IIRC unemployment fell by a record number last month to stand at 7.1%. Now unemployment falls by 125,000 to stand at 7.2%. Who's kidding who?
You're kidding us you know much about economics !!
BBC News - 09:43: The ONS says the latest 7.2% unemployment rate (for October - December) was HIGHER than the 7.1% reported last month, which was for the three months to November. But it was 0.4 percentage points DOWN from the preceding quarter (July to September). Perhaps more importantly, the number of people counted as unemployed was 2.34 million, down 125,000 from July to September 2013 and down 161,000 from a year earlier.
More flim flam, just means being able to borrow very limited pocket money direct rather than through Westminster. No change and no advantage for Scotland.
Why would the SNP 'we'll renege on our debt if we don't get our way' government be leery of entering the international bond market, I wonder?
It is a poxy £2B
How much more do you want to borrow?
If we were free of the London bloodsuckers we would not need to borrow, the requirement is only there because London squanders our money on illegal wars , Trident and London infrastructure and benefits.
Since you won't be 'free of the London bloodsuckers' for at least another two years, what's wrong with dipping your toe in the international bond market now?
IIRC unemployment fell by a record number last month to stand at 7.1%. Now unemployment falls by 125,000 to stand at 7.2%. Who's kidding who?
The employment figures are quarterly, each covering a period that includes two of the three months the last one did.
Either the working population - and hence the general population - is growing at an astronomical rate ( all those Bulgarians and Romanians perhaps) or someone is fiddling the figures.
David Miranda loses legal challenge Breaking news David Miranda loses legal challenge over his detention at Heathrow Airport under anti-terrorism powers
More flim flam, just means being able to borrow very limited pocket money direct rather than through Westminster. No change and no advantage for Scotland.
Why would the SNP 'we'll renege on our debt if we don't get our way' government be leery of entering the international bond market, I wonder?
It is a poxy £2B
How much more do you want to borrow?
If we were free of the London bloodsuckers we would not need to borrow, the requirement is only there because London squanders our money on illegal wars , Trident and London infrastructure and benefits.
More cash has been hosed into poorly run Scottish banks, to save them from going bust.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking · 3 mins David Miranda loses legal challenge over his detention at Heathrow Airport under anti-terrorism powers http://bbc.in/1kVS9zu
Wonderful Labour market statistics this morning with employment up to an all time record high and unemployment crashing down in all segments.
Is there no height St. George cannot scale?
The key findings from this months ONS bulletin:
For October to December 2013, compared with July to September 2013:
• The number of people in employment increased by 193,000 to reach 30.15 million.
• The number of unemployed people fell by 125,000 to reach 2.34 million.
• The number of economically inactive people aged from 16 to 64 increased by 8,000 to reach 8.93 million.
Comparing October to December 2013 with a year earlier:
• There were 396,000 more people in employment.
• There were 161,000 fewer unemployed people.
• There were 23,000 fewer economically inactive people aged from 16 to 64
Will there be any shirkers left to vote for Labour in May 2015?
My dear AveryLP, What the statistics say is that unemployment is now stands at 7.2% compared with last months 7.1% (BBC). So who is playing with numbers?
Your St. George has got a Dragon by the tail but it is biting his arse.
Unemployment rose on the month, and fell on the quarter.
IIRC unemployment fell by a record number last month to stand at 7.1%. Now unemployment falls by 125,000 to stand at 7.2%. Who's kidding who?
The employment figures are quarterly, each covering a period that includes two of the three months the last one did.
Either the working population - and hence the general population - is growing at an astronomical rate ( all those Bulgarians and Romanians perhaps) or someone is fiddling the figures.
The two sets of figures are non-fraudulently reconciled by implying that there was an increase in unemployment in the latest month of the figures.
The latest month in the figures is December. Assuming that the figures are seasonally adjusted to take account of temporary Christmas employment, it implies that fewer temporary workers were taken on this Christmas than in previous years.
There are plausible reasons for this that don't involve a loss of business confidence. The wider use of zero-hours contracts means that it would be relatively easy for retail operations to offer more hours of work to people they already have under contract in preference to hiring more people on a temporary basis.
If this is a structural change in employment practice then it implies the ONS need to revise their seasonal adjustments.
However, I haven't looked at the detail of the figures so I don't know whether my assumptions are correct.
IIRC unemployment fell by a record number last month to stand at 7.1%. Now unemployment falls by 125,000 to stand at 7.2%. Who's kidding who?
You're kidding us you know much about economics !!
BBC News - 09:43: The ONS says the latest 7.2% unemployment rate (for October - December) was HIGHER than the 7.1% reported last month, which was for the three months to November. But it was 0.4 percentage points DOWN from the preceding quarter (July to September). Perhaps more importantly, the number of people counted as unemployed was 2.34 million, down 125,000 from July to September 2013 and down 161,000 from a year earlier.
I don't claim to be an economist or a statistician, like some others here, but when statistics can be squeezed in and out like an accordian, then something smells fishy. And if something smells fishy, you can bet your bottom dollar, it is.
Wonderful Labour market statistics this morning with employment up to an all time record high and unemployment crashing down in all segments.
Is there no height St. George cannot scale?
The key findings from this months ONS bulletin:
For October to December 2013, compared with July to September 2013:
• The number of people in employment increased by 193,000 to reach 30.15 million.
• The number of unemployed people fell by 125,000 to reach 2.34 million.
• The number of economically inactive people aged from 16 to 64 increased by 8,000 to reach 8.93 million.
Comparing October to December 2013 with a year earlier:
• There were 396,000 more people in employment.
• There were 161,000 fewer unemployed people.
• There were 23,000 fewer economically inactive people aged from 16 to 64
Will there be any shirkers left to vote for Labour in May 2015?
My dear AveryLP, What the statistics say is that unemployment is now stands at 7.2% compared with last months 7.1% (BBC). So who is playing with numbers?
Your St. George has got a Dragon by the tail but it is biting his arse.
Unemployment rose on the month, and fell on the quarter.
Next month's figures could be interesting then - a trend or a blip...
Never mind badgers....the govt are busy shooting foxes: 'Youth Unemployment 27,000 LOWER than when Labour left office. Big falls recently in long-term youth unemployment.'
You would need a heart of stone not to laugh after the scottish tory surgers were so quick to praise and spin Brown's economic 'wisdom' on pensions yesterday.
Brown storms off after getting a question he didn't enjoy.
There can of course be no argument for the principle that one should need a licence of the Secretary of State to destroy dangerous, parasitic and predatory vermin on one's own property. It ought to be the birthright of an Englishman.
I expect the badgers feel the same way about humans. Fortunately, the badgers have a substantial fifth column, in the form of the majority of the population who disagree with exterminating them for what are ultimately commercial reasons.
The EU is a mixture of directly elected (the parliament), the indirectly elected (the council of ministers) and the appointed (the commissioners). There is little democratic oversight of the commissioners, who are largely responsible for the disbursement of funds and the implementation of policy.
It would be much more democratic to require each commissioner to be individually ratified by the parliament annually.
The "little democratic oversight" bit is, with respect, simply wrong. As an NGO, it's much easier to challenge Commission actions than British Civil Service actions - there are several routes to do it, depending on the issue. Regular Commission ratification is a possible way forward, but annually might be disruptive - we've never thought of having Ministers annually ratified by Parliament in Britain. Directly electing national commissioners and having a European-wide direct election for the president would make a dramatic difference to accountability, though.
' Fortunately, the badgers have a substantial fifth column, in the form of the majority of the population who disagree with exterminating them for what are ultimately commercial reasons.'
Do they?
Surveys published by the NFU last year, showed 34% opposing, 29% supporting it, and the rest largely indifferent.
You would need a heart of stone not to laugh after the scottish tory surgers were so quick to praise and spin Brown's economic 'wisdom' on pensions yesterday.
Brown storms off after getting a question he didn't enjoy.
*chortle*
Don't torture the puir, wee souls, some of their heads might explode.
'Brown good, Brown Bad, Brown knows about pensions, Brown ****ed pensions' **BOOM**
Wonderful Labour market statistics this morning with employment up to an all time record high and unemployment crashing down in all segments.
Is there no height St. George cannot scale?
The key findings from this months ONS bulletin:
For October to December 2013, compared with July to September 2013:
• The number of people in employment increased by 193,000 to reach 30.15 million.
• The number of unemployed people fell by 125,000 to reach 2.34 million.
• The number of economically inactive people aged from 16 to 64 increased by 8,000 to reach 8.93 million.
Comparing October to December 2013 with a year earlier:
• There were 396,000 more people in employment.
• There were 161,000 fewer unemployed people.
• There were 23,000 fewer economically inactive people aged from 16 to 64
Will there be any shirkers left to vote for Labour in May 2015?
My dear AveryLP, What the statistics say is that unemployment is now stands at 7.2% compared with last months 7.1% (BBC). So who is playing with numbers?
Your St. George has got a Dragon by the tail but it is biting his arse.
Unemployment rose on the month, and fell on the quarter.
Next month's figures could be interesting then - a trend or a blip...
Monthly unemployment numbers can fluctuate sharply.
I don't claim to be an economist or a statistician, like some others here, but when statistics can be squeezed in and out like an accordian, then something smells fishy. And if something smells fishy, you can bet your bottom dollar, it is.
It's not fishy, it's reality. Any series of data will show peaks and troughs at different scales.
Think about what is actually happening to the jobs that underlie these statistics. Perhaps on Monday 50 people were made redundant at one company, but on Tuesday another company sent out 100 letters to people offering jobs on a new production line. Depending on the interval and set of jobs you chose to measure those two pieces of data would lead to a wildly varying view on what is happening to unemployment. Bad if Monday is in the set measured, good if both are, brilliant if only Tuesday made the cut. This sort of data issue applies at every level and way of measuring what is going on.
So that's why you need to look at unemployment and employment in different ways. You need to look at what is happening in terms of different periods; monthly, quarterly, and annually to deal with some seasonal effects. You also need to consider local, regional, and national rates. And finally you need to look at what is happening by sector, by age group, and by income level, as jobs are not all the same.
There is no single measure of unemployment that captures everything that is going on.
All that aside the UK has had some very good news regarding employment in recent months, and only the most partisan will deny that.
You would need a heart of stone not to laugh after the scottish tory surgers were so quick to praise and spin Brown's economic 'wisdom' on pensions yesterday.
Brown storms off after getting a question he didn't enjoy.
*chortle*
Don't torture the puir, wee souls, some of their heads might explode.
'Brown good, Brown Bad, Brown knows about pensions, Brown ****ed pensions' **BOOM**
Brown is an arrogant "insert sweary word" who should be banned from commenting on any financial issues, his trough should also be removed.
You would need a heart of stone not to laugh after the scottish tory surgers were so quick to praise and spin Brown's economic 'wisdom' on pensions yesterday.
Brown storms off after getting a question he didn't enjoy.
*chortle*
Don't torture the puir, wee souls, some of their heads might explode.
'Brown good, Brown Bad, Brown knows about pensions, Brown ****ed pensions' **BOOM**
It's not as if they will be faced with the same problem on the EU and Barosso any time soon. Surely everyone knows by now that Cammie's Cast Iron Pledges to his tory backbenchers over EU renegotiations can be trusted, don't they?
David Cameron is “behind the curve” and heading for defeat in his quest to renegotiate Britian’s relationship with Europe, according to the think tank playing an active to role helping Whitehall with the negotiations.
Frances_Coppola Frances Coppola To clarify - Oct/Dec unemployment rate is UP 0.1% from Jun/Sep but DOWN 0.4% year-on-year. So unemployment rate is both up and down.
'Fortunately, the badgers have a substantial fifth column, in the form of the majority of the population who disagree with exterminating them for what are ultimately commercial reasons.'
What progress are you making on the cruelty to animals caused by halal slaughter,which is also only for commercial reasons?
Are you lobbying for a ban as in Denmark ?.
Denmark bans kosher and halal slaughter as minister says 'animal rights come before religion' The Independent - by Adam Withnall - 1 hour ago Denmark's government has brought in a ban on the religious slaughter of animals for the production of halal and kosher meat, after years of ...
Nonetheless the turnout was lower than the general election a couple of months later.
Indeed it was a vote of no confidence generated by the scottish referendum that caused the final collapse of the Callaghan government. Thus bringing Mrs T to power, so referendums can sometimes have unpredictable effects!
Interesting that the Kippers think that the Tories will still 'win' (albeit with a % of the vote that would make Labour the largest party in seats) even with UKIP on 26% in the polls while most would agree that getting half that in 2015 could result in huge difficulties for the Tories.
Could mean it's tricky convincing Ukip supporters that a vote for Nigel is a vote for Ed.
I think this is an important point. I've been struck by the number of people who haven't yet woken up to the fact that Ed Miliband may actually become PM. They look at him, and assume (not unreasonably) that there's no chance of anyone so unsuitable actually winning an election. This may perhaps explain a lot of the self-indulgence of the Kipper tendency and of some Conservative-leaning people who spend their time attacking Cameron rather than Labour.
The question is: will they wake up as the election nears, or will they have a rude awakening after the election when it's too late?
'Fortunately, the badgers have a substantial fifth column, in the form of the majority of the population who disagree with exterminating them for what are ultimately commercial reasons.'
What progress are you making on the cruelty to animals caused by halal slaughter,which is also only for commercial reasons?
Are you lobbying for a ban as in Denmark ?.
Denmark bans kosher and halal slaughter as minister says 'animal rights come before religion' The Independent - by Adam Withnall - 1 hour ago Denmark's government has brought in a ban on the religious slaughter of animals for the production of halal and kosher meat, after years of ...
Halal and kosher slaughter is far more cruel than a bullet to the head in a badger cull.
'Fortunately, the badgers have a substantial fifth column, in the form of the majority of the population who disagree with exterminating them for what are ultimately commercial reasons.'
What progress are you making on the cruelty to animals caused by halal slaughter,which is also only for commercial reasons?
Are you lobbying for a ban as in Denmark ?.
Denmark bans kosher and halal slaughter as minister says 'animal rights come before religion' The Independent - by Adam Withnall - 1 hour ago Denmark's government has brought in a ban on the religious slaughter of animals for the production of halal and kosher meat, after years of ...
Halal and kosher slaughter is far more cruel than a bullet to the head in a badger cull.
Maybe campaigning against the former is the greater vote loser? It would certainly stoke up the most controversy.
Interesting that the Kippers think that the Tories will still 'win' (albeit with a % of the vote that would make Labour the largest party in seats) even with UKIP on 26% in the polls while most would agree that getting half that in 2015 could result in huge difficulties for the Tories.
Could mean it's tricky convincing Ukip supporters that a vote for Nigel is a vote for Ed.
I think this is an important point. I've been struck by the number of people who haven't yet woken up to the fact that Ed Miliband may actually become PM. They look at him, and assume (not unreasonably) that there's no chance of anyone so unsuitable actually winning an election. This may perhaps explain a lot of the self-indulgence of the Kipper tendency and of some Conservative-leaning people who spend their time attacking Cameron rather than Labour.
The question is: will they wake up as the election nears, or will they have a rude awakening after the election when it's too late?
Many of us that are planning to vote for minor parties aren't doing it because we think there is no difference between the Conservatives and Labour. It's just a matter of whether either is good enough to get our votes. To take an extreme case for purely illustrative purposes, if the main two parties were led by Galloway and Griffin, surely you'd vote for neither. That's the situation people like me are in. I agree that Ed Miliband is terrible, and will be worse than Cameron, but Cameron is also bad enough I can't vote for him.
The question is: will they wake up as the election nears, or will they have a rude awakening after the election when it's too late?
If you had annual Parliaments, or a rolling series of by-elections, or STV, then people's inability to predict other people's voting behaviour would not have such a large effect on the governance of the nation.
Do I have your support for one of these reforms to our democracy?
As Alex Salmond explained on Monday, an independent Scotland would definitely be able to join a currency union with the remainder of the UK, regardless of what George Osborne says, because it just would, and that’s all there is to it, and therefore there’s no need even to consider alternative plans, because everything will just fall into place exactly as the SNP wants it to, and that’s the end of the matter.
But – without wishing to resort to the bullying negativity that is so typical of the Better Together campaign – what if the First Minister turns out to be wrong? What currency would an independent Scotland fall back on?
Many of us that are planning to vote for minor parties aren't doing it because we think there is no difference between the Conservatives and Labour. It's just a matter of whether either is good enough to get our votes. To take an extreme case for purely illustrative purposes, if the main two parties were led by Galloway and Griffin, surely you'd vote for neither. That's the situation people like me are in. I agree that Ed Miliband is terrible, and will be worse than Cameron, but Cameron is also bad enough I can't vote for him.
Well, that's up to you, but it's a different point.
The question is: will they wake up as the election nears, or will they have a rude awakening after the election when it's too late?
If you had annual Parliaments, or a rolling series of by-elections, or STV, then people's inability to predict other people's voting behaviour would not have such a large effect on the governance of the nation.
Do I have your support for one of these reforms to our democracy?
Eh? It's absolutely essential that voters take into account other voters' likely behaviour. It's an indispensable part of putting together a coherent platform which enough people can accept (even if it's not exactly what they would want in every detail) to form a government.
More flim flam, just means being able to borrow very limited pocket money direct rather than through Westminster. No change and no advantage for Scotland.
Why would the SNP 'we'll renege on our debt if we don't get our way' government be leery of entering the international bond market, I wonder?
It is a poxy £2B
How much more do you want to borrow?
If we were free of the London bloodsuckers we would not need to borrow, the requirement is only there because London squanders our money on illegal wars , Trident and London infrastructure and benefits.
So I understand that a lot of people think Iraq was an illegal war, but how do you get to the plural "illegal wars"?
Interesting that the Kippers think that the Tories will still 'win' (albeit with a % of the vote that would make Labour the largest party in seats) even with UKIP on 26% in the polls while most would agree that getting half that in 2015 could result in huge difficulties for the Tories.
Could mean it's tricky convincing Ukip supporters that a vote for Nigel is a vote for Ed.
I think this is an important point. I've been struck by the number of people who haven't yet woken up to the fact that Ed Miliband may actually become PM. They look at him, and assume (not unreasonably) that there's no chance of anyone so unsuitable actually winning an election. This may perhaps explain a lot of the self-indulgence of the Kipper tendency and of some Conservative-leaning people who spend their time attacking Cameron rather than Labour.
The question is: will they wake up as the election nears, or will they have a rude awakening after the election when it's too late?
I'm probably a natural Tory voter, but won't be voting for them next time as they don't currently represent anything I'd vote for. Propping up house prices with taxpayers money? Failure to regulate the banks? They are also ringfencing stuff that I think needs cutting like pensions and NHS spending.
They're basically going for the grey NIMBY vote and to hell with the young, which probably makes short term political sense, but long term they are going to struggle.
They also haven't cut half of the government bloat that they should have done either.
The idea that you should vote for someone you don't want in case someone even worse gets in is how we ended up being governed so badly in the first place.
By Michael Deacon, Bully and Issuer of Diktats 10:40AM GMT 19 Feb 2014
Old Scots coinage Traditionalists among the SNP hierarchy have called for a return to the various coins used by Scots before 1707, the year Scotland graciously invited a bankrupt England to become part of a temporary United Kingdom. These coins include the groat, the bawbee, the testoon, the bonnet, the bodle, the merk, the radge, the ned, the bampot, the boabie, the smackheid, the schemie, the scaff, the scunner, and the English numpty.
The question is: will they wake up as the election nears, or will they have a rude awakening after the election when it's too late?
If you had annual Parliaments, or a rolling series of by-elections, or STV, then people's inability to predict other people's voting behaviour would not have such a large effect on the governance of the nation.
Do I have your support for one of these reforms to our democracy?
Eh? It's absolutely essential that voters take into account other voters' likely behaviour. It's an indispensable part of putting together a coherent platform which enough people can accept (even if it's not exactly what they would want in every detail) to form a government.
It is only indispensable because of our FPTP electoral system combined with five-year Parliaments. This is what foists dishonest tactical voting onto the electorate.
The Green Party did a poll once, which found that if people voted on the basis of policies, rather than party labels, the Greens and some other minor party would gain the most votes. On that basis, perhaps they only get fewer votes then Labour because so many Labour voters are voting tactically to stop the Tories. Isn't that illogical? What if a majority of Tory voters decided they would vote for UKIP - would you vote tactically for UKIP to stop Labour?
As Alex Salmond explained on Monday, an independent Scotland would definitely be able to join a currency union with the remainder of the UK, regardless of what George Osborne says, because it just would, and that’s all there is to it, and therefore there’s no need even to consider alternative plans, because everything will just fall into place exactly as the SNP wants it to, and that’s the end of the matter.
But – without wishing to resort to the bullying negativity that is so typical of the Better Together campaign – what if the First Minister turns out to be wrong? What currency would an independent Scotland fall back on?
Many of us that are planning to vote for minor parties aren't doing it because we think there is no difference between the Conservatives and Labour. It's just a matter of whether either is good enough to get our votes. To take an extreme case for purely illustrative purposes, if the main two parties were led by Galloway and Griffin, surely you'd vote for neither. That's the situation people like me are in. I agree that Ed Miliband is terrible, and will be worse than Cameron, but Cameron is also bad enough I can't vote for him.
Well, that's up to you, but it's a different point.
Perhaps, but I think there's a lot more like me than you might think, which would mean the appeal of "you'll have to come back to stop Miliband" won't be that strong.
I also find there's something rather unscrupulous about the Tories demanding we vote dishonestly because of the flaws in the electoral system, and that fighting tooth and nail for any electoral changes that would remove these flaws.
Can you remind us when we elected Barroso, Van Rompuy & the council of ministers. I must have missed those elections.
Is electing them directly the test here? Because if it is then the British cabinet aren't democratically elected either, or the PM for that matter.
The question is how many steps removed from elections they are. In the UK, it's zero or one. In the EU, it's usually more like three or four.
I agree I'd like the EU to be more direct, but I don't get your maths.
MPs: 0 MEPs: 0
PM: 1 (MPs->elect PM) Commission President: 2, MEPs trying to squish into 1 (MPs->elect PMs->elect President, MEP plan MEPs->pick President)
UK Cabinet: 2 (MPs->elect PM->pick cabinet) Council of Ministers: 2 (MPs->elect PM->pick cabinet - if you're in the cabinet you're also in the Council of Ministers) Commissioners: 2 (MPs->elect PM->pick Commissioner)
Interesting that the Kippers think that the Tories will still 'win' (albeit with a % of the vote that would make Labour the largest party in seats) even with UKIP on 26% in the polls while most would agree that getting half that in 2015 could result in huge difficulties for the Tories.
Could mean it's tricky convincing Ukip supporters that a vote for Nigel is a vote for Ed.
I think this is an important point. I've been struck by the number of people who haven't yet woken up to the fact that Ed Miliband may actually become PM. They look at him, and assume (not unreasonably) that there's no chance of anyone so unsuitable actually winning an election. This may perhaps explain a lot of the self-indulgence of the Kipper tendency and of some Conservative-leaning people who spend their time attacking Cameron rather than Labour.
The question is: will they wake up as the election nears, or will they have a rude awakening after the election when it's too late?
I'm probably a natural Tory voter, but won't be voting for them next time as they don't currently represent anything I'd vote for. Propping up house prices with taxpayers money? Failure to regulate the banks? They are also ringfencing stuff that I think needs cutting like pensions and NHS spending.
They're basically going for the grey NIMBY vote and to hell with the young, which probably makes short term political sense, but long term they are going to struggle.
They also haven't cut half of the government bloat that they should have done either.
The idea that you should vote for someone you don't want in case someone even worse gets in is how we ended up being governed so badly in the first place.
For me, the absolute worst thing they've done is their appalling records on individual privacy and civil liberties. The New Labour years were awful in terms of what they did to personal freedom in this country, yet despite Cameron, May & Co campaigning against it in opposition, they've actually expanded the surveillance and database state in office.
The idea that you should vote for someone you don't want in case someone even worse gets in is how we ended up being governed so badly in the first place.
I would like to think that this was the main reason our politics was so useless, and that it was mainly because of FPTP. Then I look at Ireland's political system, with the absurd and continuing contest between FF and FG which retains a grip on the Irish political mainstream even with the STV system, and I despair.
Can you remind us when we elected Barroso, Van Rompuy & the council of ministers. I must have missed those elections.
Is electing them directly the test here? Because if it is then the British cabinet aren't democratically elected either, or the PM for that matter.
The question is how many steps removed from elections they are. In the UK, it's zero or one. In the EU, it's usually more like three or four.
I agree I'd like the EU to be more direct, but I don't get your maths.
MPs: 0 MEPs: 0
PM: 1 (MPs->elect PM) Commission President: 2, MEPs trying to squish into 1 (MPs->elect PMs->elect President, MEP plan MEPs->pick President)
UK Cabinet: 2 (MPs->elect PM->pick cabinet) Council of Ministers: 2 (MPs->elect PM->pick cabinet - if you're in the cabinet you're also in the Council of Ministers) Commissioners: 2 (MPs->elect PM->pick Commissioner)
What about the President of the Council or the rotating Presidency? And of course, the fact that Commission Presidents are usually more chosen by a smoke-filled room stitch-up, rather than any competitive leadership contest.
No, I profoundly disagree with that analysis. Accepting reality is not being dishonest.
Life, and especially government, is about making choices. Those choices are not independent, they all interact, and the goals are contradictory. What's more by definition all the politically-sensitive choices governments have to make are difficult ones - the easy ones have already been taken or everyone agrees on them, so they don't form part of the choice. Of course in any manifesto or the decisions taken by a particular government, you will never find that you personally agree with every single item, but, at the end of the day, the choice is between Manifesto A, Manifesto B or Manifesto C, where hopefully A B and C are reasonably coherent. An electoral system which fudges the choice by deliberately making it impossible for any of the manifestos on offer to voters to be implemented doesn't make great sense.
So I understand that a lot of people think Iraq was an illegal war, but how do you get to the plural "illegal wars"?
'The United Nations Charter does not allow military interventions in other sovereign countries with few exceptions which, in general, need to be decided upon by the United Nations Security Council; this legal enjoinment has proved controversial with many legal scholars who argue that though the Kosovo War illegal, it was still legitimate.'
I also find there's something rather unscrupulous about the Tories demanding we vote dishonestly because of the flaws in the electoral system, and that fighting tooth and nail for any electoral changes that would remove these flaws.
Now that is just silly. The choice is Miliband or Cameron. The dishonesty is denying that.
By all means vote in way which makes it more likely we'll get Miliband. That's entirely up to you, that's democracy. But don't be surprised to discover later on that it wasn't such a smart choice after all.
Interesting that the Kippers think that the Tories will still 'win' (albeit with a % of the vote that would make Labour the largest party in seats) even with UKIP on 26% in the polls while most would agree that getting half that in 2015 could result in huge difficulties for the Tories.
Could mean it's tricky convincing Ukip supporters that a vote for Nigel is a vote for Ed.
I think this is an important point. I've been struck by the number of people who haven't yet woken up to the fact that Ed Miliband may actually become PM. They look at him, and assume (not unreasonably) that there's no chance of anyone so unsuitable actually winning an election. This may perhaps explain a lot of the self-indulgence of the Kipper tendency and of some Conservative-leaning people who spend their time attacking Cameron rather than Labour.
The question is: will they wake up as the election nears, or will they have a rude awakening after the election when it's too late?
I'm probably a natural Tory voter, but won't be voting for them next time as they don't currently represent anything I'd vote for. Propping up house prices with taxpayers money? Failure to regulate the banks? They are also ringfencing stuff that I think needs cutting like pensions and NHS spending.
They're basically going for the grey NIMBY vote and to hell with the young, which probably makes short term political sense, but long term they are going to struggle.
They also haven't cut half of the government bloat that they should have done either.
The idea that you should vote for someone you don't want in case someone even worse gets in is how we ended up being governed so badly in the first place.
"They're basically going for the grey NIMBY vote and to hell with the young"
Urrrm, HS2 isn't exactly popular with the NIMBYs, grey or otherwise, and should be of advantage to the young in the future.
As a matter of interest, what youth-friendly policies would you, as a natural Tory voter, like to see them implement?
Can you remind us when we elected Barroso, Van Rompuy & the council of ministers. I must have missed those elections.
Is electing them directly the test here? Because if it is then the British cabinet aren't democratically elected either, or the PM for that matter.
The question is how many steps removed from elections they are. In the UK, it's zero or one. In the EU, it's usually more like three or four.
I agree I'd like the EU to be more direct, but I don't get your maths.
MPs: 0 MEPs: 0
PM: 1 (MPs->elect PM) Commission President: 2, MEPs trying to squish into 1 (MPs->elect PMs->elect President, MEP plan MEPs->pick President)
UK Cabinet: 2 (MPs->elect PM->pick cabinet) Council of Ministers: 2 (MPs->elect PM->pick cabinet - if you're in the cabinet you're also in the Council of Ministers) Commissioners: 2 (MPs->elect PM->pick Commissioner)
What about the President of the Council or the rotating Presidency? And of course, the fact that Commission Presidents are usually more chosen by a smoke-filled room stitch-up, rather than any competitive leadership contest.
President of the Council would be 2: MPs->elect PMs->pick president of the Council ...but he doesn't have much power now, and he'll have less if the MEPs succeed in pulling off their move on the Commission President.
Also worth noting that although the Commission and the UK Cabinet are equal at 2, there's also already a ratification process for the Commission by the MEPs who are at 0, which you don't have for the UK Cabinet.
Then the UK has the Queen, who's at infinity, and the House of Lords, which are at 2, 3 or infinity, depending how you look at it.
No, I profoundly disagree with that analysis. Accepting reality is not being dishonest.
Life, and especially government, is about making choices. Those choices are not independent, they all interact, and the goals are contradictory. What's more by definition all the politically-sensitive choices governments have to make are difficult ones - the easy ones have already been taken or everyone agrees on them, so they don't form part of the choice. Of course in any manifesto or the decisions taken by a particular government, you will never find that you personally agree with every single item, but, at the end of the day, the choice is between Manifesto A, Manifesto B or Manifesto C, where hopefully A B and C are reasonably coherent. An electoral system which fudges the choice by deliberately making it impossible for any of the manifestos on offer to voters to be implemented doesn't make great sense.
But what happens if a majority of Tory voters would rather vote UKIP, but don't do so because they think that voting Tory is the best way of stopping Labour?
If they all voted for UKIP then it would force the remaining Tory voters to choose between voting for UKIP to keep Labour out.
So how are voters supposed to guess who other people support, if an unknown number of other people are voting against their best judgement in order to stop the worst possible outcome?
At least with STV you can be sure that if people don't vote for you with their first choice it is because they don't want you to win, and not because they are voting tactically.
Maybe if we had a culture of widespread and open political debate in this country people could have the debates before the election that would enable them to make these judgements honestly - but try talking to a complete stranger about politics, say about a political newspaper article that they are reading, and you find that people are not welcoming in the slightest.
I also find there's something rather unscrupulous about the Tories demanding we vote dishonestly because of the flaws in the electoral system, and that fighting tooth and nail for any electoral changes that would remove these flaws.
Now that is just silly. The choice is Miliband or Cameron. The dishonesty is denying that.
By all means vote in way which makes it more likely we'll get Miliband. That's entirely up to you, that's democracy. But don't be surprised to discover later on that it wasn't such a smart choice after all.
You seem to advocate voting against a party rather than for a party. That's a bit sad.
Can you remind us when we elected Barroso, Van Rompuy & the council of ministers. I must have missed those elections.
Is electing them directly the test here? Because if it is then the British cabinet aren't democratically elected either, or the PM for that matter.
The question is how many steps removed from elections they are. In the UK, it's zero or one. In the EU, it's usually more like three or four.
I agree I'd like the EU to be more direct, but I don't get your maths.
MPs: 0 MEPs: 0
PM: 1 (MPs->elect PM) Commission President: 2, MEPs trying to squish into 1 (MPs->elect PMs->elect President, MEP plan MEPs->pick President)
UK Cabinet: 2 (MPs->elect PM->pick cabinet) Council of Ministers: 2 (MPs->elect PM->pick cabinet - if you're in the cabinet you're also in the Council of Ministers) Commissioners: 2 (MPs->elect PM->pick Commissioner)
What about the President of the Council or the rotating Presidency? And of course, the fact that Commission Presidents are usually more chosen by a smoke-filled room stitch-up, rather than any competitive leadership contest.
President of the Council would be 2: MPs->elect PMs->pick president of the Council ...but he doesn't have much power now, and he'll have less if the MEPs succeed in pulling off their move on the Commission President.
Also worth noting that although the Commission and the UK Cabinet are equal at 2, there's also already a ratification process for the Commission by the MEPs who are at 0, which you don't have for the UK Cabinet.
Then the UK has the Queen, who's at infinity, and the House of Lords, which are at 2, 3 or infinity, depending how you look at it.
Yes, but the MEPs choice of Commission President is only between candidates that never faced within party electoral options. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband were all chosen by within party elections.
The Queen is a figure head with no power (although, as a republican, I would prefer even figureheads were elected), and the House of Lords only has delaying power.
I appreciate your push though. My maths was off, and the "steps from power" is insufficiently nuanced. Where power actually lies in the system and the importance of elections should have been included in my comment.
" It's absolutely essential that voters take into account other voters' likely behaviour."
Mr. Nabavi, would you care to expand on that a little bit, because it leaves me mystified.
I mean that there's no point voting for a hopeless cause (which is exactly what you want), when by doing so you make it less likely that you'll get something close to what you want.
'Fortunately, the badgers have a substantial fifth column, in the form of the majority of the population who disagree with exterminating them for what are ultimately commercial reasons.'
What progress are you making on the cruelty to animals caused by halal slaughter,which is also only for commercial reasons?
Are you lobbying for a ban as in Denmark ?.
Denmark bans kosher and halal slaughter as minister says 'animal rights come before religion' The Independent - by Adam Withnall - 1 hour ago Denmark's government has brought in a ban on the religious slaughter of animals for the production of halal and kosher meat, after years of ...
Not sure about Denmark when it comes to animal welfare...
One thing I always try and buy is British bacon, our pigs have the best living conditions before slaughter in Europe, probably in the world.
Who are the real bullies in the Scottish independence debate? An honest disagreement of what is in the national interest cannot be had. No voters are at best careless of Scotland’s interests and, more probably, motivated by malice. You are, as George W Bush once said, with us or against us.
As dividing lines go this is as crude as it is effective. Real Scots vote for independence, plastic Scots vote No.
@Richard Nabavi Do you think the government should pass powers over justice and policing to the EU without a referendum?
"Last year Britain opted out of 130 or so EU justice and home affairs measures, including the European arrest warrant. The finesse, if it can be called such, was that Britain would then opt back into about 30 of the measures … pencilled in for a Commons vote is at the very end of the session on the eve of the Commons rising for the summer recess on July 22"
Interesting that the Kippers think that the Tories will still 'win' (albeit with a % of the vote that would make Labour the largest party in seats) even with UKIP on 26% in the polls while most would agree that getting half that in 2015 could result in huge difficulties for the Tories.
Could mean it's tricky convincing Ukip supporters that a vote for Nigel is a vote for Ed.
I think this is an important point. I've been struck by the number of people who haven't yet woken up to the fact that Ed Miliband may actually become PM. They look at him, and assume (not unreasonably) that there's no chance of anyone so unsuitable actually winning an election. This may perhaps explain a lot of the self-indulgence of the Kipper tendency and of some Conservative-leaning people who spend their time attacking Cameron rather than Labour.
The question is: will they wake up as the election nears, or will they have a rude awakening after the election when it's too late?
I'm probably a natural Tory voter, but won't be voting for them next time as they don't currently represent anything I'd vote for. Propping up house prices with taxpayers money? Failure to regulate the banks? They are also ringfencing stuff that I think needs cutting like pensions and NHS spending.
They're basically going for the grey NIMBY vote and to hell with the young, which probably makes short term political sense, but long term they are going to struggle.
They also haven't cut half of the government bloat that they should have done either.
The idea that you should vote for someone you don't want in case someone even worse gets in is how we ended up being governed so badly in the first place.
For me, the absolute worst thing they've done is their appalling records on individual privacy and civil liberties. The New Labour years were awful in terms of what they did to personal freedom in this country, yet despite Cameron, May & Co campaigning against it in opposition, they've actually expanded the surveillance and database state in office.
Mr. Socrates, whilst I enjoy, and even to an extent agree with the thrust of, your argument, are you sure you are not over-egging the pudding. Cameron & Co did for example kill off the ID card.
Yes, but the MEPs choice of Commission President is only between candidates that never faced within party electoral options. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband were all chosen by within party elections.
That's not true. The Greens had an open primary. The PES had a process for a primary, except that only one person stood, which sometimes happens in UK party leadership elections too (Gordon Brown, for example). And the EPP will be having their congress to select their candidate in March.
I also find there's something rather unscrupulous about the Tories demanding we vote dishonestly because of the flaws in the electoral system, and that fighting tooth and nail for any electoral changes that would remove these flaws.
Now that is just silly. The choice is Miliband or Cameron. The dishonesty is denying that.
By all means vote in way which makes it more likely we'll get Miliband. That's entirely up to you, that's democracy. But don't be surprised to discover later on that it wasn't such a smart choice after all.
Richard. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a majority of the country support either the Conservatives or UKIP, but they are split between them, whereas a minority who support Labour and the Lib Dems are more united around Labour.
Why is it better for UKIP and Tory voters to have to guess which of those parties is best placed to stop Labour then to have the leaders of those parties decide in the open how to compromise on their manifestos after the election? A compromise that the voters will be able to give their judgement on at the next election.
It seems obvious to me that the former option is much more prone to error than the latter.
You seem to advocate voting against a party rather than for a party. That's a bit sad.
That's a bit rich from a supporter of a party whose entire electoral proposition for at least thirty years has been 'keep the Tories out'.
In any case, I'm not simply doing that. I think it's fair to say I've been very consistent in my view that the current offering by the Conservatives is the best (bar Maggie) for half a century. Others may disagree; fair enough, but they still need to make their choice based on what is realistically on offer.
I also find there's something rather unscrupulous about the Tories demanding we vote dishonestly because of the flaws in the electoral system, and that fighting tooth and nail for any electoral changes that would remove these flaws.
Now that is just silly. The choice is Miliband or Cameron. The dishonesty is denying that.
By all means vote in way which makes it more likely we'll get Miliband. That's entirely up to you, that's democracy. But don't be surprised to discover later on that it wasn't such a smart choice after all.
You're entirely refusing to acknowledge the point. You are arguing that people vote for a party that is not their preferred choice, because the electoral system makes them disadvantaged for choosing their preferred choice. You then turn around and fight any reform of the electoral system that causes this. It's unscrupulous.
And as for something being "not such a smart choice", that will be the case whoever is the next PM. If it's Miliband we'll have bad governance, and if it's Cameron we'll have bad governance. We're screwed either way at the next election, so we may as well punish whichever party is in power to concentrate minds.
You seem to advocate voting against a party rather than for a party. That's a bit sad.
That's a bit rich from a supporter of a party whose entire electoral proposition for at least thirty years has been 'keep the Tories out'.
In any case, I'm not simply doing that. I think it's fair to say I've been very consistent in my view that the current offering by the Conservatives is the best (bar Maggie) for half a century. Others may disagree; fair enough, but they still need to make their choice based on what is realistically on offer.
So if Respect and the BNP were the two largest parties, how would you vote? You already said down thread that in a Lib Dem versus UKIP battle you don't have a strong preference and would still vote Tory, so it doesn't sound like you're being that consistent here.
"As a matter of interest, what youth-friendly policies would you, as a natural Tory voter, like to see them implement?"
Eliminating the deficit and paying down the debt are probably the best things we could do for the next generation or two. Leaving our children and grandchildren with an annual bill of £60+ billion in debt interest payments is an appalling thing to do.
Yes, but the MEPs choice of Commission President is only between candidates that never faced within party electoral options. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband were all chosen by within party elections.
That's not true. The Greens had an open primary. The PES had a process for a primary, except that only one person stood, which sometimes happens in UK party leadership elections too (Gordon Brown, for example). And the EPP will be having their congress to select their candidate in March.
Well kudos to the Greens, but that's not true for the main groups. Gordon Brown's election as leader was unique and highly criticised at the time in the UK as an undemocratic abnormality, but it's par for the course in the EU. What was the situation for the PES candidate last time, or the time before that? As for the EPP's Congress, how are congressional delegates selected?
@OblitusSumMe - I see your argument, but it doesn't really work like that, because in a PR system there may well be no viable coherent combination predictable in advance - in your example, it might be that the choice is between a Labour/UKIP coalition or a Con/LD one, which might not be what voters for those parties wanted. In other words, you'd still have to second-guess how other people would vote.
Protestors apparently arresting soldiers outside their barracks in Ukraine. Amazing.
I can't see this ending well. Am I the only person fearing the Russians sending troops in?
(Edit: after the Olympics, of course)
Wikipedia says that: "Ukraine is officially a non-aligned state, but has a rather warm relationship with its neighbor the Russian Federation, allowing the latter to keep some contingents of its military forces on Ukrainian soil."
So that suggests Russian forces are already in the country - not such a large step for them becoming involved.
It is relatively easy for a minor party to put together a manifesto that is popular with the voters: lower taxes for people like me, higher taxes for the others, higher pensions, better childcare, ending red tape, free university places and a sovereign wealth fund and a balanced budget. Even a return to the old railway liveries.
Minor parties can do all these things because they know full well that they are not going to have to implement them, major parties have to be more realistic as they will be held to account when they form a government.
All parties are coalitions in themselves, UKIP combines elements of Libertarianism combined with social conservatism for example. We have to choose which is the best match, and take into account who is going to be a realistic prospect locally. I will vote LibDem in 2015 as they are closest to my views but also second to my useless MP, but might vote differently if in another seat, more on the basis of the local candidate than party.
The question is: will they wake up as the election nears, or will they have a rude awakening after the election when it's too late?
If you had annual Parliaments, or a rolling series of by-elections, or STV, then people's inability to predict other people's voting behaviour would not have such a large effect on the governance of the nation.
Do I have your support for one of these reforms to our democracy?
Eh? It's absolutely essential that voters take into account other voters' likely behaviour. It's an indispensable part of putting together a coherent platform which enough people can accept (even if it's not exactly what they would want in every detail) to form a government.
It is only indispensable because of our FPTP electoral system combined with five-year Parliaments. This is what foists dishonest tactical voting onto the electorate.
The Green Party did a poll once, which found that if people voted on the basis of policies, rather than party labels, the Greens and some other minor party would gain the most votes. On that basis, perhaps they only get fewer votes then Labour because so many Labour voters are voting tactically to stop the Tories. Isn't that illogical? What if a majority of Tory voters decided they would vote for UKIP - would you vote tactically for UKIP to stop Labour?
The Badger definitely has his eye firmly focused on the prize.
'Asked if he fancied another crack at being chancellor in the future, Darling said nothing else would command his attention until the 2014 Scottish independence referendum was over. But added: "After that I will maintain an interest in wider affairs, as I always do". "At the moment I am totally focused on the [Scottish] referendum in October 2014, after that I will see where I stand," he said.'
So if Respect and the BNP were the two largest parties, how would you vote? You already said down thread that in a Lib Dem versus UKIP battle you don't have a strong preference and would still vote Tory, so it doesn't sound like you're being that consistent here.
That's a silly example, precisely because FPTP forces parties to go for a broad level of support (unlike PR, where extreme or single-issue parties can get enough leverage to have real influence - see Israel for a clear example).
Yes, but the MEPs choice of Commission President is only between candidates that never faced within party electoral options. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband were all chosen by within party elections.
That's not true. The Greens had an open primary. The PES had a process for a primary, except that only one person stood, which sometimes happens in UK party leadership elections too (Gordon Brown, for example). And the EPP will be having their congress to select their candidate in March.
Well kudos to the Greens, but that's not true for the main groups. Gordon Brown's election as leader was unique and highly criticised at the time in the UK as an undemocratic abnormality, but it's par for the course in the EU. What was the situation for the PES candidate last time, or the time before that? As for the EPP's Congress, how are congressional delegates selected?
The parliament picking the President of the Commission results from the Treaty of Lisbon (then stretches it a bit), so there's no course to have par for. The PES didn't pick a candidate last time. I'm not sure what the process is to become an EPP delegate, but whatever it is you've probably missed the deadline...
So if Respect and the BNP were the two largest parties, how would you vote? You already said down thread that in a Lib Dem versus UKIP battle you don't have a strong preference and would still vote Tory, so it doesn't sound like you're being that consistent here.
That's a silly example, precisely because FPTP forces parties to go for a broad level of support (unlike PR, where extreme or single-issue parties can get enough leverage to have real influence - see Israel for a clear example).
Well imagine an example where the British public was highly polarized and supported protectionist economics. Whether or not the example is believable, for the purposes of our thought experiment, what would you do in that situation, faced with two unpalatable options?
I also note that AV encourages parties to be broad-based even more, in order to pick up second preferences, but you opposed that system.
Yes, but the MEPs choice of Commission President is only between candidates that never faced within party electoral options. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband were all chosen by within party elections.
That's not true. The Greens had an open primary. The PES had a process for a primary, except that only one person stood, which sometimes happens in UK party leadership elections too (Gordon Brown, for example). And the EPP will be having their congress to select their candidate in March.
Well kudos to the Greens, but that's not true for the main groups. Gordon Brown's election as leader was unique and highly criticised at the time in the UK as an undemocratic abnormality, but it's par for the course in the EU. What was the situation for the PES candidate last time, or the time before that? As for the EPP's Congress, how are congressional delegates selected?
The parliament picking the President of the Commission results from the Treaty of Lisbon (then stretches it a bit), so there's no course to have par for. The PES didn't pick a candidate last time. I'm not sure what the process is to become an EPP delegate, but whatever it is you've probably missed the deadline...
I judge systems by what they have done. Perhaps PES will be more democratic in future, but we haven't seen any evidence of it yet. As for the EPP, I have scoured their website and can't find out anything about delegate selection. It seems likely it would be an obscure group of loyal placemen that vote as they're told to, along the lines of the old Russian soviets.
So UKIP voters believe UKIP will get 26% at the GE.What does that tell you about their supporters? It says to me they are not going to change under any exhortations about "Vote Nigel Get Ed" campaign.These guys are gone to the land of the LibLabCon conspiracy,where all the established parties are part of the problem,not the solution,and there's no coming back.Here,a UKIP government is possible,a land of the free for retired bankers.
F1: Red Bull took 5 hours to get going, but the car seems rather more reliable. Must be a huge relief for the team. Still, it's only day one.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), it'll be interesting to see how he defines victims. If your village is cut off but your house is unflooded, does it count? What if transport links are damaged, but not cut off? If your garden floods but your house doesn't?
Surprised he isn't having a bankers' bonus tax fund flood defences.
'Fortunately, the badgers have a substantial fifth column, in the form of the majority of the population who disagree with exterminating them for what are ultimately commercial reasons.'
What progress are you making on the cruelty to animals caused by halal slaughter,which is also only for commercial reasons?
Are you lobbying for a ban as in Denmark ?.
Denmark bans kosher and halal slaughter as minister says 'animal rights come before religion' The Independent - by Adam Withnall - 1 hour ago Denmark's government has brought in a ban on the religious slaughter of animals for the production of halal and kosher meat, after years of ...
Not sure about Denmark when it comes to animal welfare...
One thing I always try and buy is British bacon, our pigs have the best living conditions before slaughter in Europe, probably in the world.
Mr. F, I'd say Miliband is significantly worse. That's not to say Cameron's an Aurelian or Trajan, just that the alternative is an Arcadius or Honorius. Better a mediocre leader than an abysmal one.
Of course, I have the 'luxury' of being in a seat where the vote is rather simple: vote Conservative or vote for someone with no hope of beating Ed Balls.
If I were voting in a Labour/LibDem marginal with the Tories nowhere, I'd consider voting LibDem depending on the candidate.
I once voted Labour on that basis. I felt dirty afterwards.
It was in Brent East, held by the ghastly Sarah Teather. My thinking was that voting Labour would keep the constituency marginal between the two. They would then waste resources fighting each other with no difference to the outcome of the election, in that in either event, an envy monkey socialist would be elected.
Meanwhile they would have fewer resources available elsewhere to oppose Conservatives.
Trouble is, I don't think enough people do this to make it worthwhile.
Well imagine an example where the British public was highly polarized and supported protectionist economics. Whether or not the example is believable, for the purposes of our thought experiment, what would you do in that situation, faced with two unpalatable options?
I also note that AV encourages parties to be broad-based even more, in order to pick up second preferences, but you opposed that system.
Well, obviously if I couldn't accept either, I'd vote for a minor party in accordance with my views.
I've got no quibble with that (for example, people who vote Green). My quibble is with those who lean to the Right but who think there's no difference between Miliband and Cameron, or that the choice in 2015 doesn't matter. They are profoundly wrong IMO, and my prediction is that, if we get a Miliband government, many of them will come round to agreeing with me. He'll be even worse than Brown, I don't think there can now be any doubt about that.
After 13 years of Labour misrule and a so-so Major government before that, we now have the best government for half a century (bar Maggie), and it will be very unfortunate to throw it away when all the major and desperately-needed reforms (on the public finances, welfare and education) are only just beginning to bear fruit.
But if that's what voters decide, and if they really want to go back to the bad old days of the UK's decline of the pre-Thatcher years, then, well, that's democracy..
But if that's what voters decide, and if they really want to go back to the bad old days of the UK's decline of the pre-Thatcher years, then, well, that's democracy..
Socrates point is that - with AV - voters wouldn't be faced with such a choice. They could put UKIP 1st and Conservative 2nd.
They could vote for what they want and against what they don't.
Isn't that a better system than forcing them to choose between principles and pragmatism?
Comments
BBC News - 09:43: The ONS says the latest 7.2% unemployment rate (for October - December) was HIGHER than the 7.1% reported last month, which was for the three months to November. But it was 0.4 percentage points DOWN from the preceding quarter (July to September). Perhaps more importantly, the number of people counted as unemployed was 2.34 million, down 125,000 from July to September 2013 and down 161,000 from a year earlier.
Nicola hasn't queered that pitch, has she?
David Miranda loses legal challenge
Breaking news
David Miranda loses legal challenge over his detention at Heathrow Airport under anti-terrorism powers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26256544#TWEET1048723
Interesting.....
David Miranda loses legal challenge over his detention at Heathrow Airport under anti-terrorism powers http://bbc.in/1kVS9zu
Excellent!!!!
Unemployment rose on the month, and fell on the quarter.
The latest month in the figures is December. Assuming that the figures are seasonally adjusted to take account of temporary Christmas employment, it implies that fewer temporary workers were taken on this Christmas than in previous years.
There are plausible reasons for this that don't involve a loss of business confidence. The wider use of zero-hours contracts means that it would be relatively easy for retail operations to offer more hours of work to people they already have under contract in preference to hiring more people on a temporary basis.
If this is a structural change in employment practice then it implies the ONS need to revise their seasonal adjustments.
However, I haven't looked at the detail of the figures so I don't know whether my assumptions are correct.
Won't that nice Mr Miliband be pleased?
'The EU is a democratically elected body*
Pure comedy gold,
Can you remind us when we elected Barroso, Van Rompuy & the council of ministers.
I must have missed those elections.
Brown storms off after getting a question he didn't enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9qWT1o5pnlM
*chortle*
Do they?
Surveys published by the NFU last year, showed 34% opposing, 29% supporting it, and the rest largely indifferent.
http://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/poll-reveals-attitudes-to-badger-cull/
I'd be interested to see your more up to date figures.
'Brown good, Brown Bad, Brown knows about pensions, Brown ****ed pensions' **BOOM**
Think about what is actually happening to the jobs that underlie these statistics. Perhaps on Monday 50 people were made redundant at one company, but on Tuesday another company sent out 100 letters to people offering jobs on a new production line. Depending on the interval and set of jobs you chose to measure those two pieces of data would lead to a wildly varying view on what is happening to unemployment. Bad if Monday is in the set measured, good if both are, brilliant if only Tuesday made the cut. This sort of data issue applies at every level and way of measuring what is going on.
So that's why you need to look at unemployment and employment in different ways. You need to look at what is happening in terms of different periods; monthly, quarterly, and annually to deal with some seasonal effects. You also need to consider local, regional, and national rates. And finally you need to look at what is happening by sector, by age group, and by income level, as jobs are not all the same.
There is no single measure of unemployment that captures everything that is going on.
All that aside the UK has had some very good news regarding employment in recent months, and only the most partisan will deny that.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/miranda-v-sofshd.pdf
Surely everyone knows by now that Cammie's Cast Iron Pledges to his tory backbenchers over EU renegotiations can be trusted, don't they? Poor old gullible tories what a shame.
http://asiancorrespondent.com/119758/thai-court-bans-use-of-force-against-protesters/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=thai-court-bans-use-of-force-against-protesters&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
To clarify - Oct/Dec unemployment rate is UP 0.1% from Jun/Sep but DOWN 0.4% year-on-year. So unemployment rate is both up and down.
'Fortunately, the badgers have a substantial fifth column, in the form of the majority of the population who disagree with exterminating them for what are ultimately commercial reasons.'
What progress are you making on the cruelty to animals caused by halal slaughter,which is also only for commercial reasons?
Are you lobbying for a ban as in Denmark ?.
Denmark bans kosher and halal slaughter as minister says 'animal rights come before religion'
The Independent - by Adam Withnall - 1 hour ago
Denmark's government has brought in a ban on the religious slaughter of animals for the production of halal and kosher meat, after years of ...
Nonetheless the turnout was lower than the general election a couple of months later.
Indeed it was a vote of no confidence generated by the scottish referendum that caused the final collapse of the Callaghan government. Thus bringing Mrs T to power, so referendums can sometimes have unpredictable effects!
The question is: will they wake up as the election nears, or will they have a rude awakening after the election when it's too late?
Do you know what tautology means?
For MD and perhaps others:
http://www.mercedesamgf1.com/en/car/f1-w05-360-video/
Enginetastic!
Do I have your support for one of these reforms to our democracy?
They're basically going for the grey NIMBY vote and to hell with the young, which probably makes short term political sense, but long term they are going to struggle.
They also haven't cut half of the government bloat that they should have done either.
The idea that you should vote for someone you don't want in case someone even worse gets in is how we ended up being governed so badly in the first place.
If I were voting in a Labour/LibDem marginal with the Tories nowhere, I'd consider voting LibDem depending on the candidate.
10:40AM GMT 19 Feb 2014
Old Scots coinage
Traditionalists among the SNP hierarchy have called for a return to the various coins used by Scots before 1707, the year Scotland graciously invited a bankrupt England to become part of a temporary United Kingdom. These coins include the groat, the bawbee, the testoon, the bonnet, the bodle, the merk, the radge, the ned, the bampot, the boabie, the smackheid, the schemie, the scaff, the scunner, and the English numpty.
The Green Party did a poll once, which found that if people voted on the basis of policies, rather than party labels, the Greens and some other minor party would gain the most votes. On that basis, perhaps they only get fewer votes then Labour because so many Labour voters are voting tactically to stop the Tories. Isn't that illogical? What if a majority of Tory voters decided they would vote for UKIP - would you vote tactically for UKIP to stop Labour?
He forgot to mention three other possibilities -
The Trooser, the Turnip, and the Trump.
I also find there's something rather unscrupulous about the Tories demanding we vote dishonestly because of the flaws in the electoral system, and that fighting tooth and nail for any electoral changes that would remove these flaws.
MPs: 0
MEPs: 0
PM: 1 (MPs->elect PM)
Commission President: 2, MEPs trying to squish into 1 (MPs->elect PMs->elect President, MEP plan MEPs->pick President)
UK Cabinet: 2 (MPs->elect PM->pick cabinet)
Council of Ministers: 2 (MPs->elect PM->pick cabinet - if you're in the cabinet you're also in the Council of Ministers)
Commissioners: 2 (MPs->elect PM->pick Commissioner)
'Maybe campaigning against the former is the greater vote loser? It would certainly stoke up the most controversy.'
Selective animal cruelty based on voter preference?
No, I profoundly disagree with that analysis. Accepting reality is not being dishonest.
Life, and especially government, is about making choices. Those choices are not independent, they all interact, and the goals are contradictory. What's more by definition all the politically-sensitive choices governments have to make are difficult ones - the easy ones have already been taken or everyone agrees on them, so they don't form part of the choice. Of course in any manifesto or the decisions taken by a particular government, you will never find that you personally agree with every single item, but, at the end of the day, the choice is between Manifesto A, Manifesto B or Manifesto C, where hopefully A B and C are reasonably coherent. An electoral system which fudges the choice by deliberately making it impossible for any of the manifestos on offer to voters to be implemented doesn't make great sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War
By all means vote in way which makes it more likely we'll get Miliband. That's entirely up to you, that's democracy. But don't be surprised to discover later on that it wasn't such a smart choice after all.
Urrrm, HS2 isn't exactly popular with the NIMBYs, grey or otherwise, and should be of advantage to the young in the future.
As a matter of interest, what youth-friendly policies would you, as a natural Tory voter, like to see them implement?
MPs->elect PMs->pick president of the Council
...but he doesn't have much power now, and he'll have less if the MEPs succeed in pulling off their move on the Commission President.
Also worth noting that although the Commission and the UK Cabinet are equal at 2, there's also already a ratification process for the Commission by the MEPs who are at 0, which you don't have for the UK Cabinet.
Then the UK has the Queen, who's at infinity, and the House of Lords, which are at 2, 3 or infinity, depending how you look at it.
Mr. Nabavi, would you care to expand on that a little bit, because it leaves me mystified.
If they all voted for UKIP then it would force the remaining Tory voters to choose between voting for UKIP to keep Labour out.
So how are voters supposed to guess who other people support, if an unknown number of other people are voting against their best judgement in order to stop the worst possible outcome?
At least with STV you can be sure that if people don't vote for you with their first choice it is because they don't want you to win, and not because they are voting tactically.
Maybe if we had a culture of widespread and open political debate in this country people could have the debates before the election that would enable them to make these judgements honestly - but try talking to a complete stranger about politics, say about a political newspaper article that they are reading, and you find that people are not welcoming in the slightest.
The Queen is a figure head with no power (although, as a republican, I would prefer even figureheads were elected), and the House of Lords only has delaying power.
I appreciate your push though. My maths was off, and the "steps from power" is insufficiently nuanced. Where power actually lies in the system and the importance of elections should have been included in my comment.
One thing I always try and buy is British bacon, our pigs have the best living conditions before slaughter in Europe, probably in the world.
https://www.ciwf.org.uk/what_we_do/pigs/state_of_eu_pigs/undercover_investigation/denmark/default.aspx
I'd like to see No (or ineffective) environmental enrichment at 0% for Britain but 36% is better than all the other EU countries CIWF looked at.
An honest disagreement of what is in the national interest cannot be had. No voters are at best careless of Scotland’s interests and, more probably, motivated by malice. You are, as George W Bush once said, with us or against us.
As dividing lines go this is as crude as it is effective. Real Scots vote for independence, plastic Scots vote No.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2014/02/who-are-the-real-bullies-in-the-scottish-independence-debate/
Nationalists never cast aspersions about their opponents on here, do they?
(Edit: after the Olympics, of course)
Do you think the government should pass powers over justice and policing to the EU without a referendum?
"Last year Britain opted out of 130 or so EU justice and home affairs measures, including the European arrest warrant. The finesse, if it can be called such, was that Britain would then opt back into about 30 of the measures … pencilled in for a Commons vote is at the very end of the session on the eve of the Commons rising for the summer recess on July 22"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100260182/the-next-tory-plot-to-embarrass-david-cameron-on-europe-is-already-taking-shape/
Why is it better for UKIP and Tory voters to have to guess which of those parties is best placed to stop Labour then to have the leaders of those parties decide in the open how to compromise on their manifestos after the election? A compromise that the voters will be able to give their judgement on at the next election.
It seems obvious to me that the former option is much more prone to error than the latter.
In any case, I'm not simply doing that. I think it's fair to say I've been very consistent in my view that the current offering by the Conservatives is the best (bar Maggie) for half a century. Others may disagree; fair enough, but they still need to make their choice based on what is realistically on offer.
And as for something being "not such a smart choice", that will be the case whoever is the next PM. If it's Miliband we'll have bad governance, and if it's Cameron we'll have bad governance. We're screwed either way at the next election, so we may as well punish whichever party is in power to concentrate minds.
Eliminating the deficit and paying down the debt are probably the best things we could do for the next generation or two. Leaving our children and grandchildren with an annual bill of £60+ billion in debt interest payments is an appalling thing to do.
http://www.epp.eu/valdis-dombrovskis-meets-epp-president-joseph-daul-submits-candidature-be-ec-president
Delegates vote March 7th.
So that suggests Russian forces are already in the country - not such a large step for them becoming involved.
Minor parties can do all these things because they know full well that they are not going to have to implement them, major parties have to be more realistic as they will be held to account when they form a government.
All parties are coalitions in themselves, UKIP combines elements of Libertarianism combined with social conservatism for example. We have to choose which is the best match, and take into account who is going to be a realistic prospect locally. I will vote LibDem in 2015 as they are closest to my views but also second to my useless MP, but might vote differently if in another seat, more on the basis of the local candidate than party.
'Asked if he fancied another crack at being chancellor in the future, Darling said nothing else would command his attention until the 2014 Scottish independence referendum was over. But added: "After that I will maintain an interest in wider affairs, as I always do".
"At the moment I am totally focused on the [Scottish] referendum in October 2014, after that I will see where I stand," he said.'
http://tinyurl.com/oxjuc2l
TBF being only a month behind the curve would be an improvement on current performance.
I also note that AV encourages parties to be broad-based even more, in order to pick up second preferences, but you opposed that system.
Should go down well with the millionaires of the Thames Valley.
It says to me they are not going to change under any exhortations about "Vote Nigel Get Ed" campaign.These guys are gone to the land of the LibLabCon conspiracy,where all the established parties are part of the problem,not the solution,and there's no coming back.Here,a UKIP government is possible,a land of the free for retired bankers.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), it'll be interesting to see how he defines victims. If your village is cut off but your house is unflooded, does it count? What if transport links are damaged, but not cut off? If your garden floods but your house doesn't?
Surprised he isn't having a bankers' bonus tax fund flood defences.
If pressed, I'd say that Milliband is worse, but it's very much a choice of evils.
Is NPXMP around to comment?
Of course, I have the 'luxury' of being in a seat where the vote is rather simple: vote Conservative or vote for someone with no hope of beating Ed Balls.
It was in Brent East, held by the ghastly Sarah Teather. My thinking was that voting Labour would keep the constituency marginal between the two. They would then waste resources fighting each other with no difference to the outcome of the election, in that in either event, an envy monkey socialist would be elected.
Meanwhile they would have fewer resources available elsewhere to oppose Conservatives.
Trouble is, I don't think enough people do this to make it worthwhile.
I've got no quibble with that (for example, people who vote Green). My quibble is with those who lean to the Right but who think there's no difference between Miliband and Cameron, or that the choice in 2015 doesn't matter. They are profoundly wrong IMO, and my prediction is that, if we get a Miliband government, many of them will come round to agreeing with me. He'll be even worse than Brown, I don't think there can now be any doubt about that.
After 13 years of Labour misrule and a so-so Major government before that, we now have the best government for half a century (bar Maggie), and it will be very unfortunate to throw it away when all the major and desperately-needed reforms (on the public finances, welfare and education) are only just beginning to bear fruit.
But if that's what voters decide, and if they really want to go back to the bad old days of the UK's decline of the pre-Thatcher years, then, well, that's democracy..
They could vote for what they want and against what they don't.
Isn't that a better system than forcing them to choose between principles and pragmatism?