Don't think this is true: I think the GOP Senator is worried he's gonna lose to a Dem and wants to make voters think a Supreme Court seat is in the running.
If only I had time to read all the links people post
Apols if this has been posted earlier, but Robert Peston is complainig that the Luxemburg has summed up the British Brexit position better than he ever could.
‘They were in with a load of opt-outs. Now they are out and want a load of opt-ins.’;
At the (non-political) discussion group I go to someone commented, to agreement, yesterday that we’re proud to be British but ashamed of our present Government.
We didn't have a 'load' of opt-outs, that was the problem!
The Euro? Personally, when I join a club I observe the rules.
Don't think this is true: I think the GOP Senator is worried he's gonna lose to a Dem and wants to make voters think a Supreme Court seat is in the running.
He's certainly under a lot of pressure in Nevada. About the only sitting Republican to be clearly in that category.
Don't think this is true: I think the GOP Senator is worried he's gonna lose to a Dem and wants to make voters think a Supreme Court seat is in the running.
He's certainly under a lot of pressure in Nevada. About the only sitting Republican to be clearly in that category.
Arizona is another one that might go blue, especially if McCain also retires. The open seat Flake is leaving might get Arpaio as the GOP nominee.
Apols if this has been posted earlier, but Robert Peston is complainig that the Luxemburg has summed up the British Brexit position better than he ever could.
‘They were in with a load of opt-outs. Now they are out and want a load of opt-ins.’;
At the (non-political) discussion group I go to someone commented, to agreement, yesterday that we’re proud to be British but ashamed of our present Government.
We didn't have a 'load' of opt-outs, that was the problem!
The Euro? Personally, when I join a club I observe the rules.
When we joined the club that wasn't a rule
Economic and monetary union was the policy before we joined.
The main decision of the summit conference [in 1972] was that the member States of the Community affirmed their intention to transform the whole complex of their relations into a European Union by the end of the decade. The institutions of the Community are to report on the subject by the end of 1975. The enlarged Community reaffirmed its determination to progress towards economic and monetary union; and it was fully accepted that progress in economic co-operation must move in parallel with progress in monetary co-operation.
The Tory's defy gravity in national polling by keeping leaver and anyone-but-Corbyn voters. Local voters can think differently. Shows that if Labour had a moderate leader, they'd be 10 points ahead, easily.
[there may be some confirmation bias in the above]
Evidence? Recent German, Italian, Dutch and US elections suggest otherwise.
Even in France Macron did not run on the Socialist Party ticket
The 'confirmation bias' was meant to indicate it was an opinion, not a fact.
But I suppose you could view the fact that a Labour Party led by an antisemitic, anti-western trot with links to terrorist organisations and vicious authoritarian regimes, who has threatened the free press and our financial system, who has shown a complete absence of understanding how the economy works, has surrounded himself with proven liars and incompetents, and has directly accused our forces of murdering children in Yemen, is still level pegging in the polls as *evidence*, if you like...
Or you could look at the latest polling today putting Labour on 42%, it's highest rating since 1997 and a total any centre left party in Europe losing votes to anti immigration and anti globalisation parties at present would give their eye teeth for.
Labour's poll share was far higher than 42% through most of the 1997-2001 parliament.
Labour's peak poll result was with Gallup, in November 1997:
Lab 63 Con 23 LD 11.
According to Electoral Calculus, that would have produced 603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives.
Paddy A as LotO. Could have been fun!
How many complaints would the LibDems have made about the unfairness of FPTP?
603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives on Lab 63 Con 23 LD 11 - doesn't look fair.
Don't think this is true: I think the GOP Senator is worried he's gonna lose to a Dem and wants to make voters think a Supreme Court seat is in the running.
He's certainly under a lot of pressure in Nevada. About the only sitting Republican to be clearly in that category.
Arizona is another one that might go blue, especially if McCain also retires. The open seat Flake is leaving might get Arpaio as the GOP nominee.
I think you mean "Sheriff Joe"!!
But yes. Flake's seat is the reason I said "sitting Republican" - there are very few easily winnable seats.
We had some useful, if flawed, polling on potential Dem->Rep seats. Were any Rep->Dem seats polled?
The Tory's defy gravity in national polling by keeping leaver and anyone-but-Corbyn voters. Local voters can think differently. Shows that if Labour had a moderate leader, they'd be 10 points ahead, easily.
[there may be some confirmation bias in the above]
Evidence? Recent German, Italian, Dutch and US elections suggest otherwise.
Even in France Macron did not run on the Socialist Party ticket
The 'confirmation bias' was meant to indicate it was an opinion, not a fact.
But I suppose you could view the fact that a Labour Party led by an antisemitic, anti-western trot with links to terrorist organisations and vicious authoritarian regimes, who has threatened the free press and our financial system, who has shown a complete absence of understanding how the economy works, has surrounded himself with proven liars and incompetents, and has directly accused our forces of murdering children in Yemen, is still level pegging in the polls as *evidence*, if you like...
Or you could look at the latest polling today putting Labour on 42%, it's highest rating since 1997 and a total any centre left party in Europe losing votes to anti immigration and anti globalisation parties at present would give their eye teeth for.
Labour's poll share was far higher than 42% through most of the 1997-2001 parliament.
Labour's peak poll result was with Gallup, in November 1997:
Lab 63 Con 23 LD 11.
According to Electoral Calculus, that would have produced 603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives.
Paddy A as LotO. Could have been fun!
How many complaints would the LibDems have made about the unfairness of FPTP?
603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives on Lab 63 Con 23 LD 11 - doesn't look fair.
We’ll never know, sadly. But you’re right; it wouldn’t have been fair.
Don't think this is true: I think the GOP Senator is worried he's gonna lose to a Dem and wants to make voters think a Supreme Court seat is in the running.
He's certainly under a lot of pressure in Nevada. About the only sitting Republican to be clearly in that category.
Arizona is another one that might go blue, especially if McCain also retires. The open seat Flake is leaving might get Arpaio as the GOP nominee.
I think you mean "Sheriff Joe"!!
But yes. Flake's seat is the reason I said "sitting Republican" - there are very few easily winnable seats.
We had some useful, if flawed, polling on potential Dem->Rep seats. Were any Rep->Dem seats polled?
Labour routinely polled in the mid-40s under Miliband after the Omnishambles budget, and was up there under Corbyn after the 2017 election, including a 44% with Mori last September. They also peaked at two polls with 44% just before Brown didn't call the election in 2007.
Yes I forgot that short lived Brown bounce.
Did anyone see QT last night? I imagine that mouthy idiot Pidcock did wonders for the Tory poll share. It's no mean feat for a panellist to be so bad as to make me warm to Liam Fox. The explanation for the Tories being at 40%+ in the polls in a nutshell.
Shocking wasn't she. Huffing and puffing all over the place.
I mentioned it during the programme last night - if she is the best hope for the next generation of Corbynites, we're not going to have Corbynite dominance of the Labour party for much longer....
All of the young Corbynite MPs are really dreadful. The more they're on telly, mouths hanging agape between sentences, the better.
The Tory's defy gravity in national polling by keeping leaver and anyone-but-Corbyn voters. Local voters can think differently. Shows that if Labour had a moderate leader, they'd be 10 points ahead, easily.
[there may be some confirmation bias in the above]
Evidence? Recent German, Italian, Dutch and US elections suggest otherwise.
Even in France Macron did not run on the Socialist Party ticket
The 'confirmation bias' was meant to indicate it was an opinion, not a fact.
But I suppose you could view the fact that a Labour Party led by an antisemitic, anti-western trot with links to terrorist organisations and vicious authoritarian regimes, who has threatened the free press and our financial system, who has shown a complete absence of understanding how the economy works, has surrounded himself with proven liars and incompetents, and has directly accused our forces of murdering children in Yemen, is still level pegging in the polls as *evidence*, if you like...
Or you could look at the latest polling today putting Labour on 42%, it's highest rating since 1997 and a total any centre left party in Europe losing votes to anti immigration and anti globalisation parties at present would give their eye teeth for.
Labour's poll share was far higher than 42% through most of the 1997-2001 parliament.
Labour's peak poll result was with Gallup, in November 1997:
Lab 63 Con 23 LD 11.
According to Electoral Calculus, that would have produced 603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives.
Paddy A as LotO. Could have been fun!
As it's Friday afternoon, I wonder which 12 Tories. Who would the Tory leader have been?
Mr. Paris, that's very unfair. Some of the older MPs are dreadful too (Abbott springs to mind).
At least the older ones have normal sounding voices. Nothing wrong with a proper Geordie accent but Pidcock monsters it so much it sounds put on. When Richard Burgon speaks I close my eyes and it sounds like the late great Dustin Gee doing his famous impression of Vera Duckworth. Makes you shudder that these people may well be ministers in a year or two.
Apols if this has been posted earlier, but Robert Peston is complainig that the Luxemburg has summed up the British Brexit position better than he ever could.
‘They were in with a load of opt-outs. Now they are out and want a load of opt-ins.’;
At the (non-political) discussion group I go to someone commented, to agreement, yesterday that we’re proud to be British but ashamed of our present Government.
We didn't have a 'load' of opt-outs, that was the problem!
The Euro? Personally, when I join a club I observe the rules.
When we joined the club that wasn't a rule
Economic and monetary union was the policy before we joined.
The main decision of the summit conference [in 1972] was that the member States of the Community affirmed their intention to transform the whole complex of their relations into a European Union by the end of the decade. The institutions of the Community are to report on the subject by the end of 1975. The enlarged Community reaffirmed its determination to progress towards economic and monetary union; and it was fully accepted that progress in economic co-operation must move in parallel with progress in monetary co-operation.
Yes, that goes back to the Werner Report, adopted by the EEC in 1969, I think?
I did not see any free seats on that train.....I did not know that man was a spy...
Nothing will perturb the faithful who value his integrity.
As noel Gallagher said at the height of oasis fame that he could have recorded an album of him farting and the faithful would still have bought a million copies...personally by the third album I think he was testing that theory out!
The cynic in me assumes the world will crash when the US overheats, and that day may be drawing closer...
After a pretty uninspired decade after the financial crash the US has the capacity to grow for a very considerable time yet, especially with a President who may be a Republican but doesn't give a monkey's about the deficit. I think they will grow strongly until the second half of his second term when things will probably have gone less than optimally in so many other ways.
The Tory's defy gravity in national polling by keeping leaver and anyone-but-Corbyn voters. Local voters can think differently. Shows that if Labour had a moderate leader, they'd be 10 points ahead, easily.
[there may be some confirmation bias in the above]
Evidence? Recent German, Italian, Dutch and US elections suggest otherwise.
Even in France Macron did not run on the Socialist Party ticket
The 'confirmation bias' was meant to indicate it was an opinion, not a fact.
But I suppose you could view the fact that a Labour Party led by an antisemitic, anti-western trot with links to terrorist organisations and vicious authoritarian regimes, who has threatened the free press and our financial system, who has shown a complete absence of understanding how the economy works, has surrounded himself with proven liars and incompetents, and has directly accused our forces of murdering children in Yemen, is still level pegging in the polls as *evidence*, if you like...
Or you could look at the latest polling today putting Labour on 42%, it's highest rating since 1997 and a total any centre left party in Europe losing votes to anti immigration and anti globalisation parties at present would give their eye teeth for.
Labour's poll share was far higher than 42% through most of the 1997-2001 parliament.
Labour's peak poll result was with Gallup, in November 1997:
Lab 63 Con 23 LD 11.
According to Electoral Calculus, that would have produced 603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives.
Paddy A as LotO. Could have been fun!
As it's Friday afternoon, I wonder which 12 Tories. Who would the Tory leader have been?
The cynic in me assumes the world will crash when the US overheats, and that day may be drawing closer...
After a pretty uninspired decade after the financial crash the US has the capacity to grow for a very considerable time yet, especially with a President who may be a Republican but doesn't give a monkey's about the deficit. I think they will grow strongly until the second half of his second term when things will probably have gone less than optimally in so many other ways.
The Tory's defy gravity in national polling by keeping leaver and anyone-but-Corbyn voters. Local voters can think differently. Shows that if Labour had a moderate leader, they'd be 10 points ahead, easily.
[there may be some confirmation bias in the above]
Evidence? Recent German, Italian, Dutch and US elections suggest otherwise.
Even in France Macron did not run on the Socialist Party ticket
The 'confirmation bias' was meant to indicate it was an opinion, not a fact.
But I suppose you could view the fact that a Labour Party led by an antisemitic, anti-western trot with links to terrorist organisations and vicious authoritarian regimes, who has threatened the free press and our financial system, who has shown a complete absence of understanding how the economy works, has surrounded himself with proven liars and incompetents, and has directly accused our forces of murdering children in Yemen, is still level pegging in the polls as *evidence*, if you like...
Or you could look at the latest polling today putting Labour on 42%, it's highest rating since 1997 and a total any centre left party in Europe losing votes to anti immigration and anti globalisation parties at present would give their eye teeth for.
Labour's poll share was far higher than 42% through most of the 1997-2001 parliament.
Labour's peak poll result was with Gallup, in November 1997:
Lab 63 Con 23 LD 11.
According to Electoral Calculus, that would have produced 603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives.
Paddy A as LotO. Could have been fun!
As it's Friday afternoon, I wonder which 12 Tories. Who would the Tory leader have been?
Hague, probably.
When I did the Calculus with this polling, Hague loses his N York seat.
The cynic in me assumes the world will crash when the US overheats, and that day may be drawing closer...
After a pretty uninspired decade after the financial crash the US has the capacity to grow for a very considerable time yet, especially with a President who may be a Republican but doesn't give a monkey's about the deficit. I think they will grow strongly until the second half of his second term when things will probably have gone less than optimally in so many other ways.
Do you think (want?) Trump to win a second term?
Think yes (even got a modest wager on it). Want? No. Way too unpredictable to have that much power and morally pretty repulsive.
The Tory's defy gravity in national polling by keeping leaver and anyone-but-Corbyn voters. Local voters can think differently. Shows that if Labour had a moderate leader, they'd be 10 points ahead, easily.
[there may be some confirmation bias in the above]
Evidence? Recent German, Italian, Dutch and US elections suggest otherwise.
Even in France Macron did not run on the Socialist Party ticket
The 'confirmation bias' was meant to indicate it was an opinion, not a fact.
But I suppose you could view the fact that a Labour Party led by an antisemitic, anti-western trot with links to terrorist organisations and vicious authoritarian regimes, who has threatened the free press and our financial system, who has shown a complete absence of understanding how the economy works, has surrounded himself with proven liars and incompetents, and has directly accused our forces of murdering children in Yemen, is still level pegging in the polls as *evidence*, if you like...
Or you could look at the latest polling today putting Labour on 42%, it's highest rating since 1997 and a total any centre left party in Europe losing votes to anti immigration and anti globalisation parties at present would give their eye teeth for.
Labour's poll share was far higher than 42% through most of the 1997-2001 parliament.
Labour's peak poll result was with Gallup, in November 1997:
Lab 63 Con 23 LD 11.
According to Electoral Calculus, that would have produced 603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives.
Paddy A as LotO. Could have been fun!
As it's Friday afternoon, I wonder which 12 Tories. Who would the Tory leader have been?
The Tory's defy gravity in national polling by keeping leaver and anyone-but-Corbyn voters. Local voters can think differently. Shows that if Labour had a moderate leader, they'd be 10 points ahead, easily.
[there may be some confirmation bias in the above]
Evidence? Recent German, Italian, Dutch and US elections suggest otherwise.
Even in France Macron did not run on the Socialist Party ticket
The 'confirmation bias' was meant to indicate it was an opinion, not a fact.
But I suppose you could view the fact that a Labour Party led by an antisemitic, anti-western trot with links to terrorist organisations and vicious authoritarian regimes, who has threatened the free press and our financial system, who has shown a complete absence of understanding how the economy works, has surrounded himself with proven liars and incompetents, and has directly accused our forces of murdering children in Yemen, is still level pegging in the polls as *evidence*, if you like...
Or you could look at the latest polling today putting Labour on 42%, it's highest rating since 1997 and a total any centre left party in Europe losing votes to anti immigration and anti globalisation parties at present would give their eye teeth for.
Labour's poll share was far higher than 42% through most of the 1997-2001 parliament.
Labour's peak poll result was with Gallup, in November 1997:
Lab 63 Con 23 LD 11.
According to Electoral Calculus, that would have produced 603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives.
Paddy A as LotO. Could have been fun!
How many complaints would the LibDems have made about the unfairness of FPTP?
603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives on Lab 63 Con 23 LD 11 - doesn't look fair.
When has "fairness" ever been a key element of FPTP?
The Tory's defy gravity in national polling by keeping leaver and anyone-but-Corbyn voters. Local voters can think differently. Shows that if Labour had a moderate leader, they'd be 10 points ahead, easily.
[there may be some confirmation bias in the above]
Evidence? Recent German, Italian, Dutch and US elections suggest otherwise.
Even in France Macron did not run on the Socialist Party ticket
The 'confirmation bias' was meant to indicate it was an opinion, not a fact.
But I suppose you could view the fact that a Labour Party led by an antisemitic, anti-western trot with links to terrorist organisations and vicious authoritarian regimes, who has threatened the free press and our financial system, who has shown a complete absence of understanding how the economy works, has surrounded himself with proven liars and incompetents, and has directly accused our forces of murdering children in Yemen, is still level pegging in the polls as *evidence*, if you like...
Or you could look at the latest polling today putting Labour on 42%, it's highest rating since 1997 and a total any centre left party in Europe losing votes to anti immigration and anti globalisation parties at present would give their eye teeth for.
Labour's poll share was far higher than 42% through most of the 1997-2001 parliament.
Labour's peak poll result was with Gallup, in November 1997:
Lab 63 Con 23 LD 11.
According to Electoral Calculus, that would have produced 603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives.
Paddy A as LotO. Could have been fun!
As it's Friday afternoon, I wonder which 12 Tories. Who would the Tory leader have been?
Hague, probably.
When I did the Calculus with this polling, Hague loses his N York seat.
In practice, I expect the Conservatives would have retained 30-40 seats on those numbers.
The Tory's defy gravity in national polling by keeping leaver and anyone-but-Corbyn voters. Local voters can think differently. Shows that if Labour had a moderate leader, they'd be 10 points ahead, easily.
[there may be some confirmation bias in the above]
Evidence? Recent German, Italian, Dutch and US elections suggest otherwise.
Even in France Macron did not run on the Socialist Party ticket
The 'confirmation bias' was meant to indicate it was an opinion, not a fact.
But I suppose you could view the fact that a Labour Party led by an antisemitic, anti-western trot with links to terrorist organisations and vicious authoritarian regimes, who has threatened the free press and our financial system, who has shown a complete absence of understanding how the economy works, has surrounded himself with proven liars and incompetents, and has directly accused our forces of murdering children in Yemen, is still level pegging in the polls as *evidence*, if you like...
Or you could look at the latest polling today putting Labour on 42%, it's highest rating since 1997 and a total any centre left party in Europe losing votes to anti immigration and anti globalisation parties at present would give their eye teeth for.
Labour's poll share was far higher than 42% through most of the 1997-2001 parliament.
Labour's peak poll result was with Gallup, in November 1997:
Lab 63 Con 23 LD 11.
According to Electoral Calculus, that would have produced 603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives.
Paddy A as LotO. Could have been fun!
How many complaints would the LibDems have made about the unfairness of FPTP?
603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives on Lab 63 Con 23 LD 11 - doesn't look fair.
When has "fairness" ever been a key element of FPTP?
Since every constituency followed the same rules, and the constituencies were defined by an independent apolitical body?
O/T given Jacob Rees Mogg's praise for Damian Hinds in this Politico interview with him talking up the Education Secretary's leadership qualities, the 66/1 with Ladbrokes and Corals for Hinds now looks very big. https://www.politico.eu/article/jacob-rees-mogg-maoist/
All discussion on polling scores for the Big Two at “meaning” popularity or unpopularity or it’s-only-anti-Labour/Conservative or only-because-everyone-else-is-low or whatever are just opinions to keep up morale/worry yourselves.
We don’t know how deep or broad anyone’s polling score actually is. It could be based on fear of the other – which could evaporate when something we didn’t consider gets closed down (ie McDonnell pledges not to do something or other, or May pledges to do something else), or whatever. It could evaporate with a change of leader, or a change of some deep-seated belief in one or other leader.
We have an adversarial democracy (as opposed to the alternative of consensual democracy) and the alienation of the public from the political system, the name-calling, virtue-signalling-to-own-side-while-insulting-the-other-one and intense tribalism (to be fair, there’s always some level of tribalism in any political system), and inability to judge actual popularity rather than “shit, but they’re not the other fuckers at least” is inherent. It does make it harder to judge feedback from the public, but that’s the price we pay for it. It can get worse – we just have to look over the Pond to see how much worse.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/972142274615365634 Pop on over to Britain Elects and compare the responses to the last two polls. Pretty bloody funny. One is "polls are fake" the other is "Jeremy for PM, the Tories are finished". Often by the same people morons.
The Tory's defy gravity in national polling by keeping leaver and anyone-but-Corbyn voters. Local voters can think differently. Shows that if Labour had a moderate leader, they'd be 10 points ahead, easily.
[there may be some confirmation bias in the above]
Evidence? Recent German, Italian, Dutch and US elections suggest otherwise.
Even in France Macron did not run on the Socialist Party ticket
The 'confirmation bias' was meant to indicate it was an opinion, not a fact.
But I suppose you could view the fact that a Labour Party led by an antisemitic, anti-western trot with links to terrorist organisations and vicious authoritarian regimes, who has threatened the free press and our financial system, who has shown a complete absence of understanding how the economy works, has surrounded himself with proven liars and incompetents, and has directly accused our forces of murdering children in Yemen, is still level pegging in the polls as *evidence*, if you like...
Or you could look at the latest polling today putting Labour on 42%, it's highest rating since 1997 and a total any centre left party in Europe losing votes to anti immigration and anti globalisation parties at present would give their eye teeth for.
Labour's poll share was far higher than 42% through most of the 1997-2001 parliament.
Labour's peak poll result was with Gallup, in November 1997:
Lab 63 Con 23 LD 11.
According to Electoral Calculus, that would have produced 603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives.
Paddy A as LotO. Could have been fun!
How many complaints would the LibDems have made about the unfairness of FPTP?
603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives on Lab 63 Con 23 LD 11 - doesn't look fair.
When has "fairness" ever been a key element of FPTP?
Since every constituency followed the same rules, and the constituencies were defined by an independent apolitical body?
Define "fair", then. You can quite easily have the same polling scores for the Big Two resulting in anything from a majority for one to a majority for the other with every form of hung Parliament in between. The disproportionate and inconsistent effects are a lot less to do with constituency size these days and more to do with other factors.
Brillant. Not even a smidgen of a suspicion that there might be a reason for that in the relative quality of the two offerings.
The only really interesting bit of that vice news special was how in team twats version of reality every media outlet was biased against them, including the guardian, and by the end even the corbnyista supporting vice journalist had become part of the shit list for daring to ask one or two tough questions.
The 'confirmation bias' was meant to indicate it was an opinion, not a fact.
But I suppose you could view the fact that a Labour Party led by an antisemitic, anti-western trot with links to terrorist organisations and vicious authoritarian regimes, who has threatened the free press and our financial system, who has shown a complete absence of understanding how the economy works, has surrounded himself with proven liars and incompetents, and has directly accused our forces of murdering children in Yemen, is still level pegging in the polls as *evidence*, if you like...
Or you could look at the latest polling today putting Labour on 42%, it's highest rating since 1997 and a total any centre left party in Europe losing votes to anti immigration and anti globalisation parties at present would give their eye teeth for.
Labour's poll share was far higher than 42% through most of the 1997-2001 parliament.
Labour's peak poll result was with Gallup, in November 1997:
Lab 63 Con 23 LD 11.
According to Electoral Calculus, that would have produced 603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives.
Paddy A as LotO. Could have been fun!
How many complaints would the LibDems have made about the unfairness of FPTP?
603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives on Lab 63 Con 23 LD 11 - doesn't look fair.
When has "fairness" ever been a key element of FPTP?
Since every constituency followed the same rules, and the constituencies were defined by an independent apolitical body?
Define "fair", then. You can quite easily have the same polling scores for the Big Two resulting in anything from a majority for one to a majority for the other with every form of hung Parliament in between. The disproportionate and inconsistent effects are a lot less to do with constituency size these days and more to do with other factors.
I'd define fair as everyone playing by the same rules, and those rules being transparent and straightforward to understand.
Plenty of other systems give what some would define as unfair outcomes - usually the losers, funnily enough. There's a good reason why PR is not used worldwide, and it's not because 'the elite' are opposed to it.
Brillant. Not even a smidgen of a suspicion that there might be a reason for that in the relative quality of the two offerings.
The only really interesting bit of that vice news special was how in team twats version of reality every media outlet was biased against them, including the guardian, and by the end even the corbnyista supporting vice journalist had become part of the shit list for daring to ask one or two tough questions.
I know Corbynistas who are adamant the DUP are effectively terrorists. When I asked for evidence, they pointed to Arlene Foster meeting with and sharing platforms with paramilitary leaders. I pointed out Corbyn met with the IRA's leaders and shared platforms with Jihadis. They said I was repeating Tory smears that had been debunked. There is no reasoning with these people.
How I long for a centre left party that supports democracy and human rights consistently.
The parties continue to be evenly matched. The next election is wide open.
Maybe we won’t go full Venezuela.
Grand coalition PM: Corbyn, DPM: Rees-Mogg, Chancellor: Arlene Foster, Home Sec: Salmond (after his triumphant return), Minister for the Confused: Vince
Labour's poll share was far higher than 42% through most of the 1997-2001 parliament.
Labour's peak poll result was with Gallup, in November 1997:
Lab 63 Con 23 LD 11.
According to Electoral Calculus, that would have produced 603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives.
Paddy A as LotO. Could have been fun!
How many complaints would the LibDems have made about the unfairness of FPTP?
603 Labour MPs, 18 Lib Dems, 12 Conservatives on Lab 63 Con 23 LD 11 - doesn't look fair.
When has "fairness" ever been a key element of FPTP?
Since every constituency followed the same rules, and the constituencies were defined by an independent apolitical body?
Define "fair", then. You can quite easily have the same polling scores for the Big Two resulting in anything from a majority for one to a majority for the other with every form of hung Parliament in between. The disproportionate and inconsistent effects are a lot less to do with constituency size these days and more to do with other factors.
I'd define fair as everyone playing by the same rules, and those rules being transparent and straightforward to understand.
Plenty of other systems give what some would define as unfair outcomes - usually the losers, funnily enough. There's a good reason why PR is not used worldwide, and it's not because 'the elite' are opposed to it.
So what would be "unfair" over any of the results we've seen or ever projected. If everyone's playing by the same rules under the same Electoral Commission? Albeit we do see that the rules are not necessarily straightforward to understand - which is why we get people complaining about one side getting majorities on less of the vote than the other, or similar vote shares giving widely dissimilar outputs. After all, 63% for a leading party, on exactly the same vote share, can be (depending on geographical distribution of the vote) anything from just slipping under a majority to winning each and every seat available, can't it? What would be "unfair" about any result between these?
On losers calling things unfair - yeah, anyone can rationalise anything. Including those who win under existing systems - it's startling how often those who win under certain rules can rationalise those rules as being the only right way things can ever be.
Plenty of other systems give what some would define as unfair outcomes - usually the losers, funnily enough. There's a good reason why PR is not used worldwide, and it's not because 'the elite' are opposed to it.
So what would be "unfair" over any of the results we've seen or ever projected. If everyone's playing by the same rules under the same Electoral Commission? Albeit we do see that the rules are not necessarily straightforward to understand - which is why we get people complaining about one side getting majorities on less of the vote than the other, or similar vote shares giving widely dissimilar outputs. After all, 63% for a leading party, on exactly the same vote share, can be (depending on geographical distribution of the vote) anything from just slipping under a majority to winning each and every seat available, can't it? What would be "unfair" about any result between these?
On losers calling things unfair - yeah, anyone can rationalise anything. Including those who win under existing systems - it's startling how often those who win under certain rules can rationalise those rules as being the only right way things can ever be.
Nothing would be unfair (I'm not arguing that they would be - I thought you were!).
O/T given Jacob Rees Mogg's praise for Damian Hinds in this Politico interview with him talking up the Education Secretary's leadership qualities, the 66/1 with Ladbrokes and Corals for Hinds now looks very big. https://www.politico.eu/article/jacob-rees-mogg-maoist/
I read that as "Jacob Rees Mogg Moist". Thought that he must be a big fan of Hinds!
For all the talk of improved balance of trade, these are the latest current account numbers direct from the ONS and including revisions (but not yet including the poor numbers from the start of the year):
Patting ourselves on the back and congratulating ourselves for improving our current account deficit from the worst in post WW2 history in 2016, to the third worst in 2017 seems premature.
Brillant. Not even a smidgen of a suspicion that there might be a reason for that in the relative quality of the two offerings.
The only really interesting bit of that vice news special was how in team twats version of reality every media outlet was biased against them, including the guardian, and by the end even the corbnyista supporting vice journalist had become part of the shit list for daring to ask one or two tough questions.
I know Corbynistas who are adamant the DUP are effectively terrorists. When I asked for evidence, they pointed to Arlene Foster meeting with and sharing platforms with paramilitary leaders. I pointed out Corbyn met with the IRA's leaders and shared platforms with Jihadis. They said I was repeating Tory smears that had been debunked. There is no reasoning with these people.
How I long for a centre left party that supports democracy and human rights consistently.
There is no point trying to reason with the cultists. They are lost to reason.
Plenty of other systems give what some would define as unfair outcomes - usually the losers, funnily enough. There's a good reason why PR is not used worldwide, and it's not because 'the elite' are opposed to it.
So what would be "unfair" over any of the results we've seen or ever projected. If everyone's playing by the same rules under the same Electoral Commission? Albeit we do see that the rules are not necessarily straightforward to understand - which is why we get people complaining about one side getting majorities on less of the vote than the other, or similar vote shares giving widely dissimilar outputs. After all, 63% for a leading party, on exactly the same vote share, can be (depending on geographical distribution of the vote) anything from just slipping under a majority to winning each and every seat available, can't it? What would be "unfair" about any result between these?
On losers calling things unfair - yeah, anyone can rationalise anything. Including those who win under existing systems - it's startling how often those who win under certain rules can rationalise those rules as being the only right way things can ever be.
Nothing would be unfair (I'm not arguing that they would be - I thought you were!).
*confused*
I wouldn't describe it as "fair" or "unfair" - it's orthogonal to fairness. Fairness is irrelevant to the system. The tiny number of Opposition seats under those vote shares, and the fact that those who got the second-most vote share would finish behind those who got the third-most vote share are what people are calling unfair.
They have a point, but given the arguments over "fairness" and what it means, it is better to call it "unrepresentative". The Parliament (and especially the Government) would not reflect the preferences of the electorate in anything other than the most gross level (Labour got more votes than the other parties; they get the overwhelming representation in Parliament and exclusively in Government).
That's something that could be debated - but given how unavoidably biased everyone is towards their own outlook, "fair" is something that can't ever be mutually agreed on.
Brillant. Not even a smidgen of a suspicion that there might be a reason for that in the relative quality of the two offerings.
The only really interesting bit of that vice news special was how in team twats version of reality every media outlet was biased against them, including the guardian, and by the end even the corbnyista supporting vice journalist had become part of the shit list for daring to ask one or two tough questions.
I know Corbynistas who are adamant the DUP are effectively terrorists. When I asked for evidence, they pointed to Arlene Foster meeting with and sharing platforms with paramilitary leaders. I pointed out Corbyn met with the IRA's leaders and shared platforms with Jihadis. They said I was repeating Tory smears that had been debunked. There is no reasoning with these people.
How I long for a centre left party that supports democracy and human rights consistently.
There is no point trying to reason with the cultists. They are lost to reason.
Corybn is Trump, Momentum are the Red Hats. I don't know that the Corbynista /r/The_Donald is but I'm sure there is one.
Flippy the burger-flipping robot that started work this week in a California restaurant has been forced to take a break because it was too slow.
Big Blue lost in the first few iterations too. And John Henry beat early versions of the steam drill in driving spikes for the railroad, or at least so has legend.
Brillant. Not even a smidgen of a suspicion that there might be a reason for that in the relative quality of the two offerings.
The only really interesting bit of that vice news special was how in team twats version of reality every media outlet was biased against them, including the guardian, and by the end even the corbnyista supporting vice journalist had become part of the shit list for daring to ask one or two tough questions.
I know Corbynistas who are adamant the DUP are effectively terrorists. When I asked for evidence, they pointed to Arlene Foster meeting with and sharing platforms with paramilitary leaders. I pointed out Corbyn met with the IRA's leaders and shared platforms with Jihadis. They said I was repeating Tory smears that had been debunked. There is no reasoning with these people.
How I long for a centre left party that supports democracy and human rights consistently.
There is no point trying to reason with the cultists. They are lost to reason.
Corybn is Trump, Momentum are the Red Hats. I don't know that the Corbynista /r/The_Donald is but I'm sure there is one.
Brillant. Not even a smidgen of a suspicion that there might be a reason for that in the relative quality of the two offerings.
The only really interesting bit of that vice news special was how in team twats version of reality every media outlet was biased against them, including the guardian, and by the end even the corbnyista supporting vice journalist had become part of the shit list for daring to ask one or two tough questions.
I know Corbynistas who are adamant the DUP are effectively terrorists. When I asked for evidence, they pointed to Arlene Foster meeting with and sharing platforms with paramilitary leaders. I pointed out Corbyn met with the IRA's leaders and shared platforms with Jihadis. They said I was repeating Tory smears that had been debunked. There is no reasoning with these people.
How I long for a centre left party that supports democracy and human rights consistently.
There is no point trying to reason with the cultists. They are lost to reason.
Corybn is Trump, Momentum are the Red Hats. I don't know that the Corbynista /r/The_Donald is but I'm sure there is one.
Corbyn is not in Trump's league - he's more like an anti-Semitic Bernie Saunders.
The significant thing in this week's YouGov Brexit figures is that more people think the government is doing an ok job of negotiations at the same time as more people think Brexit should be softened or abandoned. Realism is slowly setting in.
The significant thing in this week's YouGov Brexit figures is that more people think the government is doing an ok job of negotiations at the same time as more people think Brexit should be softened or abandoned. Realism is slowly setting in.
Softening Brexit still 30 points behind status quo.
"The £7.6 trillion includes £5.3 trillion of pension entitlements that were the responsibility of central and local government, the largest element of which came from State Pension entitlements (£4 trillion), with the rest (£1.3 trillion) coming from public sector employee pensions."
Most state pension laibilities are of course unfunded in that there is no ringfenced government pot of money set aside for the laibilities. Unfunded pensions have to be paid as they arise out of future taxation.
"The remaining £2.3 trillion were private sector employee pension entitlements, with the majority (£2 trillion) due to defined benefit pensions.
There was also £450 billion in individual personal pensions in 2015, making a total of £8 trillion – around four times GDP."
UNFUNDED GOV'T PENSION LIABILITIES REPRESENT NEARLY 50% OF GDP.
The significant thing in this week's YouGov Brexit figures is that more people think the government is doing an ok job of negotiations at the same time as more people think Brexit should be softened or abandoned. Realism is slowly setting in.
Softening Brexit still 30 points behind status quo.
Soften Brexit + Stop Brexit + Second referendum = 44% Carry on = 41%
"The £7.6 trillion includes £5.3 trillion of pension entitlements that were the responsibility of central and local government, the largest element of which came from State Pension entitlements (£4 trillion), with the rest (£1.3 trillion) coming from public sector employee pensions."
Most state pension laibilities are of course unfunded in that there is no ringfenced government pot of money set aside for the laibilities. Unfunded pensions have to be paid as they arise out of future taxation.
"The remaining £2.3 trillion were private sector employee pension entitlements, with the majority (£2 trillion) due to defined benefit pensions.
There was also £450 billion in individual personal pensions in 2015, making a total of £8 trillion – around four times GDP."
UNFUNDED GOV'T PENSION LIABILITIES REPRESENT NEARLY 50% OF GDP.
The significant thing in this week's YouGov Brexit figures is that more people think the government is doing an ok job of negotiations at the same time as more people think Brexit should be softened or abandoned. Realism is slowly setting in.
Softening Brexit still 30 points behind status quo.
Soften Brexit + Stop Brexit + Second referendum = 44% Carry on = 41%
UNFUNDED GOV'T PENSION LIABILITIES REPRESENT NEARLY 50% OF GDP.
That's not too bad, actually. Of course it's comparing a flow with a not directly-related level, but the fact that the level (expressing the NPV of liabilities over decades) is only half the annual flow isn't terribly frightening.
"The £7.6 trillion includes £5.3 trillion of pension entitlements that were the responsibility of central and local government, the largest element of which came from State Pension entitlements (£4 trillion), with the rest (£1.3 trillion) coming from public sector employee pensions."
Most state pension laibilities are of course unfunded in that there is no ringfenced government pot of money set aside for the laibilities. Unfunded pensions have to be paid as they arise out of future taxation.
"The remaining £2.3 trillion were private sector employee pension entitlements, with the majority (£2 trillion) due to defined benefit pensions.
There was also £450 billion in individual personal pensions in 2015, making a total of £8 trillion – around four times GDP."
UNFUNDED GOV'T PENSION LIABILITIES REPRESENT NEARLY 50% OF GDP.
For all the talk of improved balance of trade, these are the latest current account numbers direct from the ONS and including revisions (but not yet including the poor numbers from the start of the year):
Patting ourselves on the back and congratulating ourselves for improving our current account deficit from the worst in post WW2 history in 2016, to the third worst in 2017 seems premature.
Improved from a very poor position is the best way to describe it, however, the savings rate does seem to be rising and there is a clear downwards trend in consumer spending. Both are good signs. Additionally there does seem to have been a small shift in the economy from consumption to production, something that needs to continue for another 3-4 years if it is to make a lasting difference to the BoP.
Edit: I'm on mobile but if I could I would plot the savings rate on the same chart as the BoP, they track very well IMO.
The cynic in me assumes the world will crash when the US overheats, and that day may be drawing closer...
After a pretty uninspired decade after the financial crash the US has the capacity to grow for a very considerable time yet, especially with a President who may be a Republican but doesn't give a monkey's about the deficit. I think they will grow strongly until the second half of his second term when things will probably have gone less than optimally in so many other ways.
The problem is that Trump is getting the US economy firing the traditional way: i.e., he's using fiscal policy to light a fire under consumer spending.
Nothing wrong with that, except that the US already over-consumes and under-saves. He'll also find his two goals are incompatible: you can't have both booming consumer spending and a reducing trade deficit.
And attempts to bandage over this, but applying one set of tariffs here (steel, quick!), followed by another (oh no, our deficit in cars is getting worse), will probably only succeed in making the US economy less imbalanced.
There's another problem for Trump. The boom he's engineering is widening the growth gap between the coasts and the interior. We're seeing it here in LA, but it's not helping so much in Ohio (yet). That may change, but if it does not, then will Trump get the credit from the coasts?
"The £7.6 trillion includes £5.3 trillion of pension entitlements that were the responsibility of central and local government, the largest element of which came from State Pension entitlements (£4 trillion), with the rest (£1.3 trillion) coming from public sector employee pensions."
Most state pension laibilities are of course unfunded in that there is no ringfenced government pot of money set aside for the laibilities. Unfunded pensions have to be paid as they arise out of future taxation.
"The remaining £2.3 trillion were private sector employee pension entitlements, with the majority (£2 trillion) due to defined benefit pensions.
There was also £450 billion in individual personal pensions in 2015, making a total of £8 trillion – around four times GDP."
UNFUNDED GOV'T PENSION LIABILITIES REPRESENT NEARLY 50% OF GDP.
The cynic in me assumes the world will crash when the US overheats, and that day may be drawing closer...
After a pretty uninspired decade after the financial crash the US has the capacity to grow for a very considerable time yet, especially with a President who may be a Republican but doesn't give a monkey's about the deficit. I think they will grow strongly until the second half of his second term when things will probably have gone less than optimally in so many other ways.
The problem is that Trump is getting the US economy firing the traditional way: i.e., he's using fiscal policy to light a fire under consumer spending.
Nothing wrong with that, except that the US already over-consumes and under-saves. He'll also find his two goals are incompatible: you can't have both booming consumer spending and a reducing trade deficit.
And attempts to bandage over this, but applying one set of tariffs here (steel, quick!), followed by another (oh no, our deficit in cars is getting worse), will probably only succeed in making the US economy less imbalanced.
There's another problem for Trump. The boom he's engineering is widening the growth gap between the coasts and the interior. We're seeing it here in LA, but it's not helping so much in Ohio (yet). That may change, but if it does not, then will Trump get the credit from the coasts?
You really think Trump cares about the trade deficit? He cares about being seen to do something that helps the people that elected him (even if it doesn't). He will be very happy to be re-elected on a consumer boom, albeit the USA is also seeing an upturn in production right now.
F1: testing is over. Will probably put something up tomorrow, maybe add another mini-blog if/when the spreads are up. They need to get their skates on, just a fortnight until the season kicks off.
According to Andrew Teale, Labour are in complete disarray on Bolton Council, and this result (and a loss to the Tories a couple of weeks ago) confirms it.
Also holding Bolton West at the general election was arguably one of the Tories' best results, when they were losing similar seats elsewhere like Bury North.
Trying to be fair to him AEP's articles do sometimes contain some interesting statistics. Its just that they usually mean almost the opposite of what he thinks they do.
Nothing I can see at moment to suggest that Corbyn is right to say repeatedly that Labour is a government "in waiting".
Actually I think he should stop using that phrase. If a politician predicts victory in an election, it often backfires on him, and he might well be lighting a rocket under his sanctimonious little ass.
On pensions... did a quick sum the other day and I will have worked for less than 9% of my life, (assuming living to 83 and working 35 hours between the ages of 22 and 55). Of course, plenty of unpaid overtime was worked but equally many hours were spent in airport lounges and pointless meetings. So, enough value needs to have been created in those 9% of hours to finance the other 91%. Scary. Also, puts into context the prospect that robots reduce the 9% to 5% or 3% or even 0%. It’s not really that much of a change to the status quo.
Comments
Built a political movement.
Out of a flat pack.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1972/oct/23/european-communities-summit-conference-1
The main decision of the summit conference [in 1972] was that the member States of the Community affirmed their intention to transform the whole complex of their relations into a European Union by the end of the decade. The institutions of the Community are to report on the subject by the end of 1975. The enlarged Community reaffirmed its determination to progress towards economic and monetary union; and it was fully accepted that progress in economic co-operation must move in parallel with progress in monetary co-operation.
Lab 63
Con 23
LD 11
- doesn't look fair.
But yes. Flake's seat is the reason I said "sitting Republican" - there are very few easily winnable seats.
We had some useful, if flawed, polling on potential Dem->Rep seats. Were any Rep->Dem seats polled?
https://twitter.com/sethdmichaels/status/971797364066455553
Nailed on.
https://order-order.com/2018/03/09/communist-flag-flying-stalybridge-labour-club-today/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/03/09/much-madman-trump-delivering-promises/
https://twitter.com/Anna_Soubry/status/972129781964734464
https://twitter.com/_BenvdM/status/972135544934338561
We don’t know how deep or broad anyone’s polling score actually is. It could be based on fear of the other – which could evaporate when something we didn’t consider gets closed down (ie McDonnell pledges not to do something or other, or May pledges to do something else), or whatever. It could evaporate with a change of leader, or a change of some deep-seated belief in one or other leader.
We have an adversarial democracy (as opposed to the alternative of consensual democracy) and the alienation of the public from the political system, the name-calling, virtue-signalling-to-own-side-while-insulting-the-other-one and intense tribalism (to be fair, there’s always some level of tribalism in any political system), and inability to judge actual popularity rather than “shit, but they’re not the other fuckers at least” is inherent. It does make it harder to judge feedback from the public, but that’s the price we pay for it. It can get worse – we just have to look over the Pond to see how much worse.
Pop on over to Britain Elects and compare the responses to the last two polls. Pretty bloody funny. One is "polls are fake" the other is "Jeremy for PM, the Tories are finished". Often by the same people morons.
You can quite easily have the same polling scores for the Big Two resulting in anything from a majority for one to a majority for the other with every form of hung Parliament in between. The disproportionate and inconsistent effects are a lot less to do with constituency size these days and more to do with other factors.
Plenty of other systems give what some would define as unfair outcomes - usually the losers, funnily enough. There's a good reason why PR is not used worldwide, and it's not because 'the elite' are opposed to it.
Maybe we won’t go full Venezuela.
How I long for a centre left party that supports democracy and human rights consistently.
On losers calling things unfair - yeah, anyone can rationalise anything. Including those who win under existing systems - it's startling how often those who win under certain rules can rationalise those rules as being the only right way things can ever be.
*confused*
Patting ourselves on the back and congratulating ourselves for improving our current account deficit from the worst in post WW2 history in 2016, to the third worst in 2017 seems premature.
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/972147013209948162
The tiny number of Opposition seats under those vote shares, and the fact that those who got the second-most vote share would finish behind those who got the third-most vote share are what people are calling unfair.
They have a point, but given the arguments over "fairness" and what it means, it is better to call it "unrepresentative". The Parliament (and especially the Government) would not reflect the preferences of the electorate in anything other than the most gross level (Labour got more votes than the other parties; they get the overwhelming representation in Parliament and exclusively in Government).
That's something that could be debated - but given how unavoidably biased everyone is towards their own outlook, "fair" is something that can't ever be mutually agreed on.
The significant thing in this week's YouGov Brexit figures is that more people think the government is doing an ok job of negotiations at the same time as more people think Brexit should be softened or abandoned. Realism is slowly setting in.
"The £7.6 trillion includes £5.3 trillion of pension entitlements that were the responsibility of central and local government, the largest element of which came from State Pension entitlements (£4 trillion), with the rest (£1.3 trillion) coming from public sector employee pensions."
Most state pension laibilities are of course unfunded in that there is no ringfenced government pot of money set aside for the laibilities. Unfunded pensions have to be paid as they arise out of future taxation.
"The remaining £2.3 trillion were private sector employee pension entitlements, with the majority (£2 trillion) due to defined benefit pensions.
There was also £450 billion in individual personal pensions in 2015, making a total of £8 trillion – around four times GDP."
UNFUNDED GOV'T PENSION LIABILITIES REPRESENT NEARLY 50% OF GDP.
Source
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/articles/pensionsinthenationalaccountsafullerpictureoftheuksfundedandunfundedpensionobligations/2010to2015#trends-over-time-government-managed-schemes
Carry on = 41%
How The Telegraph got rid of SeanT and kept Tim Stanley and AEP is beyond me.
All public sector employee pensions should be defined contributions - if not it's borrowing by another name.
Edit: I'm on mobile but if I could I would plot the savings rate on the same chart as the BoP, they track very well IMO.
Nothing wrong with that, except that the US already over-consumes and under-saves. He'll also find his two goals are incompatible: you can't have both booming consumer spending and a reducing trade deficit.
And attempts to bandage over this, but applying one set of tariffs here (steel, quick!), followed by another (oh no, our deficit in cars is getting worse), will probably only succeed in making the US economy less imbalanced.
There's another problem for Trump. The boom he's engineering is widening the growth gap between the coasts and the interior. We're seeing it here in LA, but it's not helping so much in Ohio (yet). That may change, but if it does not, then will Trump get the credit from the coasts?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/03/09/jeremy-corbyn-should-working-brexit-many-not-eu/
"Jeremy Corbyn should want a Brexit that works for the many, not the EU"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/02/01/eu-refuses-soft-brexit-must-invoke-wto-immediately/
He does have an interesting writing style however.
Actually I think he should stop using that phrase. If a politician predicts victory in an election, it often backfires on him, and he might well be lighting a rocket under his sanctimonious little ass.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/972130897486065664