Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Four CON MPs to become peers – but no by-elections – politicalbetting.com

2456

Comments

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,169

    Never a Senate.

    We're not the fucking Romans.

    Yes. I'm totally on board with massive and major reform of our second chamber, but completely missed to calling it a Senate.

    Wish someone would think of a different name for the Supreme Court that's would stick.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,992

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    No, not really.



    https://campaigncommonsense.com/resources/overestimating-demographics-new-ccs-poll-by-yougov/

    Those figures are significantly less absurd, though.
    And notably absent the clustering around 30%, which seems to characterise politically charged estimates in the US.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 3,018
    eristdoof said:

    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    Do most countries in the world have elected second chambers? According to Wikipedia most legislatures are unicameral.

    And according to this from Jan 2022:

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-are-the-members-of-upper-houses-chosen-around-the-world/

    Out of "all 82 countries classed by Freedom House as Free Democracies"
    15 have directly elected upper houses (eg US or Italy)
    7 indirectly elected (eg France or Austria)
    12 appointed (eg UK or Germany)
    48 unicameral (New Zealand or Finland)
    The upper house in Germany is not appointed.
    The Budesrat consists of members/ministers from the states, which have been elected in the state elections. The people who are present at the sessions are usually representataives of the state governments, but that is mainly for practical reasons, and they are still politically aligned to make up of state government. It should definately be in the indirectly elected category.
    The Bundesrat IS appointed - by state governments, (they are in fact delegations of the state governments). Similarly (kind of), the UK upper house is appointed by the elected UK government, we don't usually put the UK in the indirectly elected category. The Bundesrat is perhaps a bit of a special case (but probably all upper houses should be looked at on a case-by-case basis).

    Decent overview in English here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Bundesrat
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,164
    🕷️ One theory behind Gavin Williamson's yet-to-be-defined Cabinet job in this morning's Playbook.

    Critics say the appointment of chief whip has been messed up again: https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1589898909337649152/photo/1
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,522
    Sandpit said:

    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    Do most countries in the world have elected second chambers? According to Wikipedia most legislatures are unicameral.

    And according to this from Jan 2022:

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-are-the-members-of-upper-houses-chosen-around-the-world/

    Out of "all 82 countries classed by Freedom House as Free Democracies"
    15 have directly elected upper houses (eg US or Italy)
    7 indirectly elected (eg France or Austria)
    12 appointed (eg UK or Germany)
    48 unicameral (New Zealand or Finland)
    How many of the unicameral legislators have an elected President or Head of State, with the genuine (as opposed to theoretical) option to veto legislation? That can act as a check on poor legislation, as the President’s office can send poor legislation back for re-consideration.

    As always with the debate about the Lords, the starting point has to be the question of what the Lords is *for*. Once we’ve decided what it’s for, we can discuss how it should be formed.
    New Zealand doesn't.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,735
    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    Do most countries in the world have elected second chambers? According to Wikipedia most legislatures are unicameral.

    And according to this from Jan 2022:

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-are-the-members-of-upper-houses-chosen-around-the-world/

    Out of "all 82 countries classed by Freedom House as Free Democracies"
    15 have directly elected upper houses (eg US or Italy)
    7 indirectly elected (eg France or Austria)
    12 appointed (eg UK or Germany)
    48 unicameral (New Zealand or Finland)
    It seems to me that a number of options are available, but that the one to avoid like then plague are those where there is more than one parliamentary body with the power of veto.

    At the moment the HoC cannot, in the end, be vetoed by the HoL, nor can the HoL do anything without the HoC. the USA is about to be paralysed by this problem of having more than one elected chamber.

    There are two sorts of political attitudes in this way: The Napoleonic tendency, who ask what would be best and try to enact it as if we are at Year Nought - usually a single chamber. And Burkeans (I am one) who believe we inherit and develop from the past.

    Compared with the HoC the HoL is a collection of geniuses so stellar that even Dorries won't destroy it. What wouldn't we give for a legislating chamber with David Pannick, Peter Hennessy and Robert Winston in it.........

  • kamskikamski Posts: 3,018
    Sandpit said:

    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    Do most countries in the world have elected second chambers? According to Wikipedia most legislatures are unicameral.

    And according to this from Jan 2022:

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-are-the-members-of-upper-houses-chosen-around-the-world/

    Out of "all 82 countries classed by Freedom House as Free Democracies"
    15 have directly elected upper houses (eg US or Italy)
    7 indirectly elected (eg France or Austria)
    12 appointed (eg UK or Germany)
    48 unicameral (New Zealand or Finland)
    How many of the unicameral legislators have an elected President or Head of State, with the genuine (as opposed to theoretical) option to veto legislation? That can act as a check on poor legislation, as the President’s office can send poor legislation back for re-consideration.

    As always with the debate about the Lords, the starting point has to be the question of what the Lords is *for*. Once we’ve decided what it’s for, we can discuss how it should be formed.
    I don't know the answer to the first question, but looking at the list of unicameral countries on the electoral reform link, most of the ones I am familiar with have a mostly ceremonial head of state who isn't generally sending legislation back.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    kamski said:

    eristdoof said:

    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    Do most countries in the world have elected second chambers? According to Wikipedia most legislatures are unicameral.

    And according to this from Jan 2022:

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-are-the-members-of-upper-houses-chosen-around-the-world/

    Out of "all 82 countries classed by Freedom House as Free Democracies"
    15 have directly elected upper houses (eg US or Italy)
    7 indirectly elected (eg France or Austria)
    12 appointed (eg UK or Germany)
    48 unicameral (New Zealand or Finland)
    The upper house in Germany is not appointed.
    The Budesrat consists of members/ministers from the states, which have been elected in the state elections. The people who are present at the sessions are usually representataives of the state governments, but that is mainly for practical reasons, and they are still politically aligned to make up of state government. It should definately be in the indirectly elected category.
    The Bundesrat IS appointed - by state governments, (they are in fact delegations of the state governments). Similarly (kind of), the UK upper house is appointed by the elected UK government, we don't usually put the UK in the indirectly elected category. The Bundesrat is perhaps a bit of a special case (but probably all upper houses should be looked at on a case-by-case basis).

    Decent overview in English here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Bundesrat
    The Bundesrat represents the state governments and its members are ultimately determined by the most recent state election in each state. With the Lords, most of the seats are appointed for life, so they represent, very indirectly, who was elected to the Commons going back decades. Plus there are still some hereditary peers and the Bishops. They are very different systems.

    The system that’s closest to ours is probably the Irish Senate, which is sort of, approximately, a codified version of the idea of the Lords.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,522

    Never a Senate.

    We're not the fucking Romans.

    Yes. I'm totally on board with massive and major reform of our second chamber, but completely missed to calling it a Senate.

    Wish someone would think of a different name for the Supreme Court that's would stick.
    How about:

    The Great Council of State for the second chamber;

    The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council* for the Blair Loves The Yanks Too Much Court.

    *interestingly, it is actually officially known as this in some Commonwealth countries which also use it as their highest court.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,169

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    "and they work just fine"

    Really?

    An elected HoL / second chamber would just give yet more power to political parties. I want political parties to have less power.

    As someone said the other week, the Irish system seems a reasonable model.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad_Éireann
    It’s an improvement on the Lords, I’ll give it that, but it’s also a system that gives disproportionate power to the middle classes. And, at present, it only has 10 independent members out of 60. Political parties have plenty of power still. ( Independents have 19 out of 160 seats in the Irish lower house anyway, and that’s under a popular vote using STV.)
    The Seanad really isn't a great example. Lots of TDs rejected by the voters end up in the Seanad. The Irish Dail is in many ways weaker than the Commons in relation to the Executive, and the Seanad is even weaker still compared to the House of Lords.

    Scrutiny of legislation is, in general, worse in Ireland than in Westminster. A first term TD has done a few podcasts on this, called, "Inside the Chamber with Holly Cairns TD" that are worth a listen if you want to compare the Irish legislative process with the British.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    Never heard of such a thing, but it'll be done every time now I suspect.
  • Jonathan said:

    @JosiasJessop Do we not need better, stronger, more grounded political parties? At the moment they’re vulnerable to manipulation and take over by intensely focused and unrepresentative minorities. Having a strong group of elder statesmen and stateswomen keep them grounded.

    No, we need exactly the opposite; weaker parties with less opportunity to threaten and bribe MPs. The less power the party system has over MPs, the harder it is for a small clique to take control and force others to do their bidding.
    Appointment to the Lords gives political parties a goody they can hand out to loyal supporters. Abolish that if you want to weaken parties.

    Introduce voting systems that allow for infra-party choice, be that STV (plenty of independents in Ireland) or something else.
    Agree on the Lords appointments but the only way changes to voting systems help is if they are non-PR. STV would be okay although AV would be better.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    ydoethur said:

    Never a Senate.

    We're not the fucking Romans.

    Yes. I'm totally on board with massive and major reform of our second chamber, but completely missed to calling it a Senate.

    Wish someone would think of a different name for the Supreme Court that's would stick.
    How about:

    The Great Council of State for the second chamber;

    The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council* for the Blair Loves The Yanks Too Much Court.

    *interestingly, it is actually officially known as this in some Commonwealth countries which also use it as their highest court.
    Mirroring the fact that the SC used to be the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords (in practice same bods on both).
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,612
    edited November 2022
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    No, not really.



    https://campaigncommonsense.com/resources/overestimating-demographics-new-ccs-poll-by-yougov/

    Those figures are significantly less absurd, though.
    And notably absent the clustering around 30%, which seems to characterise politically charged estimates in the US.
    The LGBT "actual" figures seem somewhat absurd. I assume that can be explained by older generations still being significantly not out. I think the proportion of all Brits identifying as gay, lesbian or bisexual is around 5% and the numbers among younger people significantly higher.

    On this one, far from implying a country of bigots it seems to suggest most Brits are not in denial over sexuality unlike the clowns who claim things like "homosexuality doesn't exist in Russia".
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,169
    ydoethur said:

    Never a Senate.

    We're not the fucking Romans.

    Yes. I'm totally on board with massive and major reform of our second chamber, but completely missed to calling it a Senate.

    Wish someone would think of a different name for the Supreme Court that's would stick.
    How about:

    The Great Council of State for the second chamber;

    The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council* for the Blair Loves The Yanks Too Much Court.

    *interestingly, it is actually officially known as this in some Commonwealth countries which also use it as their highest court.
    That's a decent suggestion. I was thinking of going down the Court of Star Chamber route - create a suitably evocative name for the place where they deliberate, and name the court after that.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,522
    Ishmael_Z said:

    ydoethur said:

    Never a Senate.

    We're not the fucking Romans.

    Yes. I'm totally on board with massive and major reform of our second chamber, but completely missed to calling it a Senate.

    Wish someone would think of a different name for the Supreme Court that's would stick.
    How about:

    The Great Council of State for the second chamber;

    The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council* for the Blair Loves The Yanks Too Much Court.

    *interestingly, it is actually officially known as this in some Commonwealth countries which also use it as their highest court.
    Mirroring the fact that the SC used to be the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords (in practice same bods on both).
    Yes.

    Also, until the Civil War the House of Lords sitting without the House of Commons was known as 'the Great Council of State'.

    The Privy Council was named in relation to it, as it was (originally!) much smaller and handled the day to day management of the country.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490

    It should become the norm for any MPs elevated to the peerage by a departing PM to wait until dissolution before taking their seats. The voters put them in for a full term. Why have the need for them to vote again foisted on them?

    I think it should be deferred a minimum of a full parliamentary term. Too often a peerage is an inducement to get someone to stand down or a compensation after losing a seat.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    algarkirk said:

    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    Do most countries in the world have elected second chambers? According to Wikipedia most legislatures are unicameral.

    And according to this from Jan 2022:

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-are-the-members-of-upper-houses-chosen-around-the-world/

    Out of "all 82 countries classed by Freedom House as Free Democracies"
    15 have directly elected upper houses (eg US or Italy)
    7 indirectly elected (eg France or Austria)
    12 appointed (eg UK or Germany)
    48 unicameral (New Zealand or Finland)
    It seems to me that a number of options are available, but that the one to avoid like then plague are those where there is more than one parliamentary body with the power of veto.

    At the moment the HoC cannot, in the end, be vetoed by the HoL, nor can the HoL do anything without the HoC. the USA is about to be paralysed by this problem of having more than one elected chamber.

    There are two sorts of political attitudes in this way: The Napoleonic tendency, who ask what would be best and try to enact it as if we are at Year Nought - usually a single chamber. And Burkeans (I am one) who believe we inherit and develop from the past.

    Compared with the HoC the HoL is a collection of geniuses so stellar that even Dorries won't destroy it. What wouldn't we give for a legislating chamber with David Pannick, Peter Hennessy and Robert Winston in it.........

    The House of Lords has 773 seats (one of the bigger second houses in the world) and you can come up with 3 names? If we pick the last of those, https://www.theyworkforyou.com/peer/13620/lord_winston suggests Winston is absent far more often than he is present.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,788
    I take a different view from the earlier consensus on the mid-terms.

    I am expecting Republican control of the Senate by 3-4 with Georgia still to come on a run off and a reasonably easy win in the House. I wish it were not so, I am deeply disappointed by the apparent indifference of Americans to the dreadfully stacked SC where there have been a series of terrible decisions with, no doubt, much to come. I am dismayed that American women in particular are not more angry about Dobbs and I am appalled that people who expressly promise to use the position they are running for to defeat democratic results get the time of day. But that is what we are seeing and the wave of revulsion is not apparent to me.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,164
    Wendy Morton has now referred this to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Service, @skynews confirms

    So a 2nd investigation into Williamson, as first reported in The Times https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1589879488556343296
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,522

    ydoethur said:

    Never a Senate.

    We're not the fucking Romans.

    Yes. I'm totally on board with massive and major reform of our second chamber, but completely missed to calling it a Senate.

    Wish someone would think of a different name for the Supreme Court that's would stick.
    How about:

    The Great Council of State for the second chamber;

    The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council* for the Blair Loves The Yanks Too Much Court.

    *interestingly, it is actually officially known as this in some Commonwealth countries which also use it as their highest court.
    That's a decent suggestion. I was thinking of going down the Court of Star Chamber route - create a suitably evocative name for the place where they deliberate, and name the court after that.
    You could also just call it the Court of the Law Lords. Which would describe what its members are, or at least, were.

    They currently meet in the Middlesex Guildhall. Not sure that's suitably evocative as a name though!
  • kamskikamski Posts: 3,018
    edited November 2022

    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    Do most countries in the world have elected second chambers? According to Wikipedia most legislatures are unicameral.

    And according to this from Jan 2022:

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-are-the-members-of-upper-houses-chosen-around-the-world/

    Out of "all 82 countries classed by Freedom House as Free Democracies"
    15 have directly elected upper houses (eg US or Italy)
    7 indirectly elected (eg France or Austria)
    12 appointed (eg UK or Germany)
    48 unicameral (New Zealand or Finland)
    If I have underestimated unicameralism, my apologies to the New Zealands of the world. The Wikipedia page I’m looking at says about half of the world’s legislatures are unicameral. It’s a difficult thing to count, because what counts? North Korea is listed as having a unicameral legislature, but North Korea clearly isn’t a democracy.

    Unicameral legislatures are commoner in the smaller countries of the world. So I will try to save some face by saying I meant most counties weighted by population!

    I would like to question the categorisations in the website you offer. The German second house is effectively indirectly elected. Representatives are appointed by state governments and state governments are elected. It’s nothing like the House of Lords.
    Yes the Bundesrat is nothing like the Lords, and technically isn't really an upper house at all. It has *appointed* delegates from the Bundesländer who are there to protect the interests of the Länder on legislation that affects the Länder.

    "Normally, a state delegation consists of the Minister President (called Governing Mayor in Berlin, President of the Senate in Bremen and First Mayor in Hamburg) and other cabinet ministers (called senators in Berlin, Bremen and Hamburg). The state cabinet may appoint as many delegates as the state has votes and they usually do (all other ministers/senators are usually appointed as deputy delegates), but may also send just a single delegate to exercise all of the state's votes. In any case, the state has to cast its votes en bloc, i.e., without vote splitting. If Members of the Bundesrat from the same state vote differently, the entire votes of the state are counted as abstention. A famous example of when this happened was in 2002, when in a very close vote on a new immigration law by the Schröder government then-Deputy Minister-President of Brandenburg Jörg Schönbohm (CDU) cast a no vote and then-State Minister Alwin Ziel (SPD) cast a yes vote.[6] As state elections are not coordinated across Germany and can occur at any time, the majority distributions in the Bundesrat can change after any such election."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Bundesrat

    edited to add: wouldn't the argument that it is indirectly elected because it is appointed by elected governments also apply to the UK?

    Anyway, the German system is pretty irrelevant to the UK, unless the UK wanted to adopt a federal system with regional parliaments etc
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,819
    Nobody interested in the boundary review?
    https://www.bcereviews.org.uk

    Shame they haven't got the old constituencies on there too.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    Jonathan said:

    @JosiasJessop Do we not need better, stronger, more grounded political parties? At the moment they’re vulnerable to manipulation and take over by intensely focused and unrepresentative minorities. Having a strong group of elder statesmen and stateswomen keep them grounded.

    No, we need exactly the opposite; weaker parties with less opportunity to threaten and bribe MPs. The less power the party system has over MPs, the harder it is for a small clique to take control and force others to do their bidding.
    Appointment to the Lords gives political parties a goody they can hand out to loyal supporters. Abolish that if you want to weaken parties.

    Introduce voting systems that allow for infra-party choice, be that STV (plenty of independents in Ireland) or something else.
    Agree on the Lords appointments but the only way changes to voting systems help is if they are non-PR. STV would be okay although AV would be better.
    AV doesn’t offer intra-party choice. It’s giving the voters the choice between candidates of the same party that achieves your desired aim of weaker parties.

    If you don’t want a more proportional system but you want weaker parties, you could have state-run primaries. The US has a very strong 2-party system, yet the parties have much less power than, say, UK parties do because they have a primary system. (I think there are other problems with primary systems, like a tendency to produce more extreme candidates, but I’m not the one wanting weaker parties.)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,976
    edited November 2022

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
    Insofar as any credence should be given to the great replacement theory, these numbers display what a pile of paranoid, self deceiving bullshit it is.
    Given how diversity, equity and inclusion policies look to overrepresent in MSM advertisements, commercials, serials and dramas, I'm not surprised.

    The demographic mix most often pushed (in the UK) would be akin to that in London/Birmingham/Manchester where the corporate HQs and media centres are, hence the overestimated national mix.
  • Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    No, not really.



    https://campaigncommonsense.com/resources/overestimating-demographics-new-ccs-poll-by-yougov/

    I blame TV. Every advert that shows a couple or family is now seemingly mixed race. I get that the advertisers are trying to represent the market but really - is this the only or indeed best way to do it? And then there is the shows like Bake Off, Sewing Bee, Woodworking etc. If there are 10 contestests there will be a guarateed quota of LGBTQ+, ethnic background etc etc (as the figures show, far in excess of reality (2% gay/lesbian does not mean every show has to have one.). So if you watch TV there is a normallisation of the high numbers in the survey that does not match reality.

    Note - I have no issue with anyones ethnicity, sexual orientation, choice of partner, but it is striking how different TV is from the real country.
    Yep, and it's done by design.

    It's the best way for professionals to give themselves cover and show how inclusive /anti-racist / anti-discrimination they are.

    Of course, it usually ends there.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,579

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    No, not really.



    https://campaigncommonsense.com/resources/overestimating-demographics-new-ccs-poll-by-yougov/

    Slightly misleading table to the extent that it uses both 0% (taxpayers earning more than £1M) and 'less than 1%' (Transgender and Jewish) for the same small but non-zero value. Differentiating in that way gives the impression on face value is that there are no taxpayers earning more than £1M which is clearly not the case.
    True, though the cynic in me wonders what percent earn >£1m and manage to avoid being taxpayers.
  • DavidL said:

    I take a different view from the earlier consensus on the mid-terms.

    I am expecting Republican control of the Senate by 3-4 with Georgia still to come on a run off and a reasonably easy win in the House. I wish it were not so, I am deeply disappointed by the apparent indifference of Americans to the dreadfully stacked SC where there have been a series of terrible decisions with, no doubt, much to come. I am dismayed that American women in particular are not more angry about Dobbs and I am appalled that people who expressly promise to use the position they are running for to defeat democratic results get the time of day. But that is what we are seeing and the wave of revulsion is not apparent to me.

    The US ceasing to be a functioning democracy is now more than likely, as is the US ceasing to be a reliable NATO partner or even, perhaps, a NATO member. I wish I thought the UK and other European countries were at least thinking about what the consequences of this might be. But it’s pretty clear they’re not.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    On topic, this is one area that I can't get too worked up about. Deferring the peerages until the General Election isn't great. But there are several worse examples of sleaze and corruption around at the moment.

    By-elections are fun and, as Mike Smithson has demonstrated, good betting opportunities.

    What I really want is a General Election. Time to reboot British politics.

    Deferring these peerages is neither sleaze nor corruption.
    Yes. It's a clear political wheeze, but the deferral is in actuality the non appointment of persons. That's not corrupt (it might be a bit sleazy in its goal to avoid some political cost right now).

    It may well be wrong, but not appointing people now is not a corrupt act. People may feel appointing cronies is corrupt, albeit one built into our system, but the deferral is not itself corrupt.

    I maintain resignation honours should not be a thing at all, or at the least not include peerage. A gong is meaningless, peerage are not.

    And I repeat MPs should not be able to go straight to the Lords. It would prevent grubby rewards to wait 5-10 years before they could be considered.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 3,018

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    No, not really.



    https://campaigncommonsense.com/resources/overestimating-demographics-new-ccs-poll-by-yougov/

    I blame TV. Every advert that shows a couple or family is now seemingly mixed race. I get that the advertisers are trying to represent the market but really - is this the only or indeed best way to do it? And then there is the shows like Bake Off, Sewing Bee, Woodworking etc. If there are 10 contestests there will be a guarateed quota of LGBTQ+, ethnic background etc etc (as the figures show, far in excess of reality (2% gay/lesbian does not mean every show has to have one.). So if you watch TV there is a normallisation of the high numbers in the survey that does not match reality.

    Note - I have no issue with anyones ethnicity, sexual orientation, choice of partner, but it is striking how different TV is from the real country.
    But does TV explain why people over-estimate how many left-handed people there are?
  • Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    No, not really.



    https://campaigncommonsense.com/resources/overestimating-demographics-new-ccs-poll-by-yougov/

    Slightly misleading table to the extent that it uses both 0% (taxpayers earning more than £1M) and 'less than 1%' (Transgender and Jewish) for the same small but non-zero value. Differentiating in that way gives the impression on face value is that there are no taxpayers earning more than £1M which is clearly not the case.
    It is vaguely interesting that errors are all towards the middle. High values have lower estimates; low values have higher estimates.
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    No, not really.



    https://campaigncommonsense.com/resources/overestimating-demographics-new-ccs-poll-by-yougov/

    Those figures are significantly less absurd, though.
    And notably absent the clustering around 30%, which seems to characterise politically charged estimates in the US.
    Given that the poll was done in 2022 but the "Actual %" statistics on ethnicity date from 2011, it will be interesting to see how much less absurd the estimates are when compared to the 2021 census figures.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,992
    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    No, not really.



    https://campaigncommonsense.com/resources/overestimating-demographics-new-ccs-poll-by-yougov/

    Those figures are significantly less absurd, though.
    And notably absent the clustering around 30%, which seems to characterise politically charged estimates in the US.
    The LGBT "actual" figures seem somewhat absurd. I assume that can be explained by older generations still being significantly not out. I think the proportion of all Brits identifying as gay, lesbian or bisexual is around 5% and the numbers among younger people significantly higher.

    On this one, far from implying a country of bigots it seems to suggest most Brits are not in denial over sexuality unlike the clowns who claim things like "homosexuality doesn't exist in Russia".
    There's a difference between demonstrably wrong and utterly daft, though.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,992
    "Japan has begun to consider relaxing export conditions on used Self-Defense Forces hardware to include tanks and missiles... It will also look into offering Asian countries such equipment free of charge to enhance defense cooperation."
    https://twitter.com/CollinSLKoh/status/1589890623896981504
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,074
    edited November 2022
    DavidL said:

    I take a different view from the earlier consensus on the mid-terms.

    I am expecting Republican control of the Senate by 3-4 with Georgia still to come on a run off and a reasonably easy win in the House. I wish it were not so, I am deeply disappointed by the apparent indifference of Americans to the dreadfully stacked SC where there have been a series of terrible decisions with, no doubt, much to come. I am dismayed that American women in particular are not more angry about Dobbs and I am appalled that people who expressly promise to use the position they are running for to defeat democratic results get the time of day. But that is what we are seeing and the wave of revulsion is not apparent to me.

    For that to happen the GOP would have to win Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Arizona which looks unlikely.

    However mid terms are normally low turnout and if religious pro life Republicans turn out most to get pro life state legislatures, governors and Congressmen then fair enough. The Vatican certainly will be happy if Dobbs does then begin to see a reversal of abortion law in the US, especially in the South and MidWest
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,492
    kamski said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    No, not really.



    https://campaigncommonsense.com/resources/overestimating-demographics-new-ccs-poll-by-yougov/

    I blame TV. Every advert that shows a couple or family is now seemingly mixed race. I get that the advertisers are trying to represent the market but really - is this the only or indeed best way to do it? And then there is the shows like Bake Off, Sewing Bee, Woodworking etc. If there are 10 contestests there will be a guarateed quota of LGBTQ+, ethnic background etc etc (as the figures show, far in excess of reality (2% gay/lesbian does not mean every show has to have one.). So if you watch TV there is a normallisation of the high numbers in the survey that does not match reality.

    Note - I have no issue with anyones ethnicity, sexual orientation, choice of partner, but it is striking how different TV is from the real country.
    But does TV explain why people over-estimate how many left-handed people there are?
    Yes - through sport. Most cricket teams have 2 or 3 that bat left-handed.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,164
    Williamson allegations since Sunday:

    - sent expletive-laden texts to chief whip, warning her: “there’s a price for everything”

    - told MoD official: “slit your throat” (h/t @PippaCrerar)

    - used MP’s private life as “tacit threat” (@Steven_Swinford)

    Becoming difficult for No10 https://twitter.com/gabriel_pogrund/status/1588945227511103489
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,074
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    Do most countries in the world have elected second chambers? According to Wikipedia most legislatures are unicameral.

    And according to this from Jan 2022:

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-are-the-members-of-upper-houses-chosen-around-the-world/

    Out of "all 82 countries classed by Freedom House as Free Democracies"
    15 have directly elected upper houses (eg US or Italy)
    7 indirectly elected (eg France or Austria)
    12 appointed (eg UK or Germany)
    48 unicameral (New Zealand or Finland)
    How many of the unicameral legislators have an elected President or Head of State, with the genuine (as opposed to theoretical) option to veto legislation? That can act as a check on poor legislation, as the President’s office can send poor legislation back for re-consideration.

    As always with the debate about the Lords, the starting point has to be the question of what the Lords is *for*. Once we’ve decided what it’s for, we can discuss how it should be formed.
    New Zealand doesn't.
    Nor does Israel.

    Personally I would keep the halve the current numbers in the Lords through retirements and no more appointmetts but keep the appointed and few hereditaries there and add an elected element too under PR
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,914
    The obvious reform for the House of Lords.

    100 members only, picked at random from the living descendants of the bastards of Charles II.

    This gives us quite a random selection of people, no political bias - at this distance in time, they are from all walks of life. Plus retain the hereditary link, for those who like that.

    The members would be given suitable titles. As they progress up the tree of seniority, the titles would get shorter and simpler.

    1) Right honourable and most noble bastard
    2) Right and most noble bastard
    3) Right bastard
    4) Bastard
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
    Insofar as any credence should be given to the great replacement theory, these numbers display what a pile of paranoid, self deceiving bullshit it is.
    Given how diversity, equity and inclusion policies look to overrepresent in MSM advertisements, commercials, serials and dramas, I'm not surprised.

    The demographic mix most often pushed (in the UK) would be akin to that in London/Birmingham/Manchester where the corporate HQs and media centres are, hence the overestimated national mix.
    Tbh the colour of families in Sainsbury’s ads isn’t even in my top 1000 things to care about, but I accept it seems to trigger some folk.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,169
    Sandpit said:

    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    Do most countries in the world have elected second chambers? According to Wikipedia most legislatures are unicameral.

    And according to this from Jan 2022:

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-are-the-members-of-upper-houses-chosen-around-the-world/

    Out of "all 82 countries classed by Freedom House as Free Democracies"
    15 have directly elected upper houses (eg US or Italy)
    7 indirectly elected (eg France or Austria)
    12 appointed (eg UK or Germany)
    48 unicameral (New Zealand or Finland)
    How many of the unicameral legislators have an elected President or Head of State, with the genuine (as opposed to theoretical) option to veto legislation? That can act as a check on poor legislation, as the President’s office can send poor legislation back for re-consideration.

    As always with the debate about the Lords, the starting point has to be the question of what the Lords is *for*. Once we’ve decided what it’s for, we can discuss how it should be formed.
    Originally the separation between House of Lords and House of Commons was to make explicit the different interests of different groups within society - broadly merchants in the towns in the Commons and landowners in the country in the Lords, though of course it was never that simple, and most of the Commons were landowners on a smaller scale.

    So we could consider whether there are contemporary divisions in society that are worth putting on an explicit institutional footing in order to help the institutions resolve the differences between those interest groups in the open.

    The obvious divide is the one between young and old that has become so strong in our electorate. If young and old elected representatives to different chambers then any government would need to appeal to both demographics to pass legislation, rather than be able to use extreme support with one group to override opposition in the other.

    Arguably you could refine this slightly and say that the divide was between those who are net contributors to the Exchequer, and those who are not. Or you might choose a different societal dividing line.

    Such a division doesn't have to be forever. At some point in the future we might decide to change it to a different divide - Houses of Graduates/non-Graduates, Houses of Men/Women - whatever we think is most useful at that time.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,522

    The obvious reform for the House of Lords.

    100 members only, picked at random from the living descendants of the bastards of Charles II.

    This gives us quite a random selection of people, no political bias - at this distance in time, they are from all walks of life. Plus retain the hereditary link, for those who like that.

    The members would be given suitable titles. As they progress up the tree of seniority, the titles would get shorter and simpler.

    1) Right honourable and most noble bastard
    2) Right and most noble bastard
    3) Right bastard
    4) Bastard

    Second one isn't appropriate. They aren't right or honourable. You'll just have to make them 'most noble bastards.'
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,074

    ydoethur said:

    Never a Senate.

    We're not the fucking Romans.

    Indeed. We have the bishops, who were the celibate ones.
    I think only ourselves and Iran are the only countries which have unelected clergy in our legislatures.

    Stellar company!

    (Honourable mention to Vatican City.)
    So what, less than 5% of the Lords are Bishops despite the Church of England being the established church.

    Of course we could return to the House of Lords as it originally was ie just Bishops and hereditary peers, so it is not diluted by appointments often for political favours and leave the elected commoners to the House of Commons as used to be the case
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
    Insofar as any credence should be given to the great replacement theory, these numbers display what a pile of paranoid, self deceiving bullshit it is.
    Given how diversity, equity and inclusion policies look to overrepresent in MSM advertisements, commercials, serials and dramas, I'm not surprised.

    The demographic mix most often pushed (in the UK) would be akin to that in London/Birmingham/Manchester where the corporate HQs and media centres are, hence the overestimated national mix.
    Tbh the colour of families in Sainsbury’s ads isn’t even in my top 1000 things to care about, but I accept it seems to trigger some folk.
    It's not about triggering people, although I think some think it's a bit desperate, it's about accounting for why the wider population overestimate the number of minorities.

    This is a reason.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,735
    ydoethur said:

    Never a Senate.

    We're not the fucking Romans.

    Yes. I'm totally on board with massive and major reform of our second chamber, but completely missed to calling it a Senate.

    Wish someone would think of a different name for the Supreme Court that's would stick.
    How about:

    The Great Council of State for the second chamber;

    The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council* for the Blair Loves The Yanks Too Much Court.

    *interestingly, it is actually officially known as this in some Commonwealth countries which also use it as their highest court.
    And their judgements, which vary in how absorbing they are, can be read here:

    https://www.bailii.org/recent-decisions.html#uk/cases/UKPC





  • Here's evidence that many Americans like divided government:

    According to Morning Consult, 4 of the 10 most popular governors head states where they face legislatures controlled by the opposing party: Charlie Baker (R, Massachusetts), Phil Scott (R, Vermont), Larry Hogan (R, Maryland), and Andy Bashear (D, Kentucky).

    (Of the 10 most popular governors, 9 are Republicans: https://morningconsult.com/2022/10/11/whitmers-approval-ticks-up-in-michigan-ahead-of-midterms/ The least popular, by far, is Kate Brown (D, Oregon).)

    Looking at the approval ratings only two governors have net negatives.

    With many having huge positive approval even when in a politically hostile state.

    So why are governors so popular especially compared with congressional politicians ?

    And why have congressional politicians been so much more successful than governors in recent Presidential primaries ?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,914
    ydoethur said:

    The obvious reform for the House of Lords.

    100 members only, picked at random from the living descendants of the bastards of Charles II.

    This gives us quite a random selection of people, no political bias - at this distance in time, they are from all walks of life. Plus retain the hereditary link, for those who like that.

    The members would be given suitable titles. As they progress up the tree of seniority, the titles would get shorter and simpler.

    1) Right honourable and most noble bastard
    2) Right and most noble bastard
    3) Right bastard
    4) Bastard

    Second one isn't appropriate. They aren't right or honourable. You'll just have to make them 'most noble bastards.'
    Anyone who has Right or Honourable in a given title..... isn't.

    It's a bit like claiming that you're 'ard or cool. The very act of doing so negates the claim.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433
    kle4 said:

    It should become the norm for any MPs elevated to the peerage by a departing PM to wait until dissolution before taking their seats. The voters put them in for a full term. Why have the need for them to vote again foisted on them?

    I think it should be deferred a minimum of a full parliamentary term. Too often a peerage is an inducement to get someone to stand down or a compensation after losing a seat.
    Yes, five years minimum between departing the Commons and joining the Lords. There’s very few examples of an MP whose expertise is that urgent to get in the Lords. For that very rare case, they can be employed as a ministerial SpAd.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,522

    Here's evidence that many Americans like divided government:

    According to Morning Consult, 4 of the 10 most popular governors head states where they face legislatures controlled by the opposing party: Charlie Baker (R, Massachusetts), Phil Scott (R, Vermont), Larry Hogan (R, Maryland), and Andy Bashear (D, Kentucky).

    (Of the 10 most popular governors, 9 are Republicans: https://morningconsult.com/2022/10/11/whitmers-approval-ticks-up-in-michigan-ahead-of-midterms/ The least popular, by far, is Kate Brown (D, Oregon).)

    Looking at the approval ratings only two governors have net negatives.

    With many having huge positive approval even when in a politically hostile state.

    So why are governors so popular especially compared with congressional politicians ?

    And why have congressional politicians been so much more successful than governors in recent Presidential primaries ?
    Possibly governors just don't bother to run?

    That said, it is slightly unusual for governors to go straight to the presidency. Most of them seem to have some sort of national role in between if only to raise their profile.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,522
    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    It should become the norm for any MPs elevated to the peerage by a departing PM to wait until dissolution before taking their seats. The voters put them in for a full term. Why have the need for them to vote again foisted on them?

    I think it should be deferred a minimum of a full parliamentary term. Too often a peerage is an inducement to get someone to stand down or a compensation after losing a seat.
    Yes, five years minimum between departing the Commons and joining the Lords. There’s very few examples of an MP whose expertise is that urgent to get in the Lords. For that very rare case, they can be employed as a ministerial SpAd.
    If they've got expertise in a relevant area, surely they're automatically ruled out of being SpAds?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,926
    edited November 2022

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    No, not really.



    https://campaigncommonsense.com/resources/overestimating-demographics-new-ccs-poll-by-yougov/

    I blame TV. Every advert that shows a couple or family is now seemingly mixed race. I get that the advertisers are trying to represent the market but really - is this the only or indeed best way to do it? And then there is the shows like Bake Off, Sewing Bee, Woodworking etc. If there are 10 contestests there will be a guarateed quota of LGBTQ+, ethnic background etc etc (as the figures show, far in excess of reality (2% gay/lesbian does not mean every show has to have one.). So if you watch TV there is a normallisation of the high numbers in the survey that does not match reality.

    Note - I have no issue with anyones ethnicity, sexual orientation, choice of partner, but it is striking how different TV is from the real country.
    It is not that television is different from the real country, rather that the real country is extremely heterogenous. Birds of a feather really do flock together. As I pass the local schools on the way to the fish and chip shop, I can see primary school pupils are mostly Asian, and most of the White pupils are from Eastern Europe. Oddly, Black pupils are more common at the secondary school. Most teachers are White.

    So for someone round here, television shows the country as more White than that viewer's lived experience. For someone from Liverpool or Scotland or rural England, television is more ethnically mixed than is reality.

    You could do the same with politics, where election results show that parties' supporters tend to cluster in certain constituencies.

    Thanks to the web, it is not just real geography that shows this. Virtual worlds even more so. There are not many socialists on ConHome, for instance. Twitter timelines, Facebook walls, even search results are tilted to how you have interacted in the past.

    Overall, the table shows pretty much what you would expect from the above. More importantly, its "real" values are fake, for some values of "real".
  • Jonathan said:

    @JosiasJessop Do we not need better, stronger, more grounded political parties? At the moment they’re vulnerable to manipulation and take over by intensely focused and unrepresentative minorities. Having a strong group of elder statesmen and stateswomen keep them grounded.

    No, we need exactly the opposite; weaker parties with less opportunity to threaten and bribe MPs. The less power the party system has over MPs, the harder it is for a small clique to take control and force others to do their bidding.
    Appointment to the Lords gives political parties a goody they can hand out to loyal supporters. Abolish that if you want to weaken parties.

    Introduce voting systems that allow for infra-party choice, be that STV (plenty of independents in Ireland) or something else.
    Agree on the Lords appointments but the only way changes to voting systems help is if they are non-PR. STV would be okay although AV would be better.
    AV doesn’t offer intra-party choice. It’s giving the voters the choice between candidates of the same party that achieves your desired aim of weaker parties.

    If you don’t want a more proportional system but you want weaker parties, you could have state-run primaries. The US has a very strong 2-party system, yet the parties have much less power than, say, UK parties do because they have a primary system. (I think there are other problems with primary systems, like a tendency to produce more extreme candidates, but I’m not the one wanting weaker parties.)
    I agree with you on your first point as long as there is no way for parties to claim the result was a vote for the party rather than the MP.

    Not really considered the Primary system before. That is interesting.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,248
    No conspiracy - People are just bad at maths.
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
    Would be interesting to know what answers each individual demographic gave.

    Do people overestimate 'people like us' or 'people like them'.

    Given that Dem voting demographics are massively overestimated it would be especially interesting to know the answers from 'the election was stolen, Biden could not have got 80m votes, believers were.
  • EPG said:

    No conspiracy - People are just bad at maths.

    What percentage of people are bad at maths? :wink:
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,169

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    No, not really.



    https://campaigncommonsense.com/resources/overestimating-demographics-new-ccs-poll-by-yougov/

    I blame TV. Every advert that shows a couple or family is now seemingly mixed race. I get that the advertisers are trying to represent the market but really - is this the only or indeed best way to do it? And then there is the shows like Bake Off, Sewing Bee, Woodworking etc. If there are 10 contestests there will be a guarateed quota of LGBTQ+, ethnic background etc etc (as the figures show, far in excess of reality (2% gay/lesbian does not mean every show has to have one.). So if you watch TV there is a normallisation of the high numbers in the survey that does not match reality.

    Note - I have no issue with anyones ethnicity, sexual orientation, choice of partner, but it is striking how different TV is from the real country.
    It is not that television is different from the real country, rather that the real country is extremely heterogenous. Birds of a feather really do flock together. As I pass the local schools on the way to the fish and chip shop, I can see primary school pupils are mostly Asian, and most of the White pupils are from Eastern Europe. Oddly, Black pupils are more common at the secondary school. Most teachers are White.

    So for someone round here, television shows the country as more White than that viewer's lived experience. For someone from Liverpool or Scotland or rural England, television is more ethnically mixed than is reality.

    You could do the same with politics, where election results show that parties' supporters tend to cluster in certain constituencies.

    Thanks to the web, it is not just real geography that shows this. Virtual worlds even more so. There are not many socialists on ConHome, for instance. Twitter timelines, Facebook walls, even search results are tilted to how you have interacted in the past.

    Overall, the table shows pretty much what you would expect from the above. More importantly, its "real" values are fake, for some values of "real".
    Yes. How many people actually live in an area with the average demographic mix? As you add more variables then the number of areas that would be average on all of them will tend to zero.

    This is part of the nature of averages.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    I see the wacko shadowy Restore Trust group utterly failed.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897
    Heathener said:

    On topic, this is one area that I can't get too worked up about. Deferring the peerages until the General Election isn't great. But there are several worse examples of sleaze and corruption around at the moment.

    There are - eg the young aides he's "ennobled". Boris Johnson leaves as he arrived and spent all points in between. Taking The Piss.
  • DavidL said:

    I take a different view from the earlier consensus on the mid-terms.

    I am expecting Republican control of the Senate by 3-4 with Georgia still to come on a run off and a reasonably easy win in the House. I wish it were not so, I am deeply disappointed by the apparent indifference of Americans to the dreadfully stacked SC where there have been a series of terrible decisions with, no doubt, much to come. I am dismayed that American women in particular are not more angry about Dobbs and I am appalled that people who expressly promise to use the position they are running for to defeat democratic results get the time of day. But that is what we are seeing and the wave of revulsion is not apparent to me.

    Surprised by that comment David - a conservative SC and a Dem President seems to me one of the better options.

    And Dobbs gives the abortion decisions to the electorate, as in the rest of the western world.
  • Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    No, not really.



    https://campaigncommonsense.com/resources/overestimating-demographics-new-ccs-poll-by-yougov/

    The belief that 'the rich' can pay for everything.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
    Would be interesting to know what answers each individual demographic gave.

    Do people overestimate 'people like us' or 'people like them'.

    Given that Dem voting demographics are massively overestimated it would be especially interesting to know the answers from 'the election was stolen, Biden could not have got 80m votes, believers were.
    If it is anything like Britain then "People like them."

    I think Opinium does a British social issues survey where they ask participants about social issues and how much of a problem issue X is locally and nationally.

    Without fail every issue is perceived as a great issue nationally than locally. Often by huge margins. The local MP is perceived as good but national MPs are a disaster. Crime is fine locally but the rest of the country is a lawless hellscape. No issue with teen pregnancies locally but the rest of the country is knee deep in sprogs etc.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,248

    Here's evidence that many Americans like divided government:

    According to Morning Consult, 4 of the 10 most popular governors head states where they face legislatures controlled by the opposing party: Charlie Baker (R, Massachusetts), Phil Scott (R, Vermont), Larry Hogan (R, Maryland), and Andy Bashear (D, Kentucky).

    (Of the 10 most popular governors, 9 are Republicans: https://morningconsult.com/2022/10/11/whitmers-approval-ticks-up-in-michigan-ahead-of-midterms/ The least popular, by far, is Kate Brown (D, Oregon).)

    Looking at the approval ratings only two governors have net negatives.

    With many having huge positive approval even when in a politically hostile state.

    So why are governors so popular especially compared with congressional politicians ?

    And why have congressional politicians been so much more successful than governors in recent Presidential primaries ?
    The more popular governors are usually in small states. You may imagine a few hypotheses for this to do with retail politics, less political competition and greater social homogeneity. But it also explains why being the most popular governor of Vermont doesn't impress anyone in Texas.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Work and Pensions Secretary Mel Stride told Sky News earlier today that it would be "utterly, utterly unacceptable" if Sir Gavin made the alleged remarks.

    "If that is the case, that is utterly, utterly unacceptable, but at the moment it is in the realm of media speculation," he said.

    Mr Stride said he served in the Whips' Office under Sir Gavin, and saw him as someone with "this sort of aura or mystique around him".

    "There was always this great aura of... do you remember Cronus, the spider, the tarantula etc? And the reality with Cronus is he was much touted but he never actually was released to bite anybody," he told Kay Burley.

    https://news.sky.com/story/ex-chief-whip-wendy-morton-refers-abusive-messages-allegation-against-williamson-for-independent-investigation-12741441

    Jaw dropping. Is he trying to be funny?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,169

    Jonathan said:

    @JosiasJessop Do we not need better, stronger, more grounded political parties? At the moment they’re vulnerable to manipulation and take over by intensely focused and unrepresentative minorities. Having a strong group of elder statesmen and stateswomen keep them grounded.

    No, we need exactly the opposite; weaker parties with less opportunity to threaten and bribe MPs. The less power the party system has over MPs, the harder it is for a small clique to take control and force others to do their bidding.
    Appointment to the Lords gives political parties a goody they can hand out to loyal supporters. Abolish that if you want to weaken parties.

    Introduce voting systems that allow for infra-party choice, be that STV (plenty of independents in Ireland) or something else.
    Agree on the Lords appointments but the only way changes to voting systems help is if they are non-PR. STV would be okay although AV would be better.
    AV doesn’t offer intra-party choice. It’s giving the voters the choice between candidates of the same party that achieves your desired aim of weaker parties.

    If you don’t want a more proportional system but you want weaker parties, you could have state-run primaries. The US has a very strong 2-party system, yet the parties have much less power than, say, UK parties do because they have a primary system. (I think there are other problems with primary systems, like a tendency to produce more extreme candidates, but I’m not the one wanting weaker parties.)
    I agree with you on your first point as long as there is no way for parties to claim the result was a vote for the party rather than the MP.

    Not really considered the Primary system before. That is interesting.
    A key difference to look out for is those voting systems - like STV - where there is a by-election to replace a representative who dies/resigns, or where the party simply appoints the next available candidate from a list, as with closed list PR systems.

    I think that, in many respects, it's a mistake to view STV as primarily a PR system, as it is very different to a closed list PR system. I think it's better to think of it as an electoral system that incorporates an open primary as part of the general election (though you really need to ensure that parties nominate multiple candidates for this to be the case).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,522
    edited November 2022

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    No, not really.



    https://campaigncommonsense.com/resources/overestimating-demographics-new-ccs-poll-by-yougov/

    I blame TV. Every advert that shows a couple or family is now seemingly mixed race. I get that the advertisers are trying to represent the market but really - is this the only or indeed best way to do it? And then there is the shows like Bake Off, Sewing Bee, Woodworking etc. If there are 10 contestests there will be a guarateed quota of LGBTQ+, ethnic background etc etc (as the figures show, far in excess of reality (2% gay/lesbian does not mean every show has to have one.). So if you watch TV there is a normallisation of the high numbers in the survey that does not match reality.

    Note - I have no issue with anyones ethnicity, sexual orientation, choice of partner, but it is striking how different TV is from the real country.
    It is not that television is different from the real country, rather that the real country is extremely heterogenous. Birds of a feather really do flock together. As I pass the local schools on the way to the fish and chip shop, I can see primary school pupils are mostly Asian, and most of the White pupils are from Eastern Europe. Oddly, Black pupils are more common at the secondary school. Most teachers are White.

    So for someone round here, television shows the country as more White than that viewer's lived experience. For someone from Liverpool or Scotland or rural England, television is more ethnically mixed than is reality.

    You could do the same with politics, where election results show that parties' supporters tend to cluster in certain constituencies.

    Thanks to the web, it is not just real geography that shows this. Virtual worlds even more so. There are not many socialists on ConHome, for instance. Twitter timelines, Facebook walls, even search results are tilted to how you have interacted in the past.

    Overall, the table shows pretty much what you would expect from the above. More importantly, its "real" values are fake, for some values of "real".
    Yes. How many people actually live in an area with the average demographic mix? As you add more variables then the number of areas that would be average on all of them will tend to zero.

    This is part of the nature of averages.
    If you have your head in an industrial freezer and your feet in a domestic oven, on average you'll be at the perfect temperature.

    Oh, and dead, of course.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,074
    edited November 2022
    ydoethur said:

    Here's evidence that many Americans like divided government:

    According to Morning Consult, 4 of the 10 most popular governors head states where they face legislatures controlled by the opposing party: Charlie Baker (R, Massachusetts), Phil Scott (R, Vermont), Larry Hogan (R, Maryland), and Andy Bashear (D, Kentucky).

    (Of the 10 most popular governors, 9 are Republicans: https://morningconsult.com/2022/10/11/whitmers-approval-ticks-up-in-michigan-ahead-of-midterms/ The least popular, by far, is Kate Brown (D, Oregon).)

    Looking at the approval ratings only two governors have net negatives.

    With many having huge positive approval even when in a politically hostile state.

    So why are governors so popular especially compared with congressional politicians ?

    And why have congressional politicians been so much more successful than governors in recent Presidential primaries ?
    Possibly governors just don't bother to run?

    That said, it is slightly unusual for governors to go straight to the presidency. Most of them seem to have some sort of national role in between if only to raise their profile.
    FDR, Reagan, Carter, Clinton, George W Bush all governors before becoming President.

    Biden and Bush 41 were VP, Trump a billionaire never an elected official before.

    Only JFK and Obama have gone straight from the Senate to President in the last 70 years. No President has come straight from the House of Representatives, certainly in the last century
  • kamskikamski Posts: 3,018

    kamski said:

    eristdoof said:

    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    Do most countries in the world have elected second chambers? According to Wikipedia most legislatures are unicameral.

    And according to this from Jan 2022:

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-are-the-members-of-upper-houses-chosen-around-the-world/

    Out of "all 82 countries classed by Freedom House as Free Democracies"
    15 have directly elected upper houses (eg US or Italy)
    7 indirectly elected (eg France or Austria)
    12 appointed (eg UK or Germany)
    48 unicameral (New Zealand or Finland)
    The upper house in Germany is not appointed.
    The Budesrat consists of members/ministers from the states, which have been elected in the state elections. The people who are present at the sessions are usually representataives of the state governments, but that is mainly for practical reasons, and they are still politically aligned to make up of state government. It should definately be in the indirectly elected category.
    The Bundesrat IS appointed - by state governments, (they are in fact delegations of the state governments). Similarly (kind of), the UK upper house is appointed by the elected UK government, we don't usually put the UK in the indirectly elected category. The Bundesrat is perhaps a bit of a special case (but probably all upper houses should be looked at on a case-by-case basis).

    Decent overview in English here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Bundesrat
    The Bundesrat represents the state governments and its members are ultimately determined by the most recent state election in each state. With the Lords, most of the seats are appointed for life, so they represent, very indirectly, who was elected to the Commons going back decades. Plus there are still some hereditary peers and the Bishops. They are very different systems.

    The system that’s closest to ours is probably the Irish Senate, which is sort of, approximately, a codified version of the idea of the Lords.

    Yes that's a good point, and the Bundesrat is more democratic, and closer to an indirectly elected system than the UK's. Though, if the UK got rid of the last hereditary peers and Bishops and introduced 10 year term limits would it join the "indirectly elected" category? OK, I'm quibbling here, but I'd also say that the various forms of "appointed" and "indirectly elected" are more similar to each other, than "indirectly elected" are to "directly elected" - when people talk about an "elected upper house" for the UK, I tend to assume they mean directly elected, as it is already mostly indirectly elected in a way.

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
    Would be interesting to know what answers each individual demographic gave.

    Do people overestimate 'people like us' or 'people like them'.

    Given that Dem voting demographics are massively overestimated it would be especially interesting to know the answers from 'the election was stolen, Biden could not have got 80m votes, believers were.
    If it is anything like Britain then "People like them."

    I think Opinium does a British social issues survey where they ask participants about social issues and how much of a problem issue X is locally and nationally.

    Without fail every issue is perceived as a great issue nationally than locally. Often by huge margins. The local MP is perceived as good but national MPs are a disaster. Crime is fine locally but the rest of the country is a lawless hellscape. No issue with teen pregnancies locally but the rest of the country is knee deep in sprogs etc.
    Unless the weighting is all to cock, most of the misestimators will be part of the larger-than-they-think majority.
  • RunDeep said:
    ‘Release the mugs!’



    I may or may not be referring to Stephen Kinnock.

    'Stephen Kinnock, the shadow immigration minister, revealed that an identity scheme was being looked at “very, very carefully indeed”, arguing it would be “so helpful” in reassuring the public that “we have control of our borders”.'
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897

    DavidL said:

    I take a different view from the earlier consensus on the mid-terms.

    I am expecting Republican control of the Senate by 3-4 with Georgia still to come on a run off and a reasonably easy win in the House. I wish it were not so, I am deeply disappointed by the apparent indifference of Americans to the dreadfully stacked SC where there have been a series of terrible decisions with, no doubt, much to come. I am dismayed that American women in particular are not more angry about Dobbs and I am appalled that people who expressly promise to use the position they are running for to defeat democratic results get the time of day. But that is what we are seeing and the wave of revulsion is not apparent to me.

    The US ceasing to be a functioning democracy is now more than likely, as is the US ceasing to be a reliable NATO partner or even, perhaps, a NATO member. I wish I thought the UK and other European countries were at least thinking about what the consequences of this might be. But it’s pretty clear they’re not.
    Climate. War. Inequality. Female Emancipation. Trump/GOP.

    These are the top 5 global concerns right now. Not necessarily in that order.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
    Insofar as any credence should be given to the great replacement theory, these numbers display what a pile of paranoid, self deceiving bullshit it is.
    Given how diversity, equity and inclusion policies look to overrepresent in MSM advertisements, commercials, serials and dramas, I'm not surprised.

    The demographic mix most often pushed (in the UK) would be akin to that in London/Birmingham/Manchester where the corporate HQs and media centres are, hence the overestimated national mix.
    Tbh the colour of families in Sainsbury’s ads isn’t even in my top 1000 things to care about, but I accept it seems to trigger some folk.
    It's not about triggering people, although I think some think it's a bit desperate, it's about accounting for why the wider population overestimate the number of minorities.

    This is a reason.
    Of course, Roger is never going to accept that his warped demographic mix in adverts causes this overestimate. Which in turn fuels the "invasion" narrative.

    TV adverts caused Brexit. Discuss. Use both sides of the paper.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,308

    Nobody interested in the boundary review?
    https://www.bcereviews.org.uk

    Shame they haven't got the old constituencies on there too.

    Someone with a sense of humour has redrawn the boundary of Richmond Park to f**k Kingston and Ed Davey!


  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,074
    Alistair said:

    I see the wacko shadowy Restore Trust group utterly failed.

    Seemed to be online only voting, I am a National Trust member but got no voting papers or notice of the vote
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,074
    Barnesian said:

    Nobody interested in the boundary review?
    https://www.bcereviews.org.uk

    Shame they haven't got the old constituencies on there too.

    Someone with a sense of humour has redrawn the boundary of Richmond Park to f**k Kingston and Ed Davey!


    Sarah Olney would likely be bumped for him as Richmond and Kingston combines their seats
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
    Would be interesting to know what answers each individual demographic gave.

    Do people overestimate 'people like us' or 'people like them'.

    Given that Dem voting demographics are massively overestimated it would be especially interesting to know the answers from 'the election was stolen, Biden could not have got 80m votes, believers were.
    If it is anything like Britain then "People like them."

    I think Opinium does a British social issues survey where they ask participants about social issues and how much of a problem issue X is locally and nationally.

    Without fail every issue is perceived as a great issue nationally than locally. Often by huge margins. The local MP is perceived as good but national MPs are a disaster. Crime is fine locally but the rest of the country is a lawless hellscape. No issue with teen pregnancies locally but the rest of the country is knee deep in sprogs etc.
    Unless the weighting is all to cock, most of the misestimators will be part of the larger-than-they-think majority.
    Or, to put it more acutely - https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 2,382
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Never a Senate.

    We're not the fucking Romans.

    And none of those fancy foreign sauces with garlic and stuff. Blech.
    We used to export garum across the Roman Empire from the south coast ports, long before 43AD. Oh, what we ben, and what we come to.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,308
    edited November 2022
    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Nobody interested in the boundary review?
    https://www.bcereviews.org.uk

    Shame they haven't got the old constituencies on there too.

    Someone with a sense of humour has redrawn the boundary of Richmond Park to f**k Kingston and Ed Davey!


    Sarah Olney would likely be bumped for him as Richmond and Kingston combines their seats
    I suspect the previous boundaries will be restored. This completely destroys Kingston as a community for no obvious benefit to the surrounding constituencies. A stitch up campaign by the Tories which will be reversed.

    And look at the outline! It's a joke.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Work and Pensions Secretary Mel Stride told Sky News earlier today that it would be "utterly, utterly unacceptable" if Sir Gavin made the alleged remarks.

    "If that is the case, that is utterly, utterly unacceptable, but at the moment it is in the realm of media speculation," he said.

    Mr Stride said he served in the Whips' Office under Sir Gavin, and saw him as someone with "this sort of aura or mystique around him".

    "There was always this great aura of... do you remember Cronus, the spider, the tarantula etc? And the reality with Cronus is he was much touted but he never actually was released to bite anybody," he told Kay Burley.

    https://news.sky.com/story/ex-chief-whip-wendy-morton-refers-abusive-messages-allegation-against-williamson-for-independent-investigation-12741441

    Jaw dropping. Is he trying to be funny?

    I can only think that Williamson is a really devious c*** who has acquired a massive amount of really, really nasty stuff on a bunch of colleagues.

    And anyone with a dark secret assumes he knows it.

    And "if anything were to happen..." it would be released to the papers.

    Which is why the papers would love to see him booted out - and then be the conduit to deliver on that threat.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,074

    DavidL said:

    I take a different view from the earlier consensus on the mid-terms.

    I am expecting Republican control of the Senate by 3-4 with Georgia still to come on a run off and a reasonably easy win in the House. I wish it were not so, I am deeply disappointed by the apparent indifference of Americans to the dreadfully stacked SC where there have been a series of terrible decisions with, no doubt, much to come. I am dismayed that American women in particular are not more angry about Dobbs and I am appalled that people who expressly promise to use the position they are running for to defeat democratic results get the time of day. But that is what we are seeing and the wave of revulsion is not apparent to me.

    The US ceasing to be a functioning democracy is now more than likely, as is the US ceasing to be a reliable NATO partner or even, perhaps, a NATO member. I wish I thought the UK and other European countries were at least thinking about what the consequences of this might be. But it’s pretty clear they’re not.

    The GOP taking Congress and Trump returning to the White House (some polls put him ahead of Biden) does not mean the US is not a democracy even if you dislike the results.

    NATO is more than just the US, most of Europe, Canada, Turkey are in NATO

    Withdrawal from NATO would also need Senate approval and enough GOP Putin hawks like Senator Romney would join with most Democrats to vote against withdrawal
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I see the wacko shadowy Restore Trust group utterly failed.

    Seemed to be online only voting, I am a National Trust member but got no voting papers or notice of the vote
    I got notice to vote - and voted for the boards recommendations because although I don’t always like the boards proposals I’m not letting those reclaim wankers get anywhere.

    Once they disappear I will stop voting but up to that point I will be voting for the people with the best chance of defeating them.

    If and when they reclaim got any members into a position of power I would be cancelling the 3 family members I pay for
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897
    TOPPING said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
    Would be interesting to know what answers each individual demographic gave.

    Do people overestimate 'people like us' or 'people like them'.

    Given that Dem voting demographics are massively overestimated it would be especially interesting to know the answers from 'the election was stolen, Biden could not have got 80m votes, believers were.
    If it is anything like Britain then "People like them."

    I think Opinium does a British social issues survey where they ask participants about social issues and how much of a problem issue X is locally and nationally.

    Without fail every issue is perceived as a great issue nationally than locally. Often by huge margins. The local MP is perceived as good but national MPs are a disaster. Crime is fine locally but the rest of the country is a lawless hellscape. No issue with teen pregnancies locally but the rest of the country is knee deep in sprogs etc.
    Unless the weighting is all to cock, most of the misestimators will be part of the larger-than-they-think majority.
    Or, to put it more acutely - https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932
    An evergreen.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,169
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    I take a different view from the earlier consensus on the mid-terms.

    I am expecting Republican control of the Senate by 3-4 with Georgia still to come on a run off and a reasonably easy win in the House. I wish it were not so, I am deeply disappointed by the apparent indifference of Americans to the dreadfully stacked SC where there have been a series of terrible decisions with, no doubt, much to come. I am dismayed that American women in particular are not more angry about Dobbs and I am appalled that people who expressly promise to use the position they are running for to defeat democratic results get the time of day. But that is what we are seeing and the wave of revulsion is not apparent to me.

    The US ceasing to be a functioning democracy is now more than likely, as is the US ceasing to be a reliable NATO partner or even, perhaps, a NATO member. I wish I thought the UK and other European countries were at least thinking about what the consequences of this might be. But it’s pretty clear they’re not.

    The GOP taking Congress and Trump returning to the White House (some polls put him ahead of Biden) does not mean the US is not a democracy even if you dislike the results.

    NATO is more than just the US, most of Europe, Canada, Turkey are in NATO

    Withdrawal from NATO would also need Senate approval and enough GOP Putin hawks like Senator Romney would join with most Democrats to vote against withdrawal
    If the President isn't prepared to stand by NATO allies with action then continuing US membership would be a paper fiction, and the US Senate cannot compel the President to act.

    It's a potential scenario we need to prepare for. The absence of the US leaves a lot of strategic capability gaps.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    TOPPING said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
    Would be interesting to know what answers each individual demographic gave.

    Do people overestimate 'people like us' or 'people like them'.

    Given that Dem voting demographics are massively overestimated it would be especially interesting to know the answers from 'the election was stolen, Biden could not have got 80m votes, believers were.
    If it is anything like Britain then "People like them."

    I think Opinium does a British social issues survey where they ask participants about social issues and how much of a problem issue X is locally and nationally.

    Without fail every issue is perceived as a great issue nationally than locally. Often by huge margins. The local MP is perceived as good but national MPs are a disaster. Crime is fine locally but the rest of the country is a lawless hellscape. No issue with teen pregnancies locally but the rest of the country is knee deep in sprogs etc.
    Unless the weighting is all to cock, most of the misestimators will be part of the larger-than-they-think majority.
    Or, to put it more acutely - https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932
    You know what that article, as posted by you, comes to? It says "Life is very, very pleasant here in Richistan, I don't see what the fuss is about."

    My lawn meet incoming in 1 hour 20. Time to start blending the whisky mac.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897

    RunDeep said:
    ‘Release the mugs!’



    I may or may not be referring to Stephen Kinnock.

    'Stephen Kinnock, the shadow immigration minister, revealed that an identity scheme was being looked at “very, very carefully indeed”, arguing it would be “so helpful” in reassuring the public that “we have control of our borders”.'
    Please don't, tud.

    That dreadful mug, I mean. I'm not massively anti having some sort of ID card.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000
    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
    Would be interesting to know what answers each individual demographic gave.

    Do people overestimate 'people like us' or 'people like them'.

    Given that Dem voting demographics are massively overestimated it would be especially interesting to know the answers from 'the election was stolen, Biden could not have got 80m votes, believers were.
    If it is anything like Britain then "People like them."

    I think Opinium does a British social issues survey where they ask participants about social issues and how much of a problem issue X is locally and nationally.

    Without fail every issue is perceived as a great issue nationally than locally. Often by huge margins. The local MP is perceived as good but national MPs are a disaster. Crime is fine locally but the rest of the country is a lawless hellscape. No issue with teen pregnancies locally but the rest of the country is knee deep in sprogs etc.
    Unless the weighting is all to cock, most of the misestimators will be part of the larger-than-they-think majority.
    Or, to put it more acutely - https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932
    You know what that article, as posted by you, comes to? It says "Life is very, very pleasant here in Richistan, I don't see what the fuss is about."

    My lawn meet incoming in 1 hour 20. Time to start blending the whisky mac.
    Well before you head off - and I hope it is a cracking day - not really as for your substantive point. As we know, immigration is highest in urban centres who are also for example, the most remain-y.

    It is more accurate to say "life is very pleasant in Whitestan, but I am very worried about what's happening in [name urban centre] for some inarticulable reason".

    Enjoy the day. Want an invite next season pls.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    eristdoof said:

    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    Do most countries in the world have elected second chambers? According to Wikipedia most legislatures are unicameral.

    And according to this from Jan 2022:

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-are-the-members-of-upper-houses-chosen-around-the-world/

    Out of "all 82 countries classed by Freedom House as Free Democracies"
    15 have directly elected upper houses (eg US or Italy)
    7 indirectly elected (eg France or Austria)
    12 appointed (eg UK or Germany)
    48 unicameral (New Zealand or Finland)
    The upper house in Germany is not appointed.
    The Budesrat consists of members/ministers from the states, which have been elected in the state elections. The people who are present at the sessions are usually representataives of the state governments, but that is mainly for practical reasons, and they are still politically aligned to make up of state government. It should definately be in the indirectly elected category.
    The Bundesrat IS appointed - by state governments, (they are in fact delegations of the state governments). Similarly (kind of), the UK upper house is appointed by the elected UK government, we don't usually put the UK in the indirectly elected category. The Bundesrat is perhaps a bit of a special case (but probably all upper houses should be looked at on a case-by-case basis).

    Decent overview in English here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Bundesrat
    The Bundesrat represents the state governments and its members are ultimately determined by the most recent state election in each state. With the Lords, most of the seats are appointed for life, so they represent, very indirectly, who was elected to the Commons going back decades. Plus there are still some hereditary peers and the Bishops. They are very different systems.

    The system that’s closest to ours is probably the Irish Senate, which is sort of, approximately, a codified version of the idea of the Lords.

    Yes that's a good point, and the Bundesrat is more democratic, and closer to an indirectly elected system than the UK's. Though, if the UK got rid of the last hereditary peers and Bishops and introduced 10 year term limits would it join the "indirectly elected" category? OK, I'm quibbling here, but I'd also say that the various forms of "appointed" and "indirectly elected" are more similar to each other, than "indirectly elected" are to "directly elected" - when people talk about an "elected upper house" for the UK, I tend to assume they mean directly elected, as it is already mostly indirectly elected in a way.

    Yes, there are a range of options and the discourse can over-simplify that diversity. Getting rid of the hereditary peers and term limits sound good to me, but you'd still have something at the rubbish end of "indirectly elected". The Bundesrat, for example, has a direct link between elections to the State and voting power in the Bundesrat. The Lords has a very woolly, ill-defined link between elections to the Commons and who gets into the Lords. For example, these honours when a PM resigns... they're a form of indirect election in that the PM was (indirectly) elected and the PM is appointing them, but why should a party with a high turnover of PMs (the Conservatives) get multiple bites at the cherry compared to a party with a low turnover of PMs (Labour)?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,551
    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
    Would be interesting to know what answers each individual demographic gave.

    Do people overestimate 'people like us' or 'people like them'.

    Given that Dem voting demographics are massively overestimated it would be especially interesting to know the answers from 'the election was stolen, Biden could not have got 80m votes, believers were.
    If it is anything like Britain then "People like them."

    I think Opinium does a British social issues survey where they ask participants about social issues and how much of a problem issue X is locally and nationally.

    Without fail every issue is perceived as a great issue nationally than locally. Often by huge margins. The local MP is perceived as good but national MPs are a disaster. Crime is fine locally but the rest of the country is a lawless hellscape. No issue with teen pregnancies locally but the rest of the country is knee deep in sprogs etc.
    Unless the weighting is all to cock, most of the misestimators will be part of the larger-than-they-think majority.
    Or, to put it more acutely - https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932
    You know what that article, as posted by you, comes to? It says "Life is very, very pleasant here in Richistan, I don't see what the fuss is about."

    My lawn meet incoming in 1 hour 20. Time to start blending the whisky mac.
    Is there some extra good way of making a whisky mac?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
    Would be interesting to know what answers each individual demographic gave.

    Do people overestimate 'people like us' or 'people like them'.

    Given that Dem voting demographics are massively overestimated it would be especially interesting to know the answers from 'the election was stolen, Biden could not have got 80m votes, believers were.
    You might have detected a 'logic fail' from Trumpers there. What a surprise if so.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,718
    edited November 2022
    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    I take a different view from the earlier consensus on the mid-terms.

    I am expecting Republican control of the Senate by 3-4 with Georgia still to come on a run off and a reasonably easy win in the House. I wish it were not so, I am deeply disappointed by the apparent indifference of Americans to the dreadfully stacked SC where there have been a series of terrible decisions with, no doubt, much to come. I am dismayed that American women in particular are not more angry about Dobbs and I am appalled that people who expressly promise to use the position they are running for to defeat democratic results get the time of day. But that is what we are seeing and the wave of revulsion is not apparent to me.

    The US ceasing to be a functioning democracy is now more than likely, as is the US ceasing to be a reliable NATO partner or even, perhaps, a NATO member. I wish I thought the UK and other European countries were at least thinking about what the consequences of this might be. But it’s pretty clear they’re not.
    Climate. War. Inequality. Female Emancipation. Trump/GOP.

    These are the top 5 global concerns right now. Not necessarily in that order.
    It's so cool how it's exactly the same list as your personal top 5.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Omnium said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
    Would be interesting to know what answers each individual demographic gave.

    Do people overestimate 'people like us' or 'people like them'.

    Given that Dem voting demographics are massively overestimated it would be especially interesting to know the answers from 'the election was stolen, Biden could not have got 80m votes, believers were.
    If it is anything like Britain then "People like them."

    I think Opinium does a British social issues survey where they ask participants about social issues and how much of a problem issue X is locally and nationally.

    Without fail every issue is perceived as a great issue nationally than locally. Often by huge margins. The local MP is perceived as good but national MPs are a disaster. Crime is fine locally but the rest of the country is a lawless hellscape. No issue with teen pregnancies locally but the rest of the country is knee deep in sprogs etc.
    Unless the weighting is all to cock, most of the misestimators will be part of the larger-than-they-think majority.
    Or, to put it more acutely - https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932
    You know what that article, as posted by you, comes to? It says "Life is very, very pleasant here in Richistan, I don't see what the fuss is about."

    My lawn meet incoming in 1 hour 20. Time to start blending the whisky mac.
    Is there some extra good way of making a whisky mac?
    Half and half, I think. But if you can persuade yourself that is not the case, constant sampling is needed to get the balance just so.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    I take a different view from the earlier consensus on the mid-terms.

    I am expecting Republican control of the Senate by 3-4 with Georgia still to come on a run off and a reasonably easy win in the House. I wish it were not so, I am deeply disappointed by the apparent indifference of Americans to the dreadfully stacked SC where there have been a series of terrible decisions with, no doubt, much to come. I am dismayed that American women in particular are not more angry about Dobbs and I am appalled that people who expressly promise to use the position they are running for to defeat democratic results get the time of day. But that is what we are seeing and the wave of revulsion is not apparent to me.

    The US ceasing to be a functioning democracy is now more than likely, as is the US ceasing to be a reliable NATO partner or even, perhaps, a NATO member. I wish I thought the UK and other European countries were at least thinking about what the consequences of this might be. But it’s pretty clear they’re not.
    Climate. War. Inequality. Female Emancipation. Trump/GOP.

    These are the top 5 global concerns right now. Not necessarily in that order.
    While I think Trump/GOP is a definite global concern, is it a greater global concern than Putin or Xi or maybe even Modi?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,029
    On topic, I don't see the problem here. They were elected for a full parliamentary term and I'm not aware of any time limit between nomination for a peerage and acceptance of it.

    So the Lib Dems wasted some time and money preparing for a nonexistent by-election based on speculation? Oh well.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,551
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Omnium said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
    Would be interesting to know what answers each individual demographic gave.

    Do people overestimate 'people like us' or 'people like them'.

    Given that Dem voting demographics are massively overestimated it would be especially interesting to know the answers from 'the election was stolen, Biden could not have got 80m votes, believers were.
    If it is anything like Britain then "People like them."

    I think Opinium does a British social issues survey where they ask participants about social issues and how much of a problem issue X is locally and nationally.

    Without fail every issue is perceived as a great issue nationally than locally. Often by huge margins. The local MP is perceived as good but national MPs are a disaster. Crime is fine locally but the rest of the country is a lawless hellscape. No issue with teen pregnancies locally but the rest of the country is knee deep in sprogs etc.
    Unless the weighting is all to cock, most of the misestimators will be part of the larger-than-they-think majority.
    Or, to put it more acutely - https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932
    You know what that article, as posted by you, comes to? It says "Life is very, very pleasant here in Richistan, I don't see what the fuss is about."

    My lawn meet incoming in 1 hour 20. Time to start blending the whisky mac.
    Is there some extra good way of making a whisky mac?
    Half and half, I think. But if you can persuade yourself that is not the case, constant sampling is needed to get the balance just so.
    I can see that a good balancing may be needed on a nice bright, but chilly day :)

    (50/50 is what I've always understood too. Sadly I find it a bit too sweet now.)
  • kamskikamski Posts: 3,018
    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
    Would be interesting to know what answers each individual demographic gave.

    Do people overestimate 'people like us' or 'people like them'.

    Given that Dem voting demographics are massively overestimated it would be especially interesting to know the answers from 'the election was stolen, Biden could not have got 80m votes, believers were.
    If it is anything like Britain then "People like them."

    I think Opinium does a British social issues survey where they ask participants about social issues and how much of a problem issue X is locally and nationally.

    Without fail every issue is perceived as a great issue nationally than locally. Often by huge margins. The local MP is perceived as good but national MPs are a disaster. Crime is fine locally but the rest of the country is a lawless hellscape. No issue with teen pregnancies locally but the rest of the country is knee deep in sprogs etc.
    Not sure if this answers the question, but the YouGov link above says:

    "If exaggerated perceptions of minority groups’ share of the American population are due to fear, we would expect estimates of those groups’ share that are made by the groups’ members to be more accurate than those made by others. We tested this theory on minority groups that were represented by at least 100 respondents within our sample and found that they were no better (and often worse) than non-group members at guessing the relative size of the minority group they belong to.

    Black Americans estimate that, on average, Black people make up 52% of the U.S. adult population; non-Black Americans estimate the proportion is roughly 39%, closer to the real figure of 12%. First-generation immigrants we surveyed estimate that first-generation immigrants account for 40% of U.S. adults, while non-immigrants guess it is around 31%, closer to the actual figure of 14%."

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897
    Endillion said:

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    I take a different view from the earlier consensus on the mid-terms.

    I am expecting Republican control of the Senate by 3-4 with Georgia still to come on a run off and a reasonably easy win in the House. I wish it were not so, I am deeply disappointed by the apparent indifference of Americans to the dreadfully stacked SC where there have been a series of terrible decisions with, no doubt, much to come. I am dismayed that American women in particular are not more angry about Dobbs and I am appalled that people who expressly promise to use the position they are running for to defeat democratic results get the time of day. But that is what we are seeing and the wave of revulsion is not apparent to me.

    The US ceasing to be a functioning democracy is now more than likely, as is the US ceasing to be a reliable NATO partner or even, perhaps, a NATO member. I wish I thought the UK and other European countries were at least thinking about what the consequences of this might be. But it’s pretty clear they’re not.
    Climate. War. Inequality. Female Emancipation. Trump/GOP.

    These are the top 5 global concerns right now. Not necessarily in that order.
    It's so cool how it's exactly the same list as your personal top 5.
    Yep. What I tend to do is give my opinion on things rather than other people's. Bit unambitious, perhaps, but I know my limits.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,029
    kamski said:

    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
    Would be interesting to know what answers each individual demographic gave.

    Do people overestimate 'people like us' or 'people like them'.

    Given that Dem voting demographics are massively overestimated it would be especially interesting to know the answers from 'the election was stolen, Biden could not have got 80m votes, believers were.
    If it is anything like Britain then "People like them."

    I think Opinium does a British social issues survey where they ask participants about social issues and how much of a problem issue X is locally and nationally.

    Without fail every issue is perceived as a great issue nationally than locally. Often by huge margins. The local MP is perceived as good but national MPs are a disaster. Crime is fine locally but the rest of the country is a lawless hellscape. No issue with teen pregnancies locally but the rest of the country is knee deep in sprogs etc.
    Not sure if this answers the question, but the YouGov link above says:

    "If exaggerated perceptions of minority groups’ share of the American population are due to fear, we would expect estimates of those groups’ share that are made by the groups’ members to be more accurate than those made by others. We tested this theory on minority groups that were represented by at least 100 respondents within our sample and found that they were no better (and often worse) than non-group members at guessing the relative size of the minority group they belong to.

    Black Americans estimate that, on average, Black people make up 52% of the U.S. adult population; non-Black Americans estimate the proportion is roughly 39%, closer to the real figure of 12%. First-generation immigrants we surveyed estimate that first-generation immigrants account for 40% of U.S. adults, while non-immigrants guess it is around 31%, closer to the actual figure of 14%."

    Black Americans think, on average, that the US is majority black?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
    Would be interesting to know what answers each individual demographic gave.

    Do people overestimate 'people like us' or 'people like them'.

    Given that Dem voting demographics are massively overestimated it would be especially interesting to know the answers from 'the election was stolen, Biden could not have got 80m votes, believers were.
    If it is anything like Britain then "People like them."

    I think Opinium does a British social issues survey where they ask participants about social issues and how much of a problem issue X is locally and nationally.

    Without fail every issue is perceived as a great issue nationally than locally. Often by huge margins. The local MP is perceived as good but national MPs are a disaster. Crime is fine locally but the rest of the country is a lawless hellscape. No issue with teen pregnancies locally but the rest of the country is knee deep in sprogs etc.
    Not sure if this answers the question, but the YouGov link above says:

    "If exaggerated perceptions of minority groups’ share of the American population are due to fear, we would expect estimates of those groups’ share that are made by the groups’ members to be more accurate than those made by others. We tested this theory on minority groups that were represented by at least 100 respondents within our sample and found that they were no better (and often worse) than non-group members at guessing the relative size of the minority group they belong to.

    Black Americans estimate that, on average, Black people make up 52% of the U.S. adult population; non-Black Americans estimate the proportion is roughly 39%, closer to the real figure of 12%. First-generation immigrants we surveyed estimate that first-generation immigrants account for 40% of U.S. adults, while non-immigrants guess it is around 31%, closer to the actual figure of 14%."

    Black Americans think, on average, that the US is majority black?
    Ghettoisation. Highly credible.
This discussion has been closed.