politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sunil’s by-election analysis: Which party’s has done best a

SystemSystem Posts: 12,213
edited March 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sunil’s by-election analysis: Which party’s has done best and which worst in current parliament

This shows the breakdown of aggregate votes secured by the parties in Westminster by-elections starting with the first, Oldham East & Saddleworth, in 2011.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    Excellent piece Sunil.

    Many thanks
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    FPT:
    malcolmg said:

    Another example of what happens when the debate is real.
    During a live debate between Humza Yousaf and Anas Sarwar at the university of strathclyde 9th March 2014, a panel with the following make up:

    Humza Yousaf(Yes campaign), Shabnam (no campaign), Naeem Raza (host), Yvonne Ridley (yes campaign) Anas Sarwar (no vote)

    At the beginning of the event, everyone was asked to vote whether they were in favour of an independent Scotland or not – 52% of the audience voted in favour of independence and 41% voted against with 7% undecided.

    There was another vote which took place after the debate and the results were – 68% in favour of independence and the no vote had decreased to 20%

    This continues to demonstrate the positive change towards a Yes vote when people have the facts laid out in front of them.

    malcolmg - I would note that had I been there I would have voted for independence.

    In fact, as a general principle in life I find that simply disagreeing with Yvonne Ridley and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard ensures I rarely make errors.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    FPT:
    Mr. G, hmm. I'd be wary of taking such a line.

    I recall the Question Time edition when teachers were, I think, having a big strike. The audience was packed with them (many said they were teachers or lecturers) but Liam Fox and Norman Lamb were faced by the oratorical colossus of Sadiq Khan, who somehow managed to lose the audience. That didn't mean most teachers necessarily sided with the Coalition.

    On that sort of note, I do hope the Clegg-Farage doesn't have the worm.

    On-topic: cheers, Dr. Prasannan.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121
    edited March 2014
    This is my first piece on PB, so muchos thanks to Mike for putting it up!

    Regarding turnouts, they have indeed fluctuated wildly, dropping 35% on GE2010 in Cardiff South but only 13% in Oldham East.

    The exact figures are as follows: 

    	      T/O@2010  @by-election      drop in turnout
    Wythenshawe	 54.3 	    28.2 	           26.1 
    South Shields	 57.7 	    39.3 	           18.4 
    Eastleigh	 69.3 	    52.8 	           16.5 
    Croydon North	 60.6 	    26.5 	           34.1 
    Middlesbrough	 51.4 	     25.9 	           25.5 
    Rotherham	 59.0 	     33.6 	           25.4 
    Cardiff South	 60.2 	     25.4                 34.8 
    Corby	          69.2 	     44.8 	         24.4 
    Manchester Cen.	 46.7 	     18.2 	          28.5 
    Bradford West	 64.9 	     50.0 	          14.9 
    Feltham & Heston 59.9 	     28.8 	          31.1 
    Inverclyde	 63.4 	    45.4 	         18.0 
    Leicester South	 61.1 	    45.0 	         16.1 
    Barnsley Cen.    56.5 	   36.5 	         20.0 
    Oldham East	 61.2 	    48.0 	         13.2
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Thanks Sunil, interesting stuff.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,458
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    This is my first piece on PB, so muchos thanks to Mike for putting it up!

    Regarding turnouts, they have indeed fluctuated wildly, dropping 35% on GE2010 in Cardiff South but only 13% in Oldham East.

    The exact figures are as follows:


    	      T/O@2010  @by-election      drop in turnout
    Wythenshawe	 54.3 	    28.2 	           26.1 
    South Shields	 57.7 	    39.3 	           18.4 
    Eastleigh	 69.3 	    52.8 	           16.5 
    Croydon North	 60.6 	    26.5 	           34.1 
    Middlesbrough	 51.4 	     25.9 	           25.5 
    Rotherham	 59.0 	     33.6 	           25.4 
    Cardiff South	 60.2 	     25.4                 34.8 
    Corby	                69.2 	     44.8 	          24.4 
    Manchester Cen.	 46.7 	     18.2 	          28.5 
    Bradford West	 64.9 	     50.0 	          14.9 
    Feltham & Heston 59.9 	     28.8 	          31.1 
    Inverclyde	   63.4 	    45.4 	         18.0 
    Leicester South	 61.1 	    45.0 	         16.1 
    Barnsley Central	 56.5 	   36.5 	         20.0 
    Oldham East	 61.2 	    48.0 	         13.2
    Thanks Sunil, very interesting.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Good analysis, Sunil.

    Mile, that is why we look at swings. It takes out who is defending the seat etc. to a large extent.

    As Labour was defending 13 of the seats, it is understandable that their votes will be the highest. But in the wash, 15 contests, about 1m electorate, the net swing Tory to Labour is 7.45%. Not just enough for a landslide but a hurricane !

    But yellows losing 9.6% of the votes is no satisfaction just because the blues are losing 10.6%. The 9.6% equates to 14.5% overall. Isn't that what LD supporters are hoping for at the GE ?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    surbiton said:

    Good analysis, Sunil.

    Mile, that is why we look at swings. It takes out who is defending the seat etc. to a large extent.

    As Labour was defending 13 of the seats, it is understandable that their votes will be the highest. But in the wash, 15 contests, about 1m electorate, the net swing Tory to Labour is 7.45%. Not just enough for a landslide but a hurricane !

    But yellows losing 9.6% of the votes is no satisfaction just because the blues are losing 10.6%. The 9.6% equates to 14.5% overall. Isn't that what LD supporters are hoping for at the GE ?

    My edit function does not work well.

    "Mile, that is why we look at swings. It takes out who is defending the seat etc. to a large extent"

    Of course, Mile is actually Mike !!

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Thanks to Sunil for collating these statistics. The average Conservative to Labour swing has been just under 7.5%. Add in a dollop of swing-back, and we are left with a swing in Labour's favour somewhere in the range of 1-5%.

    Applying this to UNS with the help of Electoral Calculus and we cover a range of results from a Parliament Hung pretty much as at present to a wafer-thin Labour majority.

    Anything better than evens on a Hung Parliament has to be a great value bet, you would have thought.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,458
    Off-topic:

    Yet more problems for Boeing: over 40 787's in production have hairline cracks on their wings.
    http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2023076224_787wingcrackxml.html

    Still, at least these are not planes that are in service: Airbus has problems with wing cracks in planes in service:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/airbus-group-a-idUSL6N0M35BA20140306

    This stuff is hard. We all take flying too much for granted, IMHO.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,507
    edited March 2014
    Labours Banker Bonus Tax Bonanza

    Labour are dead keen on taxing Bankers Bonuses - heres a list of 11 times Labour has changed the policy and what they’d use the money for…

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/martinshapland/labours-banker-bonus-tax-bonanza-gimd
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    Great analysis by Sunil. Many thanks.
    Dire numbers for the Tories.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Anew Nick V Nigel Poll:

    LBC Poll: 76% believe @Nigel_Farage will destroy #clegg http://t.co/wasuCEiVM7 … pic.twitter.com/YVWS1ExwDj

    — Dirty Politics (@HouseOfTraitors) March 10, 2014
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Does anyone have a definitive number for how many times Labour has spent the bankers bonus tax (whilst arguing for smaller bonuses......)???

    Incoherent doesn't even begin to desctibe it.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    Should one allow for the fact that several of the Labour defences were as a result of bad behaviour of the former MP.

    And, of course, the LD!
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited March 2014
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    This is my first piece on PB, so muchos thanks to Mike for putting it up!

    Regarding turnouts, they have indeed fluctuated wildly, dropping 35% on GE2010 in Cardiff South but only 13% in Oldham East.

    The exact figures are as follows:


    	      T/O@2010  @by-election      drop in turnout
    Wythenshawe	 54.3 	    28.2 	           26.1 
    South Shields	 57.7 	    39.3 	           18.4 
    Eastleigh	 69.3 	    52.8 	           16.5 
    Croydon North	 60.6 	    26.5 	           34.1 
    Middlesbrough	 51.4 	     25.9 	           25.5 
    Rotherham	 59.0 	     33.6 	           25.4 
    Cardiff South	 60.2 	     25.4                 34.8 
    Corby	          69.2 	     44.8 	         24.4 
    Manchester Cen.	 46.7 	     18.2 	          28.5 
    Bradford West	 64.9 	     50.0 	          14.9 
    Feltham & Heston 59.9 	     28.8 	          31.1 
    Inverclyde	 63.4 	    45.4 	         18.0 
    Leicester South	 61.1 	    45.0 	         16.1 
    Barnsley Cen.    56.5 	   36.5 	         20.0 
    Oldham East	 61.2 	    48.0 	         13.2
    Interesting that the only byelections where turnout topped 50% were when there was a non-mainstream party exciting interest. Speaks volumes about how just how little enthusiasm people have for the establishment parties. Even Corby is historically very poor for a Con-Lab marginal.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,507
    Floater said:

    Does anyone have a definitive number for how many times Labour has spent the bankers bonus tax (whilst arguing for smaller bonuses......)???

    Incoherent doesn't even begin to desctibe it.

    11 times apparently...I lost count after about 5.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,458
    edited March 2014
    Floater said:

    Does anyone have a definitive number for how many times Labour has spent the bankers bonus tax (whilst arguing for smaller bonuses......)???

    Incoherent doesn't even begin to desctibe it.

    Edited for inability to look a few posts down the thread ...

    (knocks himself around the head with a wet haddock)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    Excellent Sunil thanks for this.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,507
    What's Gordon Brown been doing since 2010?

    "there's another book on the way, called 2025: Shaping a New Future"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26512592

    Oh god, help us all !!!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    An average swing of 7.5% from Con to Lab isn't very high, for by-elections. I'd been under the impression that the swing was higher.

    O/T there's a splendid article from Libby Purves (behind the paywall) in today's Times, laying into Michael Gove's wife for parading her faux-egalitarian credentials, by sending her child to an "Anglican Hogwarts" at the same time as slagging off people who educate their children privately.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @FrancisUrquhart

    '11 times apparently...I lost count after about 5.'

    That's got to be a record even by Labour's past standards,great credibility for the GE.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Danny565 said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    This is my first piece on PB, so muchos thanks to Mike for putting it up!

    Regarding turnouts, they have indeed fluctuated wildly, dropping 35% on GE2010 in Cardiff South but only 13% in Oldham East.

    The exact figures are as follows:


    	      T/O@2010  @by-election      drop in turnout
    Wythenshawe	 54.3 	    28.2 	           26.1 
    South Shields	 57.7 	    39.3 	           18.4 
    Eastleigh	 69.3 	    52.8 	           16.5 
    Croydon North	 60.6 	    26.5 	           34.1 
    Middlesbrough	 51.4 	     25.9 	           25.5 
    Rotherham	 59.0 	     33.6 	           25.4 
    Cardiff South	 60.2 	     25.4                 34.8 
    Corby	          69.2 	     44.8 	         24.4 
    Manchester Cen.	 46.7 	     18.2 	          28.5 
    Bradford West	 64.9 	     50.0 	          14.9 
    Feltham & Heston 59.9 	     28.8 	          31.1 
    Inverclyde	 63.4 	    45.4 	         18.0 
    Leicester South	 61.1 	    45.0 	         16.1 
    Barnsley Cen.    56.5 	   36.5 	         20.0 
    Oldham East	 61.2 	    48.0 	         13.2
    Interesting that the only byelections where turnout topped 50% were when there was a non-mainstream party exciting interest. Speaks volumes about how just how little enthusiasm people have for the establishment parties. Even Corby is historically very poor for a Con-Lab marginal.
    I would say any by-election with a turnout of aroung 45% and above has to be considered good under the circumstances when no change in government is on the cards.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Floater said:

    Does anyone have a definitive number for how many times Labour has spent the bankers bonus tax (whilst arguing for smaller bonuses......)???

    Incoherent doesn't even begin to desctibe it.

    11 times apparently...I lost count after about 5.
    And, that was only the first innings. WE will do it 11 more times, if necessary.

    It's a double whammy. "Use" the money and bash the *ankers !

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    Socialism is clearly very bad for your health as well as your morals. 13 out of 15 by-elections in Labour seats? Quite remarkable as David Coleman used to say.

    The list Sunil has produced downthread is also interesting. How many of these can people actually remember? I am struggling to remember anything significant about more than half of them. Eastleigh has been by far the most interesting by election of the Parliament so far.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,779
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    What's Gordon Brown been doing since 2010?

    "there's another book on the way, called 2025: Shaping a New Future"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26512592

    Oh god, help us all !!!

    It amazes me how Gordon Brown can find the time to write a book whilst he's busy toiling away being an MP, standing up for his consituants in the house...

    Oh..
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146
    edited March 2014
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    malcolmg said:

    Another example of what happens when the debate is real.
    During a live debate between Humza Yousaf and Anas Sarwar at the university of strathclyde 9th March 2014, a panel with the following make up:

    Humza Yousaf(Yes campaign), Shabnam (no campaign), Naeem Raza (host), Yvonne Ridley (yes campaign) Anas Sarwar (no vote)

    At the beginning of the event, everyone was asked to vote whether they were in favour of an independent Scotland or not – 52% of the audience voted in favour of independence and 41% voted against with 7% undecided.

    There was another vote which took place after the debate and the results were – 68% in favour of independence and the no vote had decreased to 20%

    This continues to demonstrate the positive change towards a Yes vote when people have the facts laid out in front of them.

    malcolmg - I would note that had I been there I would have voted for independence.

    In fact, as a general principle in life I find that simply disagreeing with Yvonne Ridley and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard ensures I rarely make errors.
    You'd have been conflicted as Yvonne (unlike her fellow Respecter Galloway) is an Indy supporter.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    Blimey!

    Roy Jenkins' male lover Tony Crosland tried to halt his marriage

    A new biography, Roy Jenkins: A Well Rounded Life, by John Campbell, reveals how miner’s son Jenkins himself had a homosexual affair with his close friend Crosland who he met at Oxford University

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/10687788/Roy-Jenkins-male-lover-Tony-Crosland-tried-to-halt-his-marriage.html
  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    I take it by the huge squirreling Populus is getting there was no crossover?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    compouter2 said:

    I take it by the huge squirreling Populus is getting there was no crossover?

    A 4% lead is not particularly interesting.

  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    I like how the SNP was left out of the by-election analysis. Absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we were up 15.5 points. Gosh no.
  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    edited March 2014
    Sean_F said:

    compouter2 said:

    I take it by the huge squirreling Populus is getting there was no crossover?

    A 4% lead is not particularly interesting.

    Good, and long may the uninteresting polls last. As long as there is no crossover all the posts about swingback, crap Ed, Labour bankers tax, roaring economies, returning Lib Dem/Tories are all hot air and pissflaps I.M.H.O.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    edited March 2014
    I'm hopeful we might see the Guardian/ICM poll today.

    The fieldwork has been completed, it may out later this week.
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    The Daily Star's crime correspondent, Jerry Lawton, is surely in contempt of court. He is continuing on Twitter to refer to complainants in R v Evans MP as "victims". He should know that that is a matter for the jury, not journalists, to determine!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Theuniondivvie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    malcolmg said:

    Another example of what happens when the debate is real.
    During a live debate between Humza Yousaf and Anas Sarwar at the university of strathclyde 9th March 2014, a panel with the following make up:

    Humza Yousaf(Yes campaign), Shabnam (no campaign), Naeem Raza (host), Yvonne Ridley (yes campaign) Anas Sarwar (no vote)

    At the beginning of the event, everyone was asked to vote whether they were in favour of an independent Scotland or not – 52% of the audience voted in favour of independence and 41% voted against with 7% undecided.

    There was another vote which took place after the debate and the results were – 68% in favour of independence and the no vote had decreased to 20%

    This continues to demonstrate the positive change towards a Yes vote when people have the facts laid out in front of them.

    malcolmg - I would note that had I been there I would have voted for independence.

    In fact, as a general principle in life I find that simply disagreeing with Yvonne Ridley and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard ensures I rarely make errors.
    You'd have been conflicted as Yvonne (unlike her fellow Respecter Galloway) is an Indy supporter.

    TUD, I wonder why the Express did not trumpet the YES/NO numbers in the poll yesterday. Given it was 3 - 1 to NO on who were thugs threatening people , it would suggest the numbers for NO on the referendum did not suit them very well. Pretty pointless having a poll and then hiding it, but probably easy to guess why.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    compouter2 said:

    Sean_F said:

    compouter2 said:

    I take it by the huge squirreling Populus is getting there was no crossover?

    A 4% lead is not particularly interesting.

    Good, and long may the uninteresting polls last. As long as there is no crossover all the posts about swingback, crap Ed, Labour bankers tax, roaring economies, returning Lib Dem/Tories are all hot air and pissflaps I.M.H.O.

    Polling 14 months away from an election rarely matches polling at an election. Thus, discussion about leader ratings, economic prospects etc. makes sense.

  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    'If the Scottish parliament wins more powers, England must get home rule'
    Some bad news. You hoped that the referendum on Scottish independence would be an end of the matter. Sorry, no chance. Whatever the result, the Scottish political class is determined to carry on doing what it loves doing most, which is talking about itself, constitutional change and more powers for the Scottish parliament.

    ... If you live in England you may have noticed that something is missing when these speeches are made and policy papers presented north of the border. What is overlooked is England, which is the much bigger partner in the Union.

    ... I wouldn't have started any of this. I like the UK and thought it worked well as it was. But on devolution, we are where we are. All the parties are determined that Scotland should have more powers. I hope they realise that the next constitutional settlement cannot ignore the English question.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100262839/if-the-scottish-parliament-wins-more-powers-england-must-get-home-rule/

    Even if Scotland votes No in September, one thing is certain: the Establishment is going to continue ripping the Yookay to shreds.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121
    Stuart_Dickson said:

    I like how the SNP was left out of the by-election analysis. Absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we were up 15.5 points. Gosh no.

    Stuart, there was only one Westminster by-election involving the SNP, Inverclyde. Difficult to extrapolate with just one data-point.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    malcolmg said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    malcolmg said:

    Another example of what happens when the debate is real.
    During a live debate between Humza Yousaf and Anas Sarwar at the university of strathclyde 9th March 2014, a panel with the following make up:

    Humza Yousaf(Yes campaign), Shabnam (no campaign), Naeem Raza (host), Yvonne Ridley (yes campaign) Anas Sarwar (no vote)

    At the beginning of the event, everyone was asked to vote whether they were in favour of an independent Scotland or not – 52% of the audience voted in favour of independence and 41% voted against with 7% undecided.

    There was another vote which took place after the debate and the results were – 68% in favour of independence and the no vote had decreased to 20%

    This continues to demonstrate the positive change towards a Yes vote when people have the facts laid out in front of them.

    malcolmg - I would note that had I been there I would have voted for independence.

    In fact, as a general principle in life I find that simply disagreeing with Yvonne Ridley and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard ensures I rarely make errors.
    You'd have been conflicted as Yvonne (unlike her fellow Respecter Galloway) is an Indy supporter.

    TUD, I wonder why the Express did not trumpet the YES/NO numbers in the poll yesterday. Given it was 3 - 1 to NO on who were thugs threatening people , it would suggest the numbers for NO on the referendum did not suit them very well. Pretty pointless having a poll and then hiding it, but probably easy to guess why.
    Ho ho. There may be trouble ahead. Before the fiddlers have fled,
    Before they ask us to pay the bill, and while we still have that chance,
    Cameron will face the music and dance
    There may be teardrops to shed.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,146
    malcolmg said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    malcolmg said:

    Another example of what happens when the debate is real.
    During a live debate between Humza Yousaf and Anas Sarwar at the university of strathclyde 9th March 2014, a panel with the following make up:

    Humza Yousaf(Yes campaign), Shabnam (no campaign), Naeem Raza (host), Yvonne Ridley (yes campaign) Anas Sarwar (no vote)

    At the beginning of the event, everyone was asked to vote whether they were in favour of an independent Scotland or not – 52% of the audience voted in favour of independence and 41% voted against with 7% undecided.

    There was another vote which took place after the debate and the results were – 68% in favour of independence and the no vote had decreased to 20%

    This continues to demonstrate the positive change towards a Yes vote when people have the facts laid out in front of them.

    malcolmg - I would note that had I been there I would have voted for independence.

    In fact, as a general principle in life I find that simply disagreeing with Yvonne Ridley and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard ensures I rarely make errors.
    You'd have been conflicted as Yvonne (unlike her fellow Respecter Galloway) is an Indy supporter.

    TUD, I wonder why the Express did not trumpet the YES/NO numbers in the poll yesterday. Given it was 3 - 1 to NO on who were thugs threatening people , it would suggest the numbers for NO on the referendum did not suit them very well. Pretty pointless having a poll and then hiding it, but probably easy to guess why.
    I can't remember there being a vote after an actual debate during the last year where No has won. I guess that's why they're so reluctant to debate, and the Unionist media to report the debates that do take place.

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited March 2014
    There had better not be one English Parliament, dominated by southern interests. It should be broken up into English regions. Northern England has more in common politically with Scotland and Wales than it does with southern England (not purely in terms of tribal Labour/Tory terms--there's more of a genuine sense of solidarity up here, more tolerance of poor people or benefit-claimants, and more of an indifference to squeals about it being so dangerous to upset businesses or "the markets"), so it would be very perverse for us to be bundled up with them.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121
    edited March 2014
    Stuart_Dickson said:

    I like how the SNP was left out of the by-election analysis. Absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we were up 15.5 points. Gosh no.

    OK, to follow-up:
    Only one by-election of the 15 was contested by the SNP

    % of the aggregate vote in the 15 seats in 2010 = 1.0% (6,577 of 647,921)
    % of the aggregate vote in the 15 seats at the by-elections = 2.3% (9,280 of 402,404)
    therefore, the difference = +1.3%
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited March 2014
    It looks as if the (Conservative) MPs will all be giving hearsay evidence about alleged complaints made to them about Nigel Evans' conduct.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Danny565 said:

    There had better not be one English Parliament, dominated by southern interests. It should be broken up into English regions. Northern England has more in common politically with Scotland and Wales than it does with southern England (not purely in terms of tribal Labour/Tory terms--there's more of a genuine sense of solidarity up here, more tolerance of poor people or benefit-claimants, and more of an indifference to squeals about it being so dangerous to upset businesses or "the markets"), so it would be very perverse for us to be bundled up with them.

    If Scotland votes No, there'll need to be a proper constitutional convention. If a settlement is imposed by one party or another it will just be changed when governments change. But there is no ducking the fact there has to be significant reform. Devomax for Scotland means devomax for the rest of the UK too, so we probably are looking at some kind of federal resolution with only issues like defence, foreign policy and social security reserved for Westminster.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,458
    Danny565 said:

    There had better not be one English Parliament, dominated by southern interests. It should be broken up into English regions. Northern England has more in common politically with Scotland and Wales than it does with southern England (not purely in terms of tribal Labour/Tory terms--there's more of a genuine sense of solidarity up here, more tolerance of poor people or benefit-claimants, and more of an indifference to squeals about it being so dangerous to upset businesses or "the markets"), so it would be very perverse for us to be bundled up with them.

    "here's more of a genuine sense of solidarity up here, more tolerance of poor people or benefit-claimants, and more of an indifference to squeals about it being so dangerous to upset businesses or "the markets")"
    Yeah, right. Any evidence for that, aside from your own biases?

    In fact, we can take it further: townies do not understand country folk. Therefore the countryside should be separate regions from the cities.
  • saddosaddo Posts: 534
    Buzzfeed says it all on the 2 eds latest bankers bonus blitz

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/martinshapland/labours-banker-bonus-tax-bonanza-gimd

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    SouthamObserver said:

    Danny565 said:

    There had better not be one English Parliament, dominated by southern interests. It should be broken up into English regions. Northern England has more in common politically with Scotland and Wales than it does with southern England (not purely in terms of tribal Labour/Tory terms--there's more of a genuine sense of solidarity up here, more tolerance of poor people or benefit-claimants, and more of an indifference to squeals about it being so dangerous to upset businesses or "the markets"), so it would be very perverse for us to be bundled up with them.

    If Scotland votes No, there'll need to be a proper constitutional convention. If a settlement is imposed by one party or another it will just be changed when governments change. But there is no ducking the fact there has to be significant reform. Devomax for Scotland means devomax for the rest of the UK too, so we probably are looking at some kind of federal resolution with only issues like defence, foreign policy and social security reserved for Westminster.

    I'm in favour of devolution for England, but my point is I want it to be devolved to English regions. One unitary English Parliament would mean southerners could trample over northerners even more than they currently do -- a disaster.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Dave in parliament talking about the response to Russia. Telling them how those scary Europeans are going to delay visa reform, ban arms exports, royals not to visit Sochi! I mean I know Putin has annexed a whole province - but to keep the royals away from the paralympics, well that's surely an over-response. Putin will be very scared now.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    @Josias - "the countryside should be separate regions from the cities"

    There is a strong argument for that. Needs are very different, as are populations. The problem is that the countryside doesn't really have much money. Most of the wealth is in the towns.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    Danny565 said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Danny565 said:

    There had better not be one English Parliament, dominated by southern interests. It should be broken up into English regions. Northern England has more in common politically with Scotland and Wales than it does with southern England (not purely in terms of tribal Labour/Tory terms--there's more of a genuine sense of solidarity up here, more tolerance of poor people or benefit-claimants, and more of an indifference to squeals about it being so dangerous to upset businesses or "the markets"), so it would be very perverse for us to be bundled up with them.

    If Scotland votes No, there'll need to be a proper constitutional convention. If a settlement is imposed by one party or another it will just be changed when governments change. But there is no ducking the fact there has to be significant reform. Devomax for Scotland means devomax for the rest of the UK too, so we probably are looking at some kind of federal resolution with only issues like defence, foreign policy and social security reserved for Westminster.

    I'm in favour of devolution for England, but my point is I want it to be devolved to English regions. One unitary English Parliament would mean southerners could trample over northerners even more than they currently do -- a disaster.
    So you only like democracy when it means you side is in charge/wins.

    Brilliant.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Danny565 said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Danny565 said:

    There had better not be one English Parliament, dominated by southern interests. It should be broken up into English regions. Northern England has more in common politically with Scotland and Wales than it does with southern England (not purely in terms of tribal Labour/Tory terms--there's more of a genuine sense of solidarity up here, more tolerance of poor people or benefit-claimants, and more of an indifference to squeals about it being so dangerous to upset businesses or "the markets"), so it would be very perverse for us to be bundled up with them.

    If Scotland votes No, there'll need to be a proper constitutional convention. If a settlement is imposed by one party or another it will just be changed when governments change. But there is no ducking the fact there has to be significant reform. Devomax for Scotland means devomax for the rest of the UK too, so we probably are looking at some kind of federal resolution with only issues like defence, foreign policy and social security reserved for Westminster.

    I'm in favour of devolution for England, but my point is I want it to be devolved to English regions. One unitary English Parliament would mean southerners could trample over northerners even more than they currently do -- a disaster.
    The thing you fear may come to pass because the party you vote for opened Pandora's Box. Stop voting for them.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,507
    edited March 2014
    Ed Miliband's Bankers Bonuses Pledges

    Video showing Ed pledges in his own words...

    http://order-order.com/2014/03/10/guy-news-ed-milibands-bankers-bonus-tax-pledges/
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Danny565 said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Danny565 said:

    There had better not be one English Parliament, dominated by southern interests. It should be broken up into English regions. Northern England has more in common politically with Scotland and Wales than it does with southern England (not purely in terms of tribal Labour/Tory terms--there's more of a genuine sense of solidarity up here, more tolerance of poor people or benefit-claimants, and more of an indifference to squeals about it being so dangerous to upset businesses or "the markets"), so it would be very perverse for us to be bundled up with them.

    If Scotland votes No, there'll need to be a proper constitutional convention. If a settlement is imposed by one party or another it will just be changed when governments change. But there is no ducking the fact there has to be significant reform. Devomax for Scotland means devomax for the rest of the UK too, so we probably are looking at some kind of federal resolution with only issues like defence, foreign policy and social security reserved for Westminster.

    I'm in favour of devolution for England, but my point is I want it to be devolved to English regions. One unitary English Parliament would mean southerners could trample over northerners even more than they currently do -- a disaster.

    Presumably, though, you'd be happy for southerners to pay high enough taxes for money to be redistributed from them to the north?

  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    Danny565 said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Danny565 said:

    There had better not be one English Parliament, dominated by southern interests. It should be broken up into English regions. Northern England has more in common politically with Scotland and Wales than it does with southern England (not purely in terms of tribal Labour/Tory terms--there's more of a genuine sense of solidarity up here, more tolerance of poor people or benefit-claimants, and more of an indifference to squeals about it being so dangerous to upset businesses or "the markets"), so it would be very perverse for us to be bundled up with them.

    If Scotland votes No, there'll need to be a proper constitutional convention. If a settlement is imposed by one party or another it will just be changed when governments change. But there is no ducking the fact there has to be significant reform. Devomax for Scotland means devomax for the rest of the UK too, so we probably are looking at some kind of federal resolution with only issues like defence, foreign policy and social security reserved for Westminster.

    I'm in favour of devolution for England, but my point is I want it to be devolved to English regions. One unitary English Parliament would mean southerners could trample over northerners even more than they currently do -- a disaster.
    I agree with you Danny.

    Regional government for those English regions which choose it (just as with Scotland and Wales), the rest can be governed as now.

    We've never had a proper offer of regional devolution on the table in England. The North East quite rightly rejected Labour's offering in 2004 not least because Whitehall wasn't prepared to devolve any powers downwards. The only powers on offer to the regional assembly were to be taken from local government, so most councils were hostile.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Danny565 said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Danny565 said:

    There had better not be one English Parliament, dominated by southern interests. It should be broken up into English regions. Northern England has more in common politically with Scotland and Wales than it does with southern England (not purely in terms of tribal Labour/Tory terms--there's more of a genuine sense of solidarity up here, more tolerance of poor people or benefit-claimants, and more of an indifference to squeals about it being so dangerous to upset businesses or "the markets"), so it would be very perverse for us to be bundled up with them.

    If Scotland votes No, there'll need to be a proper constitutional convention. If a settlement is imposed by one party or another it will just be changed when governments change. But there is no ducking the fact there has to be significant reform. Devomax for Scotland means devomax for the rest of the UK too, so we probably are looking at some kind of federal resolution with only issues like defence, foreign policy and social security reserved for Westminster.

    I'm in favour of devolution for England, but my point is I want it to be devolved to English regions. One unitary English Parliament would mean southerners could trample over northerners even more than they currently do -- a disaster.
    So you only like democracy when it means you side is in charge/wins.

    Brilliant.
    My "side"? If there was a northern parliament, I'm actually not convinced Labour would forever dominate it; devolution might well mean some new nothern-centred leftwing party would flourish (even Labour is increasingly being seen as a southern clique).

    But yes, in terms of actual policies, obviously I want decisions that impact northerners' lives to actually have majority support among northerners, rather than having policies imposed which we don't vote for. Duh.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    Surely if Scotland votes No we go on as we are now.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    SouthamObserver said:

    @Josias - "the countryside should be separate regions from the cities"

    There is a strong argument for that. Needs are very different, as are populations. The problem is that the countryside doesn't really have much money. Most of the wealth is in the towns.

    That's alright though, isn't it? Fiscal transfers will solve the problem. For example, Manchester is much richer than East Sussex, so take the money from wealthy Mancunians and give it to the poorer county of East Sussex.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,779
    Danny565 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Danny565 said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Danny565 said:

    There had better not be one English Parliament, dominated by southern interests. It should be broken up into English regions. Northern England has more in common politically with Scotland and Wales than it does with southern England (not purely in terms of tribal Labour/Tory terms--there's more of a genuine sense of solidarity up here, more tolerance of poor people or benefit-claimants, and more of an indifference to squeals about it being so dangerous to upset businesses or "the markets"), so it would be very perverse for us to be bundled up with them.

    If Scotland votes No, there'll need to be a proper constitutional convention. If a settlement is imposed by one party or another it will just be changed when governments change. But there is no ducking the fact there has to be significant reform. Devomax for Scotland means devomax for the rest of the UK too, so we probably are looking at some kind of federal resolution with only issues like defence, foreign policy and social security reserved for Westminster.

    I'm in favour of devolution for England, but my point is I want it to be devolved to English regions. One unitary English Parliament would mean southerners could trample over northerners even more than they currently do -- a disaster.
    So you only like democracy when it means you side is in charge/wins.

    Brilliant.
    My "side"? If there was a northern parliament, I'm actually not convinced Labour would forever dominate it; devolution might well mean some new nothern-centred leftwing party would flourish (even Labour is increasingly being seen as a southern clique).

    But yes, in terms of actual policies, obviously I want decisions that impact northerners' lives to actually have majority support among northerners, rather than having policies imposed which we don't vote for. Duh.
    That's fine...just don't expect us softie southerners to pay for it...
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,779
    OldKingCole said:

    Surely if Scotland votes No we go on as we are now.

    If you believe that.....

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337
    Theuniondivvie said:

    malcolmg said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    malcolmg said:

    Another example of what happens when the debate is real.
    During a live debate between Humza Yousaf and Anas Sarwar at the university of strathclyde 9th March 2014, a panel with the following make up:

    Humza Yousaf(Yes campaign), Shabnam (no campaign), Naeem Raza (host), Yvonne Ridley (yes campaign) Anas Sarwar (no vote)

    At the beginning of the event, everyone was asked to vote whether they were in favour of an independent Scotland or not – 52% of the audience voted in favour of independence and 41% voted against with 7% undecided.

    There was another vote which took place after the debate and the results were – 68% in favour of independence and the no vote had decreased to 20%

    This continues to demonstrate the positive change towards a Yes vote when people have the facts laid out in front of them.

    malcolmg - I would note that had I been there I would have voted for independence.

    In fact, as a general principle in life I find that simply disagreeing with Yvonne Ridley and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard ensures I rarely make errors.
    You'd have been conflicted as Yvonne (unlike her fellow Respecter Galloway) is an Indy supporter.

    TUD, I wonder why the Express did not trumpet the YES/NO numbers in the poll yesterday. Given it was 3 - 1 to NO on who were thugs threatening people , it would suggest the numbers for NO on the referendum did not suit them very well. Pretty pointless having a poll and then hiding it, but probably easy to guess why.
    I can't remember there being a vote after an actual debate during the last year where No has won. I guess that's why they're so reluctant to debate, and the Unionist media to report the debates that do take place.

    There was the rather unusual case of Strathallan School, but even if one sets that aside for obvious reasons there was a - by the media - much more trumpeted case of Glasgow Uni some time back. However, the media like to remain rather quieter about the other instances where Yes was much more popular - such as the session at Berwick upon Tweed.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    HurstLlama said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    @Josias - "the countryside should be separate regions from the cities"

    There is a strong argument for that. Needs are very different, as are populations. The problem is that the countryside doesn't really have much money. Most of the wealth is in the towns.

    That's alright though, isn't it? Fiscal transfers will solve the problem. For example, Manchester is much richer than East Sussex, so take the money from wealthy Mancunians and give it to the poorer county of East Sussex.
    I read that Elmbridge Borough (in Surrey and covering Cobham, Weybridge and Esher) pays more income tax than Manchester.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    edited March 2014
    HurstLlama said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    @Josias - "the countryside should be separate regions from the cities"

    There is a strong argument for that. Needs are very different, as are populations. The problem is that the countryside doesn't really have much money. Most of the wealth is in the towns.

    That's alright though, isn't it? Fiscal transfers will solve the problem. For example, Manchester is much richer than East Sussex, so take the money from wealthy Mancunians and give it to the poorer county of East Sussex.

    Mancunians and tax-paying businesses based in Manchester will need to look after Manchester first. East Sussex will be OK, of course; but there are plenty of less wealthy parts of the countryside that will not be as well off.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    Danny565 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Danny565 said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Danny565 said:

    There had better not be one English Parliament, dominated by southern interests. It should be broken up into English regions. Northern England has more in common politically with Scotland and Wales than it does with southern England (not purely in terms of tribal Labour/Tory terms--there's more of a genuine sense of solidarity up here, more tolerance of poor people or benefit-claimants, and more of an indifference to squeals about it being so dangerous to upset businesses or "the markets"), so it would be very perverse for us to be bundled up with them.

    If Scotland votes No, there'll need to be a proper constitutional convention. If a settlement is imposed by one party or another it will just be changed when governments change. But there is no ducking the fact there has to be significant reform. Devomax for Scotland means devomax for the rest of the UK too, so we probably are looking at some kind of federal resolution with only issues like defence, foreign policy and social security reserved for Westminster.

    I'm in favour of devolution for England, but my point is I want it to be devolved to English regions. One unitary English Parliament would mean southerners could trample over northerners even more than they currently do -- a disaster.
    So you only like democracy when it means you side is in charge/wins.

    Brilliant.
    My "side"? If there was a northern parliament, I'm actually not convinced Labour would forever dominate it; devolution might well mean some new nothern-centred leftwing party would flourish (even Labour is increasingly being seen as a southern clique).

    But yes, in terms of actual policies, obviously I want decisions that impact northerners' lives to actually have majority support among northerners, rather than having policies imposed which we don't vote for. Duh.
    As a Northern Monkey who spent 5 wonderful years living and working in London, I find posts like yours utterly depressing.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Patrick said:

    HurstLlama said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    @Josias - "the countryside should be separate regions from the cities"

    There is a strong argument for that. Needs are very different, as are populations. The problem is that the countryside doesn't really have much money. Most of the wealth is in the towns.

    That's alright though, isn't it? Fiscal transfers will solve the problem. For example, Manchester is much richer than East Sussex, so take the money from wealthy Mancunians and give it to the poorer county of East Sussex.
    I read that Elmbridge Borough (in Surrey and covering Cobham, Weybridge and Esher) pays more income tax than Manchester.

    Income tax is not the only tax, of course. But Surrey is another county that would be fine. Head west and north, and general affluence declines.

  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    Danny565 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Danny565 said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Danny565 said:

    There had better not be one English Parliament, dominated by southern interests. It should be broken up into English regions. Northern England has more in common politically with Scotland and Wales than it does with southern England (not purely in terms of tribal Labour/Tory terms--there's more of a genuine sense of solidarity up here, more tolerance of poor people or benefit-claimants, and more of an indifference to squeals about it being so dangerous to upset businesses or "the markets"), so it would be very perverse for us to be bundled up with them.

    If Scotland votes No, there'll need to be a proper constitutional convention. If a settlement is imposed by one party or another it will just be changed when governments change. But there is no ducking the fact there has to be significant reform. Devomax for Scotland means devomax for the rest of the UK too, so we probably are looking at some kind of federal resolution with only issues like defence, foreign policy and social security reserved for Westminster.

    I'm in favour of devolution for England, but my point is I want it to be devolved to English regions. One unitary English Parliament would mean southerners could trample over northerners even more than they currently do -- a disaster.
    So you only like democracy when it means you side is in charge/wins.

    Brilliant.
    My "side"? If there was a northern parliament, I'm actually not convinced Labour would forever dominate it; devolution might well mean some new nothern-centred leftwing party would flourish (even Labour is increasingly being seen as a southern clique).

    But yes, in terms of actual policies, obviously I want decisions that impact northerners' lives to actually have majority support among northerners, rather than having policies imposed which we don't vote for. Duh.
    It would be difficult for any party to have an outright majority in any regional assembly, since elections would be under some form of PR.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    It isn't a problem that the countryside doesn't really have much money. The problem is that those living in the countryside expect to be subsidised for their lifestyle choices off the back of those of us who live in large cities living much greener, much more economically productive lives.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited March 2014
    Slackbladder said:

    Danny565 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Danny565 said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Danny565 said:

    There had better not be one English Parliament, dominated by southern interests. It should be broken up into English regions. Northern England has more in common politically with Scotland and Wales than it does with southern England (not purely in terms of tribal Labour/Tory terms--there's more of a genuine sense of solidarity up here, more tolerance of poor people or benefit-claimants, and more of an indifference to squeals about it being so dangerous to upset businesses or "the markets"), so it would be very perverse for us to be bundled up with them.

    If Scotland votes No, there'll need to be a proper constitutional convention. If a settlement is imposed by one party or another it will just be changed when governments change. But there is no ducking the fact there has to be significant reform. Devomax for Scotland means devomax for the rest of the UK too, so we probably are looking at some kind of federal resolution with only issues like defence, foreign policy and social security reserved for Westminster.

    I'm in favour of devolution for England, but my point is I want it to be devolved to English regions. One unitary English Parliament would mean southerners could trample over northerners even more than they currently do -- a disaster.
    So you only like democracy when it means you side is in charge/wins.

    Brilliant.
    My "side"? If there was a northern parliament, I'm actually not convinced Labour would forever dominate it; devolution might well mean some new nothern-centred leftwing party would flourish (even Labour is increasingly being seen as a southern clique).

    But yes, in terms of actual policies, obviously I want decisions that impact northerners' lives to actually have majority support among northerners, rather than having policies imposed which we don't vote for. Duh.
    That's fine...just don't expect us softie southerners to pay for it...
    Won't need it; rich northerners can pay for it (and, believe it or not, many would be willing to suck it up and deal with it rather than throwing a tantrum like southerners typically do) to help out their fellow northerners, rather than now where rich northerners' cash is taken to shower rich southerners with goodies.

    Under such a settlement, the north would presumably also keep a greater share of profits from farming, manufacturing and (soon to be) fracking, rather than southerners swallowing up the profits as currently happens.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    To whoever posted the link to http://www.pprune.org many, many thanks. The discussion about the fate of the Malaysian airliner is both educated and fascinating.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "The former deputy speaker of the House of Commons sexually assaulted young men in Parliament and at the Conservative Party conference, a court has heard.

    MP Nigel Evans, 56, used his "powerful" influence to abuse the men and made a "drunken pass" at one, Preston Crown Court was told.

    The former Tory MP denies one count of rape, two of indecent assault and six of sexual assault from 2002 to 2013."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-26518718
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Patrick said:

    HurstLlama said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    @Josias - "the countryside should be separate regions from the cities"

    There is a strong argument for that. Needs are very different, as are populations. The problem is that the countryside doesn't really have much money. Most of the wealth is in the towns.

    That's alright though, isn't it? Fiscal transfers will solve the problem. For example, Manchester is much richer than East Sussex, so take the money from wealthy Mancunians and give it to the poorer county of East Sussex.
    I read that Elmbridge Borough (in Surrey and covering Cobham, Weybridge and Esher) pays more income tax than Manchester.
    Quite possibly, Mr. Patrick, but the place of which you speak is in Surrey, not Sussex. A couple of years ago I was chatting at a drinkies do to the Chairman of East Sussex County Council. He made the point that East Sussex had a lower median income than Greater Manchester and, aside from some areas in that city, a higher level of deprivation, yet received far less per capita support from central government (I can't recall the numbers now, but in education the disparity was in the order of £3 per pupil in Manchester for £1 in East Sussex).
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    OldKingCole said:

    To whoever posted the link to http://www.pprune.org many, many thanks. The discussion about the fate of the Malaysian airliner is both educated and fascinating.

    I agree, there's a lot of nonsense in there as well but the well-informed comments are extremely interesting and informative.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,458
    Way off-topic:

    It seems as though Christian Around Britain has finished his 18-month stroll around the coast of Britain, sleeping rough each night. He is raising money for Help for Heroes.

    An amazing achievement.

    https://www.facebook.com/christian.britain.3
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    antifrank said:

    It isn't a problem that the countryside doesn't really have much money. The problem is that those living in the countryside expect to be subsidised for their lifestyle choices off the back of those of us who live in large cities living much greener, much more economically productive lives.

    I think we get the message that you don't rate countryside living much.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @surbiton

    'And, that was only the first innings. WE will do it 11 more times, if necessary.

    It's a double whammy. "Use" the money and bash the *ankers !

    Real grown-up politics.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    SouthamObserver said:

    HurstLlama said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    @Josias - "the countryside should be separate regions from the cities"

    There is a strong argument for that. Needs are very different, as are populations. The problem is that the countryside doesn't really have much money. Most of the wealth is in the towns.

    That's alright though, isn't it? Fiscal transfers will solve the problem. For example, Manchester is much richer than East Sussex, so take the money from wealthy Mancunians and give it to the poorer county of East Sussex.

    Mancunians and tax-paying businesses based in Manchester will need to look after Manchester first. East Sussex will be OK, of course; but there are plenty of less wealthy parts of the countryside that will not be as well off.
    I think your prejudices may be showing there, Mr. Observer.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited March 2014
    A stern lecture from aviation expert David Learmount on the causes of the Air France flight 447 crash in 2009. He has said there may be similarities between that accident and the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight 370:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARybu2kHeZ8&amp
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    It appears that it was at Bercow's instigation that Evans was reported to the police.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    edited March 2014
    Talking of Manchester, for @Bobafett

    The reason Manchester doesn't have a Mayor is that, I and other Mancunian residents voted against it in 2012.

    I voted against it like many others for the belief that a Manchester Mayor would focus on purely Manchester and not Greater Manchester.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-17949390
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    AndyJS said:

    antifrank said:

    It isn't a problem that the countryside doesn't really have much money. The problem is that those living in the countryside expect to be subsidised for their lifestyle choices off the back of those of us who live in large cities living much greener, much more economically productive lives.

    I think we get the message that you don't rate countryside living much.
    Quite the opposite. I rate it highly. But I don't see why I should pay for other people to enjoy it.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    Oh poop, I just described myself as a Manc(unian)

    The shame, the shame.
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,782
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Talking of Manchester, for @Bobafett

    The reason Manchester doesn't have a Mayor is that, I and other Mancunian residents voted against it in 2012.

    I voted against it like many others for the belief that a Manchester Mayor would focus on purely Manchester and not Greater Manchester.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-17949390

    One for you @TSE - Hebden Bridge - the UK's Second City?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    HurstLlama said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    HurstLlama said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    @Josias - "the countryside should be separate regions from the cities"

    There is a strong argument for that. Needs are very different, as are populations. The problem is that the countryside doesn't really have much money. Most of the wealth is in the towns.

    That's alright though, isn't it? Fiscal transfers will solve the problem. For example, Manchester is much richer than East Sussex, so take the money from wealthy Mancunians and give it to the poorer county of East Sussex.

    Mancunians and tax-paying businesses based in Manchester will need to look after Manchester first. East Sussex will be OK, of course; but there are plenty of less wealthy parts of the countryside that will not be as well off.
    I think your prejudices may be showing there, Mr. Observer.

    I'd love to know what they are!!!

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    Lennon said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Talking of Manchester, for @Bobafett

    The reason Manchester doesn't have a Mayor is that, I and other Mancunian residents voted against it in 2012.

    I voted against it like many others for the belief that a Manchester Mayor would focus on purely Manchester and not Greater Manchester.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-17949390

    One for you @TSE - Hebden Bridge - the UK's Second City?
    The UK's second city should be Manchester.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    It would be useful if we could see the figures for the 14 by-elections which are counted if one excludes Bradford West as an outlier, and/or if they are sub-divided into the 3 where the Lib Dems had substantial votes and the 12 where they didn't.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    antifrank said:

    AndyJS said:

    antifrank said:

    It isn't a problem that the countryside doesn't really have much money. The problem is that those living in the countryside expect to be subsidised for their lifestyle choices off the back of those of us who live in large cities living much greener, much more economically productive lives.

    I think we get the message that you don't rate countryside living much.
    Quite the opposite. I rate it highly. But I don't see why I should pay for other people to enjoy it.
    The UK would be a dismal place if no one lived outside our major conurbations.
  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    edited March 2014
    antifrank said:

    AndyJS said:

    antifrank said:

    It isn't a problem that the countryside doesn't really have much money. The problem is that those living in the countryside expect to be subsidised for their lifestyle choices off the back of those of us who live in large cities living much greener, much more economically productive lives.

    I think we get the message that you don't rate countryside living much.
    Quite the opposite. I rate it highly. But I don't see why I should pay for other people to enjoy it.
    What's the answer, though? I live in a small village, but work in a city. I don't particularly fancy moving to that city.
    I woŕk, pay my taxes, contibute to the economy (admittedly, I'm not earning anywhere near as much as you).
    It's not even really my choice to live here. I was born and raised around here, all my family live around here, it's sort of a subconscious decision, I suppose.
    We can't all live in the metropolis, indeed, I doubt I could afford to live anywhere in the South East. That's not really a choice, is it? We can't all be lawyers, accountants, doctors or politicians, can we?

  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Talking of Manchester, for @Bobafett

    The reason Manchester doesn't have a Mayor is that, I and other Mancunian residents voted against it in 2012.

    I voted against it like many others for the belief that a Manchester Mayor would focus on purely Manchester and not Greater Manchester.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-17949390

    That was a vote for a (City of) Manchester mayor, not a Gtr Manchester one. I'm talking about someone who governs the whole conurbation, like Boris/Ken.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    BobaFett said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Talking of Manchester, for @Bobafett

    The reason Manchester doesn't have a Mayor is that, I and other Mancunian residents voted against it in 2012.

    I voted against it like many others for the belief that a Manchester Mayor would focus on purely Manchester and not Greater Manchester.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-17949390

    That was a vote for a (City of) Manchester mayor, not a Gtr Manchester one. I'm talking about someone who governs the whole conurbation, like Boris/Ken.
    There isn’t a Greater Manchester Assembly though. IIRC there was once, but it was abolished.
  • BobaFettBobaFett Posts: 2,789
    @TSE

    Manchester is the second city IMO. Birmingham nowhere near it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    TwistedFireStopper said:

    antifrank said:

    AndyJS said:

    antifrank said:

    It isn't a problem that the countryside doesn't really have much money. The problem is that those living in the countryside expect to be subsidised for their lifestyle choices off the back of those of us who live in large cities living much greener, much more economically productive lives.

    I think we get the message that you don't rate countryside living much.
    Quite the opposite. I rate it highly. But I don't see why I should pay for other people to enjoy it.
    What's the answer, though? I live in a small village, but work in a city. I dont particularly fancy moving to that city.
    I woŕk, pay my taxes, contibute to the economy (admittedly, I'm not earning anywhere near as much as you).
    It's not even really my choice to live here. I was born and raised around here, all my family live around here, it's sort of a subconscious decision, I suppose.
    We can't all live in the metropolis, indeed, I doubt I could afford to live anywhere in the South East. That's not really a choice, is it? We can't all be lawyers, accountants, doctors or politicians, can we?

    If you have any form of public service at all, there will be one person, or one community, subsidising another person or community.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    AndyJS said:

    A stern lecture from aviation expert David Learmount on the causes of the Air France flight 447 crash in 2009. He has said there may be similarities between that accident and the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight 370:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARybu2kHeZ8&amp

    I used to date his daughter...
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,782
    JohnLoony said:

    It would be useful if we could see the figures for the 14 by-elections which are counted if one excludes Bradford West as an outlier, and/or if they are sub-divided into the 3 where the Lib Dems had substantial votes and the 12 where they didn't.

    Which is the 3rd Lib Dem strong showing? (OE & Saddle, Eastleigh, and ?)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    AndyJS said:

    A stern lecture from aviation expert David Learmount on the causes of the Air France flight 447 crash in 2009. He has said there may be similarities between that accident and the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight 370:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARybu2kHeZ8&amp

    One of the informed posters on the PPrune site has just posted In that
    "1979 a Varig Boeing B707 took off from Tokyo Narita to Los Angeles. The cargo aircraft lost radio contact 30 minutes after takeoff.

    The remains of the aircraft nor of the crew were never found.
    The cause of the incident was concluded as cabin depressurization, which killed the crew.

    1979 Boeing 707-323C disappearance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia”

    Interesting the cargo in that case included a number of valuable works of art, and IIRC there are some on this plane. Almost certainly co-incidence, of course.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    Lennon said:

    JohnLoony said:

    It would be useful if we could see the figures for the 14 by-elections which are counted if one excludes Bradford West as an outlier, and/or if they are sub-divided into the 3 where the Lib Dems had substantial votes and the 12 where they didn't.

    Which is the 3rd Lib Dem strong showing? (OE & Saddle, Eastleigh, and ?)
    I was thinking of Leicester South. The Lib Dem vote went down from 27% to 23% and stayed in 2nd place, without collapsing (like it did in Barnsley Central, for example).
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    More news for anyone who took the bet on the Dawlish railway line re-opening by the end of March. Network Rail have now brought forward the estimated opening date to Friday 4th April - crucially in time for the Easter holidays - which is near enough to the end of March that they might just still make it.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited March 2014
    OldKingCole said:

    AndyJS said:

    A stern lecture from aviation expert David Learmount on the causes of the Air France flight 447 crash in 2009. He has said there may be similarities between that accident and the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight 370:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARybu2kHeZ8&amp

    One of the informed posters on the PPrune site has just posted In that
    "1979 a Varig Boeing B707 took off from Tokyo Narita to Los Angeles. The cargo aircraft lost radio contact 30 minutes after takeoff.

    The remains of the aircraft nor of the crew were never found.
    The cause of the incident was concluded as cabin depressurization, which killed the crew.

    1979 Boeing 707-323C disappearance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia”

    Interesting the cargo in that case included a number of valuable works of art, and IIRC there are some on this plane. Almost certainly co-incidence, of course.
    More vanishings than you might expect, including one during the filming for Top Gun.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aerial_disappearances

    Nothing the size of a 777, though.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    OblitusSumMe said:

    More news for anyone who took the bet on the Dawlish railway line re-opening by the end of March. Network Rail have now brought forward the estimated opening date to Friday 4th April - crucially in time for the Easter holidays - which is near enough to the end of March that they might just still make it.

    Isn’t Network Rail effectively a nationalised organisation? Just asking
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Life_ina_market_town said:

    It appears that it was at Bercow's instigation that Evans was reported to the police.

    Is Bercow turning out to be a rather good speaker?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,458
    OldKingCole said:

    AndyJS said:

    A stern lecture from aviation expert David Learmount on the causes of the Air France flight 447 crash in 2009. He has said there may be similarities between that accident and the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight 370:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARybu2kHeZ8&amp

    One of the informed posters on the PPrune site has just posted In that
    "1979 a Varig Boeing B707 took off from Tokyo Narita to Los Angeles. The cargo aircraft lost radio contact 30 minutes after takeoff.

    The remains of the aircraft nor of the crew were never found.
    The cause of the incident was concluded as cabin depressurization, which killed the crew.

    1979 Boeing 707-323C disappearance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia”

    Interesting the cargo in that case included a number of valuable works of art, and IIRC there are some on this plane. Almost certainly co-incidence, of course.
    *If* some of the debris reports are correct (and so far we have had a string of false reports), then the plane flew for some time before crashing. If so, a depressurisation / incorrect pressurisation might have been to blame. See Helios ft 522. But that would not explain why the transponder stopped transmitting (or at least being picked up).

    There's too little information to choose between a whole host of scenarios.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    BobaFett said:

    @TSE

    Manchester is the second city IMO. Birmingham nowhere near it.

    Depends on your metrics. Birmingham is 2nd city by population. Manchester proper is 6th in terms of city size./
This discussion has been closed.