This is completely new information never before come to light. Truly the most exclusive of exclusives.
Well, it seems to be new to the SNP. Because they have never faced up to it with the voters.
Time to be honest. Say independence --> EU --> Euro. The Scots deserve that discussion. Is it really terminal to leaving the UK to adopt a new currency?
PR would probably result in a nationalist right party polling about 15%. A centre right party polling about 25%. A centre left party polling about 25%. The Lib Dems on about 10%. An ultra-left party on about 5%. The Greens on about 10%. And local unionists, nationalists, and other odds and sods on another 10%.
If those were the results it'd be a grand coalition I think
Your regular reminder that the main purpose of FPTP is to keep the likes of Farage from being the Conservative's kingmaker, not to keep the left wing parties out of power.
Even on the rare occasions under a more proportional system when a left wing coalition did make it past 50% of the votes, they'd then have a similar problem with the Greens, who'd have no reason not to go ultra-militant once FPTP bit the dust.
In short: be careful what you wish for.
If the centre-left and the centre-right want to keep the extremes out of power then they can form a coalition with each other.
Right, which is what happens in Germany (and there are some other examples).
It's not what happens in Italy. Or Israel.
So, it's... what? Say, 50:50 that we end up with endless centrist mush going nowhere vs bouncing from one group of extremists to another? I don't like those odds.
Germany and Israel have PR, Italy hasn't since 1992. I'm not sure even Israel provides an example of "bouncing from one group of extremists to another".
Enough. Sindy is not gonna happen for 20 years, if ever
It's done. The moment was 2014, as it turns out. And they came damn close
Rejoin too. Even after the tumult of recent weeks our membership terms would require us to join the Euro and people would say no.
Indeed. Eventually both sides will see sense and some kind of associate membership will be forged. The UK is never going to join the euro (within foreseeables) and never submit to full political union, but it is mutually beneficial to cooperate more over trade, science, education, travel. When the embers have dulled we will probably end up in some kind of quasi EEA/EFTA
Extremists on both sides will chafe but the appetite for another referendum or more arguments will be near-zero, especially with the extra menace of a hostile world - Putin, China, nationalist India, et al
I sometimes wonder if the "democratic west" will unite in an entirely new union, including Japan, SoKo, Oz, etc
If only we could have been members of the EU without having to join the Euro
Polling for The Times found that Sunak’s appointment had given the Tories a small bounce in the polls and that his personal ratings were within touching distance of those of Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour Party leader.
PR would probably result in a nationalist right party polling about 15%. A centre right party polling about 25%. A centre left party polling about 25%. The Lib Dems on about 10%. An ultra-left party on about 5%. The Greens on about 10%. And local unionists, nationalists, and other odds and sods on another 10%.
If those were the results it'd be a grand coalition I think
Some of the odds and sods wouldn't make the cut. So a few other options depending on the exact percentages.
Anyway. A magical evening this evening. The Enchanted Forest on Pitlochry. I had never heard of it until.it was recommended a couple of months backby one of our friendly Scottish contingent - but it appears to be a big deal in these parts. "Oh, you're going to the enchanted forest" they'll say, with a smile, as if you've just discovered a big and wonderful secret. "You'll have a great time." And we did. The family - the wife especially - are connosseurs of a light show, but this was something else. Ethereal, trippy, mystical, spectacular. We walked round with big happy, soppy smiles on our faces. As a happy postscript, heading back down the A9 to Dunkeld the sky suddenly cleared. There was a "wow" from the daughter on the right as she saw the dazzling array of stars - and then when we got back to our accommodation the same noise from everyone as we piled out of the car. Utterly astonishing. The girls had never seen anything like it. You could see the Milky Way. You could see shooting stars. Even for adults who had seen one or two starry skies in the past it was astonishing.
We had a similar wow moment in Mexico earlier this year. We went out boating on a small lake to view bioluminescent plankton but the more amazing part was the clear sky under a new moon. I'd never witnessed the Milky Way first hand, it was an almost spiritual event for us being out there under the star light, witnessing the cosmos first hand. Seeing all those billions of stars from our tiny little bit of space was just an astonishing experience.
I'd fully recommend proper stargazing to everyone. We want to take Jen and babies 2/3 when they arrive and are old enough. Hopefully the sky won't be full of shitty satellites ruining the view by then.
Nah, just go somewhere in Scotland. Though the Aussie outback is really special. You get to see the Magellanic Clouds for one thing. And it doesn't rain so much. Different stars though.
Anyway. A magical evening this evening. The Enchanted Forest on Pitlochry. I had never heard of it until.it was recommended a couple of months backby one of our friendly Scottish contingent - but it appears to be a big deal in these parts. "Oh, you're going to the enchanted forest" they'll say, with a smile, as if you've just discovered a big and wonderful secret. "You'll have a great time." And we did. The family - the wife especially - are connosseurs of a light show, but this was something else. Ethereal, trippy, mystical, spectacular. We walked round with big happy, soppy smiles on our faces. As a happy postscript, heading back down the A9 to Dunkeld the sky suddenly cleared. There was a "wow" from the daughter on the right as she saw the dazzling array of stars - and then when we got back to our accommodation the same noise from everyone as we piled out of the car. Utterly astonishing. The girls had never seen anything like it. You could see the Milky Way. You could see shooting stars. Even for adults who had seen one or two starry skies in the past it was astonishing.
We had a similar wow moment in Mexico earlier this year. We went out boating on a small lake to view bioluminescent plankton but the more amazing part was the clear sky under a new moon. I'd never witnessed the Milky Way first hand, it was an almost spiritual event for us being out there under the star light, witnessing the cosmos first hand. Seeing all those billions of stars from our tiny little bit of space was just an astonishing experience.
I'd fully recommend proper stargazing to everyone. We want to take Jen and babies 2/3 when they arrive and are old enough. Hopefully the sky won't be full of shitty satellites ruining the view by then.
Nah, just go somewhere in Scotland. Though the Aussie outback is really special. You get to see the Magellanic Clouds for one thing. And it doesn't rain so much. Different stars though.
His nose would bleed north of Watford
The night sky in the remote bits of Scotland is nice.
The night sky in the Chilean high desert…. There’s a reason why the astronomers love it.
This is completely new information never before come to light. Truly the most exclusive of exclusives.
Well, it seems to be new to the SNP. Because they have never faced up to it with the voters.
Time to be honest. Say independence --> EU --> Euro. The Scots deserve that discussion. Is it really terminal to leaving the UK to adopt a new currency?
Yea Yea all those commonwealth countries that left really struggled and begged to come back under English rule, FFS are you lot as stupid as you make out.
One problem with proportional election schemes is that they can defy shifts in voter opinion. Here's a very simplified example:
Assume there are five parties, from left to right, and that each party will only join "continuous" coalitions,so the Far Left party will join with the Left Party, and possibly the Moderates, but never with either the Right Party, or the Far Right Party.
In election one, we have the five parties each winning 20 percent of the vote: 20 20 20 20 20. A little bit of thought will show you that there are three possible minimal winning coalitions: (FL, L, M), (L, M, R), and (M, R, FR).
In election two, the results are as follows: 15, 20, 20, 20, 25. And the same three minimum winning coalitions are possible! In fact, it would be possible for negotiations to change the governing coalition from (M, R, FR) to (L, Fl, M), after the second election.
And it can get much worse when you have to think of more than one dimension, as you do in Israel, with the extreme religious parties having undue influence. Or where there is an "ethnic" party, as in Canada.
(And then there is the problem that negotiations in such systems are likely to take place behind closed doors, making it harder for voters to influence the outcome.)
True, though Bond Street opened 5 months late! (on Monday 24th)
5 months?
More like 5 years!
That was the rest of the line!
November 6th is the next key date, the connections from Stratford to Whitechapel, and from Paddington (low level) to Acton will finally open to passengers after MONTHS of testing!
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
One problem with proportional election schemes is that they can defy shifts in voter opinion. Here's a very simplified example:
Assume there are five parties, from left to right, and that each party will only join "continuous" coalitions,so the Far Left party will join with the Left Party, and possibly the Moderates, but never with either the Right Party, or the Far Right Party.
In election one, we have the five parties each winning 20 percent of the vote: 20 20 20 20 20. A little bit of thought will show you that there are three possible minimal winning coalitions: (FL, L, M), (L, M, R), and (M, R, FR).
In election two, the results are as follows: 15, 20, 20, 20, 25. And the same three minimum winning coalitions are possible! In fact, it would be possible for negotiations to change the governing coalition from (M, R, FR) to (L, Fl, M), after the second election.
And it can get much worse when you have to think of more than one dimension, as you do in Israel, with the extreme religious parties having undue influence. Or where there is an "ethnic" party, as in Canada.
(And then there is the problem that negotiations in such systems are likely to take place behind closed doors, making it harder for voters to influence the outcome.)
I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics.
And how did voters influence the policy swerves of both Truss and now Sunak? All were sorted out without voters getting a say.
Anyway. A magical evening this evening. The Enchanted Forest on Pitlochry. I had never heard of it until.it was recommended a couple of months backby one of our friendly Scottish contingent - but it appears to be a big deal in these parts. "Oh, you're going to the enchanted forest" they'll say, with a smile, as if you've just discovered a big and wonderful secret. "You'll have a great time." And we did. The family - the wife especially - are connosseurs of a light show, but this was something else. Ethereal, trippy, mystical, spectacular. We walked round with big happy, soppy smiles on our faces. As a happy postscript, heading back down the A9 to Dunkeld the sky suddenly cleared. There was a "wow" from the daughter on the right as she saw the dazzling array of stars - and then when we got back to our accommodation the same noise from everyone as we piled out of the car. Utterly astonishing. The girls had never seen anything like it. You could see the Milky Way. You could see shooting stars. Even for adults who had seen one or two starry skies in the past it was astonishing.
We had a similar wow moment in Mexico earlier this year. We went out boating on a small lake to view bioluminescent plankton but the more amazing part was the clear sky under a new moon. I'd never witnessed the Milky Way first hand, it was an almost spiritual event for us being out there under the star light, witnessing the cosmos first hand. Seeing all those billions of stars from our tiny little bit of space was just an astonishing experience.
I'd fully recommend proper stargazing to everyone. We want to take Jen and babies 2/3 when they arrive and are old enough. Hopefully the sky won't be full of shitty satellites ruining the view by then.
Nah, just go somewhere in Scotland. Though the Aussie outback is really special. You get to see the Magellanic Clouds for one thing. And it doesn't rain so much. Different stars though.
33 years ago I was lying out on a sand dune in the middle of the Rub' al Khali, 3 days drive from the nearest road, staring up at a sky so dense with stars it was difficult to pick out the constellations. Now there is a place I would love to go back to.
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
Your regular reminder that the main purpose of FPTP is to keep the likes of Farage from being the Conservative's kingmaker, not to keep the left wing parties out of power.
Even on the rare occasions under a more proportional system when a left wing coalition did make it past 50% of the votes, they'd then have a similar problem with the Greens, who'd have no reason not to go ultra-militant once FPTP bit the dust.
In short: be careful what you wish for.
If the centre-left and the centre-right want to keep the extremes out of power then they can form a coalition with each other.
Right, which is what happens in Germany (and there are some other examples).
It's not what happens in Italy. Or Israel.
So, it's... what? Say, 50:50 that we end up with endless centrist mush going nowhere vs bouncing from one group of extremists to another? I don't like those odds.
Given Britain's experience with FPTP recently I don't think you can rely on the voting system saving you from poor politicians. Whatever voting system you have the voters will vote for what they want.
I tend to think that voting systems like STV, or open-list PR, give the voters more power, whereas voting systems like FPTP, or closed-list PR, give more power to the party leaderships.
I really think it's time this debate moved beyond some of the simplistic arguments against PR, because they only apply to some PR systems and not others. Is anyone advocating Israel's PR system for the UK?
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
If people are really keen to join the EU, is it really definite they would not pay that price?
I really don't understand the logic that says they should give up rule from London (which I think they would be right to do) and replace it with rule from Brussels.
Why does an independent Scotland need to tie itself to the EU? Join EFTA and the EEA and they get all the benefits with none of the drawbacks.
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
If people are really keen to join the EU, is it really definite they would not pay that price?
I really don't understand the logic that says they should give up rule from London (which I think they would be right to do) and replace it with rule from Brussels.
I've never had a problem with the logic. People may rate different unions differently, reasonably or not.
One problem with proportional election schemes is that they can defy shifts in voter opinion. Here's a very simplified example:
Assume there are five parties, from left to right, and that each party will only join "continuous" coalitions,so the Far Left party will join with the Left Party, and possibly the Moderates, but never with either the Right Party, or the Far Right Party.
In election one, we have the five parties each winning 20 percent of the vote: 20 20 20 20 20. A little bit of thought will show you that there are three possible minimal winning coalitions: (FL, L, M), (L, M, R), and (M, R, FR).
In election two, the results are as follows: 15, 20, 20, 20, 25. And the same three minimum winning coalitions are possible! In fact, it would be possible for negotiations to change the governing coalition from (M, R, FR) to (L, Fl, M), after the second election.
And it can get much worse when you have to think of more than one dimension, as you do in Israel, with the extreme religious parties having undue influence. Or where there is an "ethnic" party, as in Canada.
(And then there is the problem that negotiations in such systems are likely to take place behind closed doors, making it harder for voters to influence the outcome.)
I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics.
And how did voters influence the policy swerves of both Truss and now Sunak? All were sorted out without voters getting a say.
The difference is you are talking about voters having no influence between elections. Jim is looking more at them having no influence at elections as well.
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
Enough. Sindy is not gonna happen for 20 years, if ever
It's done. The moment was 2014, as it turns out. And they came damn close
Rejoin too. Even after the tumult of recent weeks our membership terms would require us to join the Euro and people would say no.
Indeed. Eventually both sides will see sense and some kind of associate membership will be forged. The UK is never going to join the euro (within foreseeables) and never submit to full political union, but it is mutually beneficial to cooperate more over trade, science, education, travel. When the embers have dulled we will probably end up in some kind of quasi EEA/EFTA
Extremists on both sides will chafe but the appetite for another referendum or more arguments will be near-zero, especially with the extra menace of a hostile world - Putin, China, nationalist India, et al
I sometimes wonder if the "democratic west" will unite in an entirely new union, including Japan, SoKo, Oz, etc
Huge prize for Sunak to grasp. Is he bold enough?
Cameron should have pushed associate membership to the limit, rather than settling for his farcical "renegotiation". Of course, the EU never believed we would Brexit. Nor did Cameron (or at least, the people briefing him). But we did - and now we have an interesting opportunity to make that proposal - on our terms.
Would the EU push us away a second time? An associate membership that is outside "the Project", outside the Euro, permitted to enter other trade groupings (notably CPTPP - but to which we act as a bridge for the EU). We have "Brexited" enough to have honoured the 2016 referendum. But an outer circle that was still broadly aligned in trade and standards.
It would shake things up for the next election if he could deliver that.
Your regular reminder that the main purpose of FPTP is to keep the likes of Farage from being the Conservative's kingmaker, not to keep the left wing parties out of power.
Even on the rare occasions under a more proportional system when a left wing coalition did make it past 50% of the votes, they'd then have a similar problem with the Greens, who'd have no reason not to go ultra-militant once FPTP bit the dust.
In short: be careful what you wish for.
If the centre-left and the centre-right want to keep the extremes out of power then they can form a coalition with each other.
Right, which is what happens in Germany (and there are some other examples).
It's not what happens in Italy. Or Israel.
So, it's... what? Say, 50:50 that we end up with endless centrist mush going nowhere vs bouncing from one group of extremists to another? I don't like those odds.
Given Britain's experience with FPTP recently I don't think you can rely on the voting system saving you from poor politicians. Whatever voting system you have the voters will vote for what they want.
I tend to think that voting systems like STV, or open-list PR, give the voters more power, whereas voting systems like FPTP, or closed-list PR, give more power to the party leaderships.
I really think it's time this debate moved beyond some of the simplistic arguments against PR, because they only apply to some PR systems and not others. Is anyone advocating Israel's PR system for the UK?
Yes, it's like having a really good constitution which guarantees rights which are not actually enforced. I'd like to think electoral reform would improve our political culture a bit, if done right, but it'd not solve all problems, and the precise nature of the reform matters, as you note.
PR would probably result in a nationalist right party polling about 15%. A centre right party polling about 25%. A centre left party polling about 25%. The Lib Dems on about 10%. An ultra-left party on about 5%. The Greens on about 10%. And local unionists, nationalists, and other odds and sods on another 10%.
Make a government out of that.
It would be harder for Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng to do what they did if they had to convince a coalition partner to go along with it.
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
Enough. Sindy is not gonna happen for 20 years, if ever
It's done. The moment was 2014, as it turns out. And they came damn close
Rejoin too. Even after the tumult of recent weeks our membership terms would require us to join the Euro and people would say no.
Indeed. Eventually both sides will see sense and some kind of associate membership will be forged. The UK is never going to join the euro (within foreseeables) and never submit to full political union, but it is mutually beneficial to cooperate more over trade, science, education, travel. When the embers have dulled we will probably end up in some kind of quasi EEA/EFTA
Extremists on both sides will chafe but the appetite for another referendum or more arguments will be near-zero, especially with the extra menace of a hostile world - Putin, China, nationalist India, et al
I sometimes wonder if the "democratic west" will unite in an entirely new union, including Japan, SoKo, Oz, etc
Huge prize for Sunak to grasp. Is he bold enough?
Cameron should have pushed associate membership to the limit, rather than settling for his farcical "renegotiation". Of course, the EU never believed we would Brexit. Nor did Cameron (or at least, the people briefing him). But we did - and now we have an interesting opportunity to make that proposal - on our terms.
Would the EU push us away a second time? An associate membership that is outside "the Project", outside the Euro, permitted to enter other trade groupings (notably CPTPP - but to which we act as a bridge for the EU). We have "Brexited" enough to have honoured the 2016 referendum. But an outer circle that was still broadly aligned in trade and standards.
It would shake things up for the next election if he could deliver that.
This is completely new information never before come to light. Truly the most exclusive of exclusives.
Well, it seems to be new to the SNP. Because they have never faced up to it with the voters.
Time to be honest. Say independence --> EU --> Euro. The Scots deserve that discussion. Is it really terminal to leaving the UK to adopt a new currency?
Yea Yea all those commonwealth countries that left really struggled and begged to come back under English rule, FFS are you lot as stupid as you make out.
Grow up and face some serious questions. Failure to do that lost you the vote in 2014. Failure to do so will lose it whenever asked again.
Of course, by then, folks will be thinking you were never serious about independence in the first place. It was just about job creation for the few....
Enough. Sindy is not gonna happen for 20 years, if ever
It's done. The moment was 2014, as it turns out. And they came damn close
Rejoin too. Even after the tumult of recent weeks our membership terms would require us to join the Euro and people would say no.
Indeed. Eventually both sides will see sense and some kind of associate membership will be forged. The UK is never going to join the euro (within foreseeables) and never submit to full political union, but it is mutually beneficial to cooperate more over trade, science, education, travel. When the embers have dulled we will probably end up in some kind of quasi EEA/EFTA
Extremists on both sides will chafe but the appetite for another referendum or more arguments will be near-zero, especially with the extra menace of a hostile world - Putin, China, nationalist India, et al
I sometimes wonder if the "democratic west" will unite in an entirely new union, including Japan, SoKo, Oz, etc
Huge prize for Sunak to grasp. Is he bold enough?
Cameron should have pushed associate membership to the limit, rather than settling for his farcical "renegotiation". Of course, the EU never believed we would Brexit. Nor did Cameron (or at least, the people briefing him). But we did - and now we have an interesting opportunity to make that proposal - on our terms.
Would the EU push us away a second time? An associate membership that is outside "the Project", outside the Euro, permitted to enter other trade groupings (notably CPTPP - but to which we act as a bridge for the EU). We have "Brexited" enough to have honoured the 2016 referendum. But an outer circle that was still broadly aligned in trade and standards.
It would shake things up for the next election if he could deliver that.
Enough. Sindy is not gonna happen for 20 years, if ever
It's done. The moment was 2014, as it turns out. And they came damn close
Rejoin too. Even after the tumult of recent weeks our membership terms would require us to join the Euro and people would say no.
Indeed. Eventually both sides will see sense and some kind of associate membership will be forged. The UK is never going to join the euro (within foreseeables)
A son of GFC isn't a foreseeable?
Along with the invasion of Iraq for which as ChEx he was co-responsible with Tony Blair, not joining the euro is the other biggest point that should be held against Gordon Brown.
There comes a point when one can ask why on earth should all this sh*t from the past be allowed to continue to wreck the country's future. Rejoin the EU and join the f***ing euro like grownups. Persuade the population they'll like it when they get there, and if they don't they can f*** off and admire themselves in their Union Jack underpants with little pictures of Alf Garnett on. Surveys show that pro-Stayout nutters are 72.924% more likely than Rejoiners to be obese and have short life expectancy anyway. If Italy could join the euro...
One problem with proportional election schemes is that they can defy shifts in voter opinion. Here's a very simplified example:
Assume there are five parties, from left to right, and that each party will only join "continuous" coalitions,so the Far Left party will join with the Left Party, and possibly the Moderates, but never with either the Right Party, or the Far Right Party.
In election one, we have the five parties each winning 20 percent of the vote: 20 20 20 20 20. A little bit of thought will show you that there are three possible minimal winning coalitions: (FL, L, M), (L, M, R), and (M, R, FR).
In election two, the results are as follows: 15, 20, 20, 20, 25. And the same three minimum winning coalitions are possible! In fact, it would be possible for negotiations to change the governing coalition from (M, R, FR) to (L, Fl, M), after the second election.
And it can get much worse when you have to think of more than one dimension, as you do in Israel, with the extreme religious parties having undue influence. Or where there is an "ethnic" party, as in Canada.
(And then there is the problem that negotiations in such systems are likely to take place behind closed doors, making it harder for voters to influence the outcome.)
I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics.
And how did voters influence the policy swerves of both Truss and now Sunak? All were sorted out without voters getting a say.
The difference is you are talking about voters having no influence between elections. Jim is looking more at them having no influence at elections as well.
As 80% of us are in safe seats, we have very little influence already, and none on candidate selection unless a party member for the correct party in that safe seat.
Under multi member STV, I can vote for the party I choose and the member that I choose too.
One problem with proportional election schemes is that they can defy shifts in voter opinion. Here's a very simplified example:
Assume there are five parties, from left to right, and that each party will only join "continuous" coalitions,so the Far Left party will join with the Left Party, and possibly the Moderates, but never with either the Right Party, or the Far Right Party.
In election one, we have the five parties each winning 20 percent of the vote: 20 20 20 20 20. A little bit of thought will show you that there are three possible minimal winning coalitions: (FL, L, M), (L, M, R), and (M, R, FR).
In election two, the results are as follows: 15, 20, 20, 20, 25. And the same three minimum winning coalitions are possible! In fact, it would be possible for negotiations to change the governing coalition from (M, R, FR) to (L, Fl, M), after the second election.
And it can get much worse when you have to think of more than one dimension, as you do in Israel, with the extreme religious parties having undue influence. Or where there is an "ethnic" party, as in Canada.
(And then there is the problem that negotiations in such systems are likely to take place behind closed doors, making it harder for voters to influence the outcome.)
Irish voters don't seem to have a problem with getting rid of governments and parties when they're cross with them. FPTP seemed to give a bit of a strange result in the UK in 2005. Was that really a good thing for us?
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
Don't think this is the killer fact people make it out to be. An independent Scotland won't continue to use sterling, so the choices are invented Scottish currency or an existing Euro.
I think independence will be very costly but the currency in of itself is not that huge an issue.
One problem with proportional election schemes is that they can defy shifts in voter opinion. Here's a very simplified example:
Assume there are five parties, from left to right, and that each party will only join "continuous" coalitions,so the Far Left party will join with the Left Party, and possibly the Moderates, but never with either the Right Party, or the Far Right Party.
In election one, we have the five parties each winning 20 percent of the vote: 20 20 20 20 20. A little bit of thought will show you that there are three possible minimal winning coalitions: (FL, L, M), (L, M, R), and (M, R, FR).
In election two, the results are as follows: 15, 20, 20, 20, 25. And the same three minimum winning coalitions are possible! In fact, it would be possible for negotiations to change the governing coalition from (M, R, FR) to (L, Fl, M), after the second election.
And it can get much worse when you have to think of more than one dimension, as you do in Israel, with the extreme religious parties having undue influence. Or where there is an "ethnic" party, as in Canada.
(And then there is the problem that negotiations in such systems are likely to take place behind closed doors, making it harder for voters to influence the outcome.)
I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics.
And how did voters influence the policy swerves of both Truss and now Sunak? All were sorted out without voters getting a say.
Plus how is "defying shifts in voter opinion" not happening in FPTP? Eg in the UK in 2001 and 2005 ever increasing majorities voted against the Labour government.
Look at this Daily Show riff on Kari Lake. Whether you like her or hate her this is desperately unfunny. Sadly unfunny. Aimed at 9 year olds. Everything is forced. It is low IQ and awful
Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert in their heyday would have ripped her apart, put her together again, then doubled down. This is pap
Enough. Sindy is not gonna happen for 20 years, if ever
It's done. The moment was 2014, as it turns out. And they came damn close
Rejoin too. Even after the tumult of recent weeks our membership terms would require us to join the Euro and people would say no.
Indeed. Eventually both sides will see sense and some kind of associate membership will be forged. The UK is never going to join the euro (within foreseeables) and never submit to full political union, but it is mutually beneficial to cooperate more over trade, science, education, travel. When the embers have dulled we will probably end up in some kind of quasi EEA/EFTA
Extremists on both sides will chafe but the appetite for another referendum or more arguments will be near-zero, especially with the extra menace of a hostile world - Putin, China, nationalist India, et al
I sometimes wonder if the "democratic west" will unite in an entirely new union, including Japan, SoKo, Oz, etc
Huge prize for Sunak to grasp. Is he bold enough?
Cameron should have pushed associate membership to the limit, rather than settling for his farcical "renegotiation". Of course, the EU never believed we would Brexit. Nor did Cameron (or at least, the people briefing him). But we did - and now we have an interesting opportunity to make that proposal - on our terms.
Would the EU push us away a second time? An associate membership that is outside "the Project", outside the Euro, permitted to enter other trade groupings (notably CPTPP - but to which we act as a bridge for the EU). We have "Brexited" enough to have honoured the 2016 referendum. But an outer circle that was still broadly aligned in trade and standards.
It would shake things up for the next election if he could deliver that.
Remain 2.0
No. Brexit 2.0
Smells a bit remainery to me. Ideas coming out of the woodwork post Boris.
Analysis by the Resolution Foundation think tank said that the fortnight delay of the fiscal statement would save the Treasury between £10 billion and £15 billion. Ministers had been facing an estimated black hole in the Treasury’s finances of around £35 billion.
You all heard it here first this afternoon! A £20bn gap is not a huge deal. I wouldn't be surprised if it was smaller still with every prices falling.
Market confidence, something that is usually pretty difficult to measure in money terms, has saved us ~£40bn in spending cuts and tax rises per year vs where we were when Kwasi attempted to crash the economy.
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
Don't think this is the killer fact people make it out to be. An independent Scotland won't continue to use sterling, so the choices are invented Scottish currency or an existing Euro.
I think independence will be very costly but the currency in of itself is not that huge an issue.
Current plan: 1) Continue to use GBP until 2) “Time is right” to set up own currency 3) Sturgeon says she doesn’t think € right for Scotland - EU says it must be.
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
If people are really keen to join the EU, is it really definite they would not pay that price?
I really don't understand the logic that says they should give up rule from London (which I think they would be right to do) and replace it with rule from Brussels.
Why does an independent Scotland need to tie itself to the EU? Join EFTA and the EEA and they get all the benefits with none of the drawbacks.
Well, the EU wouldn’t declare war on Scotland’s behalf or decide which Unions we could leave or remain in or decide how we utilise our resources. There would be the tyranny of collective standards on vacuum cleaners of course; that would be a cross which we would just have to bear.
I am a consumer of primary research not someone who conducts. I assimilate, assess and form judgements based on data provided by others.
That is one of the most tragic things I’ve read in the 2020s.
DYOR does actually mean Do Your Own Research You Bloody Vegetable.
I know it does. And of course you validate the work product of others. But the volume required and the nature of some of the research (not to mention toys beyond the budget of individuals) mean that it is necessary to rely on trusted partners for their input.
Good to see @RishiSunak & @vonderleyen speak so quickly. Also the new PM emphasising his preference for a negotiated solution over NI Protocol. Readout from @10DowningStreet below
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
If people are really keen to join the EU, is it really definite they would not pay that price?
I really don't understand the logic that says they should give up rule from London (which I think they would be right to do) and replace it with rule from Brussels.
Why does an independent Scotland need to tie itself to the EU? Join EFTA and the EEA and they get all the benefits with none of the drawbacks.
Well, the EU wouldn’t declare war on Scotland’s behalf or decide which Unions we could leave or remain in or decide how we utilise our resources. There would be the tyranny of collective standards on vacuum cleaners of course; that would be a cross which we would just have to bear.
OR the EU could summon Holyrood to submit its budget to the Bundestag FIRST, before it goes before Scottish MSPs, as happened to the Irish. Or the EU Commission could simply depose your elected leader and inflict someone of their choosing, as happened to Italy and Greece. That kinda shit
And Italy is a LOT bigger and more important than little ol Scotland
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
Don't think this is the killer fact people make it out to be. An independent Scotland won't continue to use sterling, so the choices are invented Scottish currency or an existing Euro.
I think independence will be very costly but the currency in of itself is not that huge an issue.
Current plan: 1) Continue to use GBP until 2) “Time is right” to set up own currency 3) Sturgeon says she doesn’t think € right for Scotland - EU says it must be.
Good to see @RishiSunak & @vonderleyen speak so quickly. Also the new PM emphasising his preference for a negotiated solution over NI Protocol. Readout from @10DowningStreet below
Look at this Daily Show riff on Kari Lake. Whether you like her or hate her this is desperately unfunny. Sadly unfunny. Aimed at 9 year olds. Everything is forced. It is low IQ and awful
Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert in their heyday would have ripped her apart, put her together again, then doubled down. This is pap
Though between the crap comedy you get a feel for her and one question: is she saying what she knows the GOP Cult needs to hear to win or has she had a midlife breakdown and believes every word of this conspiracy shit?
I went down a rabbit hole and saw videos of her ripping new arseholes in journalists. Her star power was obvious way back then
She is brilliant at what she does, because she is a veteran and clever TV journo
She may self combust, quite easily. I don't think she really is a Trumpite, she sees it as a necessary route to power in the GOP as it stands. I suspect she is quite liberal but also militantly patriotic and quite serious about the border army stuff. These contradictions could destroy her
But it now looks like she will win the Arizona Governor race and then a path to a Veep status becomes clear and then the POTUS opens up. Her age might tell against her, but then Americans don't seem to mind age
With FPTP we end up with two main parties that are in reality coalitions. Is that better that PR where you tend to end up with actual coalitions? I’m probably not the only one who thinks the 2010-2015 government was one of the best in recent decades. Tories moderated to some extent by Lib Dems.
the 2010 to 2015 government was a pile of steaming shite and if i could have withdrawn my vote from them I would have.
PR = vote for us then we will tell you what we plan to do FPTP isnt perfect but at least they have to tell us first what they are voting for
2010 to 2015 I voted for the shit shower...if I had known up front the manifesto would have voted for just about anyone else or abstained
Look at this Daily Show riff on Kari Lake. Whether you like her or hate her this is desperately unfunny. Sadly unfunny. Aimed at 9 year olds. Everything is forced. It is low IQ and awful
Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert in their heyday would have ripped her apart, put her together again, then doubled down. This is pap
Though between the crap comedy you get a feel for her and one question: is she saying what she knows the GOP Cult needs to hear to win or has she had a midlife breakdown and believes every word of this conspiracy shit?
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
I went down a rabbit hole and saw videos of her ripping new arseholes in journalists. Her star power was obvious way back then
She is brilliant at what she does, because she is a veteran and clever TV journo
She may self combust, quite easily. I don't think she really is a Trumpite, she sees it as a necessary route to power in the GOP as it stands. I suspect she is quite liberal but also militantly patriotic and quite serious about the border army stuff. These contradictions could destroy her
But it now looks like she will win the Arizona Governor race and then a path to a Veep status becomes clear and then the POTUS opens up. Her age might tell against her, but then Americans don't seem to mind age
Her age? She's 53.
Far too young to be POTUS. Come back in a generation.
Mail and Express suspicious of Ten Thousand Men from Albania claiming asylum after coming across the Chanel illegally.
The Telegraph puts fun in Fungal asking New Disease X?
the Star tells us about Zombie Pigeons. Sad it is.
Murdochs Times who clearly hated Truss likes Rishi so much they have turned over their front page to Conservative HQ to make into an election leaflet
the 👁 has triple lock safe, defence spending cut and asks “does Rishi have a women problem?” (Where is this actually coming from, is it built from any actual fact?)
With FPTP we end up with two main parties that are in reality coalitions. Is that better that PR where you tend to end up with actual coalitions? I’m probably not the only one who thinks the 2010-2015 government was one of the best in recent decades. Tories moderated to some extent by Lib Dems.
the 2010 to 2015 government was a pile of steaming shite and if i could have withdrawn my vote from them I would have.
PR = vote for us then we will tell you what we plan to do FPTP isnt perfect but at least they have to tell us first what they are voting for
2010 to 2015 I voted for the shit shower...if I had known up front the manifesto would have voted for just about anyone else or abstained
And yet you don't even vote at all any more under FPTP, if I remember correctly?
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
Is this being presented as news? A commitment to join the Euro when appropriate is a condition of membership. Two existing EU members - Denmark and the UK - secured opt outs (the UK's now moot) but new members must sign up.
I went down a rabbit hole and saw videos of her ripping new arseholes in journalists. Her star power was obvious way back then
She is brilliant at what she does, because she is a veteran and clever TV journo
She may self combust, quite easily. I don't think she really is a Trumpite, she sees it as a necessary route to power in the GOP as it stands. I suspect she is quite liberal but also militantly patriotic and quite serious about the border army stuff. These contradictions could destroy her
But it now looks like she will win the Arizona Governor race and then a path to a Veep status becomes clear and then the POTUS opens up. Her age might tell against her, but then Americans don't seem to mind age
Her age? She's 53.
Far too young to be POTUS. Come back in a generation.
I guess what I mean is: she relies for her appeal, in part, on being obviously attractive
If that fades she might fade too? But that might just be the lecherous male in me, talking. It happens
Anyway she has the charisma and now it seems she has the campaigning chops. Who knows how far she could go
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
With FPTP we end up with two main parties that are in reality coalitions. Is that better that PR where you tend to end up with actual coalitions? I’m probably not the only one who thinks the 2010-2015 government was one of the best in recent decades. Tories moderated to some extent by Lib Dems.
the 2010 to 2015 government was a pile of steaming shite and if i could have withdrawn my vote from them I would have.
PR = vote for us then we will tell you what we plan to do FPTP isnt perfect but at least they have to tell us first what they are voting for
2010 to 2015 I voted for the shit shower...if I had known up front the manifesto would have voted for just about anyone else or abstained
And yet you don't even vote at all any more under FPTP, if I remember correctly?
Because in my old constituency I could only vote labour, lib dem and conservative. I wouldnt piss on any of them if they are on fire as they are all idiots
I gave Suella Braverman her job back after seeing this interview and being reminded of her razor sharp intellect and ability to remain cool and effective under pressure. #Reshuffle
I went down a rabbit hole and saw videos of her ripping new arseholes in journalists. Her star power was obvious way back then
She is brilliant at what she does, because she is a veteran and clever TV journo
She may self combust, quite easily. I don't think she really is a Trumpite, she sees it as a necessary route to power in the GOP as it stands. I suspect she is quite liberal but also militantly patriotic and quite serious about the border army stuff. These contradictions could destroy her
But it now looks like she will win the Arizona Governor race and then a path to a Veep status becomes clear and then the POTUS opens up. Her age might tell against her, but then Americans don't seem to mind age
Her age? She's 53.
Far too young to be POTUS. Come back in a generation.
I guess what I mean is: she relies for her appeal, in part, on being obviously attractive
If that fades she might fade too? But that might just be the lecherous male in me, talking. It happens
Anyway she has the charisma and now it seems she has the campaigning chops. Who knows how far she could go
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
The manifesto is a statement of principles, but when nobody has a majority, it is natural that nobody can implement 100% of their commitments. Instead they negotiate and publish a coalition agreement based on their principles. The manifesto as contract is more a concept for majority governments.
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Who decides if they are governing close to the views of the median voter? Who even knows what the views of the median voter are? You certainly couldn't say what the views of the median voter are in this country.
Besides, the median is a single point. And it is a point that is continually changing. By definition most people are varying degrees of distance away from the median.
What you are basically saying is that any German government decides what it wants to do and then crafts a message to make that appear to be the compatible with the views of a certain portion of the German electorate.
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
The manifesto is a statement of principles, but when nobody has a majority, it is natural that nobody can implement 100% of their commitments. Instead they negotiate and publish a coalition agreement based on their principles. The manifesto as contract is more a concept for majority governments.
Which is precisely what I said...I give you a vote then you decide what the manifesto is. If I dont like it tough, if I would never have voted for you if I knew what you would negotiate away tough. You count my vote as a mandate to do things I never wanted.
A gender identity clinic’ branded “Sturgeon’s Tavistock” has been offering patients irreversible sex-change treatments despite senior clinicians admitting that its methods are not backed by “robust evidence”, a leaked recording showed.
The Sandyford Clinic in Glasgow, home to Scotland’s only gender identity clinic for children, also authorised hormone treatment and referrals for surgical procedures for its patients after apparently rudimentary mental health assessments, according to unguarded comments by a senior clinician.
A consultant clinical psychologist at Sandyford openly admitted at an online NHS event in June that there were huge gaps in evidence around trans healthcare and claimed that work was ongoing to find “a robust evidence base for the treatment that we offer”.
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
The manifesto is a statement of principles, but when nobody has a majority, it is natural that nobody can implement 100% of their commitments. Instead they negotiate and publish a coalition agreement based on their principles. The manifesto as contract is more a concept for majority governments.
And that is the problem with coalitions. They allow the parties to decide what they think is best, even when it contradicts what they promised to get elected and then they blame the need to produce a stable coalition as justification for breaking those promises.
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
If people are really keen to join the EU, is it really definite they would not pay that price?
I really don't understand the logic that says they should give up rule from London (which I think they would be right to do) and replace it with rule from Brussels.
Why does an independent Scotland need to tie itself to the EU? Join EFTA and the EEA and they get all the benefits with none of the drawbacks.
Well, the EU wouldn’t declare war on Scotland’s behalf or decide which Unions we could leave or remain in or decide how we utilise our resources. There would be the tyranny of collective standards on vacuum cleaners of course; that would be a cross which we would just have to bear.
OR the EU could summon Holyrood to submit its budget to the Bundestag FIRST, before it goes before Scottish MSPs, as happened to the Irish. Or the EU Commission could simply depose your elected leader and inflict someone of their choosing, as happened to Italy and Greece. That kinda shit
And Italy is a LOT bigger and more important than little ol Scotland
You say that as if a UK PM hadn't just been deposed by the bond markets.
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
The manifesto is a statement of principles, but when nobody has a majority, it is natural that nobody can implement 100% of their commitments. Instead they negotiate and publish a coalition agreement based on their principles. The manifesto as contract is more a concept for majority governments.
And that is the problem with coalitions. They allow the parties to decide what they think is best, even when it contradicts what they promised to get elected and then they blame the need to produce a stable coalition as justification for breaking those promises.
That's one of the problems with coalitions, anyway. One of so, so many.
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
Is this being presented as news? A commitment to join the Euro when appropriate is a condition of membership. Two existing EU members - Denmark and the UK - secured opt outs (the UK's now moot) but new members must sign up.
Also yet another nail in the coffin for UK Rejoin, I fear.
🔺EXC: An independent Scotland will be denied entry to the EU unless Nicola Sturgeon commits to joining the euro, senior figures in Brussels have insisted
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
Don't think this is the killer fact people make it out to be. An independent Scotland won't continue to use sterling, so the choices are invented Scottish currency or an existing Euro.
I think independence will be very costly but the currency in of itself is not that huge an issue.
Current plan: 1) Continue to use GBP until 2) “Time is right” to set up own currency 3) Sturgeon says she doesn’t think € right for Scotland - EU says it must be.
The Irish used Sterling from 1922 to 1928 then the Irish pound was pegged 1:1 to sterling for fifty years from 1928 to 1978.
So, "own currency" doesn't necessarily mean floating.
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
The manifesto is a statement of principles, but when nobody has a majority, it is natural that nobody can implement 100% of their commitments. Instead they negotiate and publish a coalition agreement based on their principles. The manifesto as contract is more a concept for majority governments.
And that is the problem with coalitions. They allow the parties to decide what they think is best, even when it contradicts what they promised to get elected and then they blame the need to produce a stable coalition as justification for breaking those promises.
That's one of the problems with coalitions, anyway. One of so, so many.
All politics is coalitions. Except for my solution - FPTP and PR in one. One Man, One Vote.
Foxy said: "I don't think that is true. In countries with PR coalitions are often non contiguous, as left to right is only one dimension of politics."
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
There are loads of mature democracies with PR - are they mostly bad at having governments that govern close to the views of the median voter?
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Germany have governments that fulfil less of their manifesto commitments even commented on by the guardian
The manifesto is a statement of principles, but when nobody has a majority, it is natural that nobody can implement 100% of their commitments. Instead they negotiate and publish a coalition agreement based on their principles. The manifesto as contract is more a concept for majority governments.
Which is precisely what I said...I give you a vote then you decide what the manifesto is. If I dont like it tough, if I would never have voted for you if I knew what you would negotiate away tough. You count my vote as a mandate to do things I never wanted.
Give you an examply I am called jehosaphat...I like a lot of policies from party A. Under pr they go into coaliation with party b and one policy not dropped by party b as part of the negotiation is instant execution of all people called jehosaphat....suddeny I have given a mandate somehow for my own execution....no dont think I did. Politicians can fuck right off
Kamski said: "If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter."
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Germany use a mixed system for electing the Bundestag? And a minimum that excludes small parties from representation on the propotional vote.
I understand what you are saying, given the German tendency to form "grand" coalitions in recent years, but grand coalitions are unusual elsewhere when nations are not at war. It would be possible, in principle, to measure how close the UK and German governments in recent years have been to their median voters, but that is not a trivial problem -- and no one has offered to pay me a large sum to hire a research team to do it.
(The US had a touch of a "grand" coalition in WW II. FDR named Republicans to head both the Navy and War departments. This was before there was a unified Defense Department, of course.)
Analysis by the Resolution Foundation think tank said that the fortnight delay of the fiscal statement would save the Treasury between £10 billion and £15 billion. Ministers had been facing an estimated black hole in the Treasury’s finances of around £35 billion.
You all heard it here first this afternoon! A £20bn gap is not a huge deal. I wouldn't be surprised if it was smaller still with every prices falling.
Market confidence, something that is usually pretty difficult to measure in money terms, has saved us ~£40bn in spending cuts and tax rises per year vs where we were when Kwasi attempted to crash the economy.
Very good news.
I imagine Sunak/Hunt will want to use the current dynamics to build in some fiscal wriggle room. Slightly overcooking the tax rises / spending cuts now, gives them an election fighting fund if inflation moderates, the gilt market / economy settles and the recession is mild and short.
That’s their best chance for re-election.
Basically, I don’t think Hunt will be changing very much, compared to when he started his first draft. The reduction in the cost of long term borrowing and lower inflation is great, but he’ll be banking the difference rather than cancelling tax rises / spending cuts.
Kamski said: "If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter."
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Germany use a mixed system for electing the Bundestag? And a minimum that excludes small parties from representation on the propotional vote.
I understand what you are saying, given the German tendency to form "grand" coalitions in recent years, but grand coalitions are unusual elsewhere when nations are not at war. It would be possible, in principle, to measure how close the UK and German governments in recent years have been to their median voters, but that is not a trivial problem -- and no one has offered to pay me a large sum to hire a research team to do it.
(The US had a touch of a "grand" coalition in WW II. FDR named Republicans to head both the Navy and War departments. This was before there was a unified Defense Department, of course.)
Germany produced the fuckwit called merkel...enough said I dont think they can crow about their electoral system
Comments
Time to be honest. Say independence --> EU --> Euro. The Scots deserve that discussion. Is it really terminal to leaving the UK to adopt a new currency?
I'm not sure even Israel provides an example of "bouncing from one group of extremists to another".
Polling for The Times found that Sunak’s appointment had given the Tories a small bounce in the polls and that his personal ratings were within touching distance of those of Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour Party leader.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/british-baccalaureate-among-sunak-education-policy-reforms-3sjlsktz8
Who would impeach Trump if it puts such a nutter in the White House? Thinking ahead...
Make the English Lit grads learn to weld as well. And the welders need some poetry - Robert Frost, perhaps..
Back in 2017, I did the Metro and the main lines in and around Newcastle.
I have Arizona down as a bellwether...
The night sky in the Chilean high desert…. There’s a reason why the astronomers love it.
More like 5 years!
Assume there are five parties, from left to right, and that each party will only join "continuous" coalitions,so the Far Left party will join with the Left Party, and possibly the Moderates, but never with either the Right Party, or the Far Right Party.
In election one, we have the five parties each winning 20 percent of the vote:
20 20 20 20 20. A little bit of thought will show you that there are three possible minimal winning coalitions: (FL, L, M), (L, M, R), and (M, R, FR).
In election two, the results are as follows:
15, 20, 20, 20, 25. And the same three minimum winning coalitions are possible! In fact, it would be possible for negotiations to change the governing coalition from (M, R, FR) to (L, Fl, M), after the second election.
And it can get much worse when you have to think of more than one dimension, as you do in Israel, with the extreme religious parties having undue influence. Or where there is an "ethnic" party, as in Canada.
(And then there is the problem that negotiations in such systems are likely to take place behind closed doors, making it harder for voters to influence the outcome.)
November 6th is the next key date, the connections from Stratford to Whitechapel, and from Paddington (low level) to Acton will finally open to passengers after MONTHS of testing!
A clear message per four separate sources, crystallised by one: "No euro, no membership"
https://twitter.com/kieranpandrews/status/1585377295392735232
When you go to Arizona and see the social problems, you get the appeal of a Kari Lake
And how did voters influence the policy swerves of both Truss and now Sunak? All were sorted out without voters getting a say.
I tend to think that voting systems like STV, or open-list PR, give the voters more power, whereas voting systems like FPTP, or closed-list PR, give more power to the party leaderships.
I really think it's time this debate moved beyond some of the simplistic arguments against PR, because they only apply to some PR systems and not others. Is anyone advocating Israel's PR system for the UK?
Why does an independent Scotland need to tie itself to the EU? Join EFTA and the EEA and they get all the benefits with none of the drawbacks.
I can see her winning the prez in 2028. She has *it*
"Blake Masters is winning too. But, goodness, Kari Lake is a rockstar. She’s run a phenomenal campaign in Arizona."
https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1585369823223066624?s=20&t=SaQAepAU6IzjYXw14nVSjA
Cameron should have pushed associate membership to the limit, rather than settling for his farcical "renegotiation". Of course, the EU never believed we would Brexit. Nor did Cameron (or at least, the people briefing him). But we did - and now we have an interesting opportunity to make that proposal - on our terms.
Would the EU push us away a second time? An associate membership that is outside "the Project", outside the Euro, permitted to enter other trade groupings (notably CPTPP - but to which we act as a bridge for the EU). We have "Brexited" enough to have honoured the 2016 referendum. But an outer circle that was still broadly aligned in trade and standards.
It would shake things up for the next election if he could deliver that.
Of course, by then, folks will be thinking you were never serious about independence in the first place. It was just about job creation for the few....
Along with the invasion of Iraq for which as ChEx he was co-responsible with Tony Blair, not joining the euro is the other biggest point that should be held against Gordon Brown.
There comes a point when one can ask why on earth should all this sh*t from the past be allowed to continue to wreck the country's future. Rejoin the EU and join the f***ing euro like grownups. Persuade the population they'll like it when they get there, and if they don't they can f*** off and admire themselves in their Union Jack underpants with little pictures of Alf Garnett on. Surveys show that pro-Stayout nutters are 72.924% more likely than Rejoiners to be obese and have short life expectancy anyway. If Italy could join the euro...
Under multi member STV, I can vote for the party I choose and the member that I choose too.
I think independence will be very costly but the currency in of itself is not that huge an issue.
Look at this Daily Show riff on Kari Lake. Whether you like her or hate her this is desperately unfunny. Sadly unfunny. Aimed at 9 year olds. Everything is forced. It is low IQ and awful
Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert in their heyday would have ripped her apart, put her together again, then doubled down. This is pap
https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1585085050898579456?s=20&t=SaQAepAU6IzjYXw14nVSjA
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/10/26/rishi-sunak-reconsiders-tax-rises-budget-delay-saves-15-billion/
You all heard it here first this afternoon! A £20bn gap is not a huge deal. I wouldn't be surprised if it was smaller still with every prices falling.
Market confidence, something that is usually pretty difficult to measure in money terms, has saved us ~£40bn in spending cuts and tax rises per year vs where we were when Kwasi attempted to crash the economy.
Hat tip: me
I thought I said essentially that in my next-to-the-last paragraph.
But I will add these two general observations: Proportional representation is better if your top priority is to allow voters to express their opinions. FPTP (with two parties) is better if your top priority is governments that govern close to the views of the median voter. (And, if appropriate, median on more than one dimension.)
Having been unable to find a major party candidate I could vote for in our last two presidential elections, I can sympathize with those who put expressing themselves first, but think the second system is better for my nation. (Fortunately we can write in our choices here, so I expressed myself that way.)
1) Continue to use GBP until
2) “Time is right” to set up own currency
3) Sturgeon says she doesn’t think € right for Scotland - EU says it must be.
There would be the tyranny of collective standards on vacuum cleaners of course; that would be a cross which we would just have to bear.
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1585390175353729024
And Italy is a LOT bigger and more important than little ol Scotland
I never thought I’d see these days.
Women in Tehran and in other cities in Iran are increasingly walking without compulsory hijab.
They’re taking a risk, but freedom isn’t free. Many in Iranian society are ready to die for their freedom.
#MahsaAmini
https://twitter.com/vahid_y1/status/1584904587584102400
She is brilliant at what she does, because she is a veteran and clever TV journo
She may self combust, quite easily. I don't think she really is a Trumpite, she sees it as a necessary route to power in the GOP as it stands. I suspect she is quite liberal but also militantly patriotic and quite serious about the border army stuff. These contradictions could destroy her
But it now looks like she will win the Arizona Governor race and then a path to a Veep status becomes clear and then the POTUS opens up. Her age might tell against her, but then Americans don't seem to mind age
PR = vote for us then we will tell you what we plan to do
FPTP isnt perfect but at least they have to tell us first what they are voting for
2010 to 2015 I voted for the shit shower...if I had known up front the manifesto would have voted for just about anyone else or abstained
It is worse than not funny it is CRINGE
If I look at the examples FPTP and PR that I'm most familiar with (UK and Germany), my impression is Germany probably tends to have governments that govern closer to the views of the median voter.
Far too young to be POTUS. Come back in a generation.
Is Arizona's Kari Lake the most 'dangerous' politician in America?
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/is-arizonas-kari-lake-the-most-dangerous-politician-in-america-090045758.html
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/governor/arizona/ (With the recent polls.)
They currently give Lake a 61-39 percent advantage.
(They currently favor Mark Kelly 74-26 percent, in the Senate race.)
Mail and Express suspicious of Ten Thousand Men from Albania claiming asylum after coming across the Chanel illegally.
The Telegraph puts fun in Fungal asking New Disease X?
the Star tells us about Zombie Pigeons. Sad it is.
Murdochs Times who clearly hated Truss likes Rishi so much they have turned over their front page to Conservative HQ to make into an election leaflet
the 👁 has triple lock safe, defence spending cut and asks “does Rishi have a women problem?” (Where is this actually coming from, is it built from any actual fact?)
Wait, is this from Metro peak Rishi? 😁
If that fades she might fade too? But that might just be the lecherous male in me, talking. It happens
Anyway she has the charisma and now it seems she has the campaigning chops. Who knows how far she could go
The NYT and Time are suddenly alarmed
https://time.com/6225004/kari-lake-arizona-maga-right-interview/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/governor/2022/arizona/
Besides, the median is a single point. And it is a point that is continually changing. By definition most people are varying degrees of distance away from the median.
What you are basically saying is that any German government decides what it wants to do and then crafts a message to make that appear to be the compatible with the views of a certain portion of the German electorate.
The Sandyford Clinic in Glasgow, home to Scotland’s only gender identity clinic for children, also authorised hormone treatment and referrals for surgical procedures for its patients after apparently rudimentary mental health assessments, according to unguarded comments by a senior clinician.
A consultant clinical psychologist at Sandyford openly admitted at an online NHS event in June that there were huge gaps in evidence around trans healthcare and claimed that work was ongoing to find “a robust evidence base for the treatment that we offer”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/26/sturgeons-tavistock-clinic-offers-trans-children-surgery-not/
So, "own currency" doesn't necessarily mean floating.
I wonder what Sturgeon's timetable is?
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Germany use a mixed system for electing the Bundestag? And a minimum that excludes small parties from representation on the propotional vote.
I understand what you are saying, given the German tendency to form "grand" coalitions in recent years, but grand coalitions are unusual elsewhere when nations are not at war. It would be possible, in principle, to measure how close the UK and German governments in recent years have been to their median voters, but that is not a trivial problem -- and no one has offered to pay me a large sum to hire a research team to do it.
(The US had a touch of a "grand" coalition in WW II. FDR named Republicans to head both the Navy and War departments. This was before there was a unified Defense Department, of course.)
I imagine Sunak/Hunt will want to use the current dynamics to build in some fiscal wriggle room. Slightly overcooking the tax rises / spending cuts now, gives them an election fighting fund if inflation moderates, the gilt market / economy settles and the recession is mild and short.
That’s their best chance for re-election.
Basically, I don’t think Hunt will be changing very much, compared to when he started his first draft. The reduction in the cost of long term borrowing and lower inflation is great, but he’ll be banking the difference rather than cancelling tax rises / spending cuts.