78 (+9)
Labour - 25 (-12)
Tories - 15 (n/c)
LibDems - 2 (-3)
Greens - 9 (+7)
http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news/snp-holds-poll-lead-in-spite-of-mixed-views-on-record-in-government
Yentob (chairman);
Richard Handover, chief executive of W H Smith
Sunetra Atkinson, ex wife of the entertainer Rowan Atkinson, a former BBC make-up artist
Erica Bolton (2005), an arts world PR.
Jayne Tyler, a law firm partner who lists herself as an expert in EU law and company acquisitions
Francesca Robinson – a recruitment firm principal.
Andrew Webster – who has been a Trustee of the Astrozeneca Pension Fund, and worked earlier in his career as a HR manager for an engineering company.
Not a single person with any experience of or qualifications relating to child protection.
'A senior Labour MP has called for its leadership contest to be "paused" over fears it has been infiltrated by supporters of other parties.'
Diane Abbott say's it 'ridiculous' and suggests he's only complaining because his favoured candidate, Kendall, is losing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33849534
It's only 'sophisticated' electorates, such as Labour MPs, who try to game the system that mess things up.