@isam - Apologies for going silent yesterday on our exchange over whether Labour would promise a referendum in their manifesto (further time on PB on Easter Monday would have threatened domestic disharmony in the Nabavi household!).
My view is that it is very unlikely that Labour's position will change. It's hard to assess odds on something like this, but it would take odds of at least 10/1 or more for me to be tempted to bet on the proposition. However, I'm not keen to lay at odds like that because it would be a bit of a one-way 'fun' bet.
No problem Richard.
For a bit of fun I would have a small bet, (£25?) at 2/1 that Labour do offer a referendum. So you're having £50@1/2 they don't.
Moyes getting 5 mill, and Giggs as interim manager.
They were saying 10 million on BBC earlier. 5 million sounds light for a 6 year contract
It's an interesting one to negotiate. David Moyes may have a 6 year contract but equally he can expect to find another well-paid job fairly soon, given the career path of football managers. Man U's board could reasonably suggest that the compensation payment for their breach of contract should be heavily mitigated.
Set against that, the board will want him to go quietly, so he'll probably have got more than what a court would have awarded him on that basis alone.
It's not about Moyes -- it's about the next manager. How will Man Utd land Mourinho or van Gaal once the club is seen to have treated the last manager badly? That's the reason for big payoffs, in football as in the rest of the commercial world.
Today could mark a key date in the indyref with Brown's "big speech". Brown is in many eyes the man most responsible outside of the SNP for the push towards independence. His tactics of defining Scottish politics as "anti-Westminster" and anti-Tory came home to roost when Scotland turned to the only viable alternative Scottish Govt (compared to Labour) which is the SNP. Now at the 11th hour Brown attempts to undo his divisive nationalist politicing. My irony meter has melted! Brown even tried to set up his own "Labour only" anti-Yes group rather than join Better Together. More splits from Brown as usual.
Gordon Brown really has been a malign influence on our national discourse hasn't he? Dreadful, dreadful politician...
Quite. If Gordon Brown said that prosperity was a good thing, I'd instinctively want to disagree. He would probably be found to using some peculiar definition of prosperity, such as higher taxes on anyone he hates.
Labour does have this habit of electing leaders utterly, palpably unfit to do the job of PM. Most obvious is Brown, but let's not forget also Neil Kinnock and Ed Miliband.
As I've suggested before, elections over the last 40-odd years have tended to be won by the party whose leader is obviously better. Thus one had Wilson beating Heath, who had patently failed; Thatcher beating Callaghan, who had also patently failed, then Foot and Kinnock; Major beating Kinnock, but losing to Blair; Blair beating Hague and Howard; and then Brown losing to Cameron - on a minority basis, true, but Brown still lost even, if Cameron didn't win.
For the same reason, it seems obvious that Miliband can't win in 2015 against Cameron. One's a proven quantity leading a pretty effective government from a disastrous starting place; the other's an oily lightweight ʇɐɹd.
Moyes getting 5 mill, and Giggs as interim manager.
They were saying 10 million on BBC earlier. 5 million sounds light for a 6 year contract
It's an interesting one to negotiate. David Moyes may have a 6 year contract but equally he can expect to find another well-paid job fairly soon, given the career path of football managers. Man U's board could reasonably suggest that the compensation payment for their breach of contract should be heavily mitigated.
Set against that, the board will want him to go quietly, so he'll probably have got more than what a court would have awarded him on that basis alone.
Yes, you would have hoped he had considered this and made sure he had a good clause in his contract. Personally , 5 million to walk away is still not a bad deal and as you say he will get a premiership deal by start of next season almost certainly.
There are several ways of potentially structuring it in law. It could be that Man U are simply in breach, prima facie liable for the full length of the contract, but Moyes under a corresponding duty to mitigate; or there could be a clause determining the effects of breach, in which case it risks being penal (and the comparison relevant there is to Moyes' actual loss); or I think there could be an option exercisable in his contract of employment or some kind of notice period. I have to say I don't know - and really I should, since I am about to be examined in this sort of thing - the role of notice periods in fixed-term contracts.
Matthew Goodwin @GoodwinMJ 3m Before @thetimes ran @Nigel_Farage expenses story on April 15th #UKIP on 12-13%. After story #UKIP on 15%. Crude measure but point made.
Today could mark a key date in the indyref with Brown's "big speech". Brown is in many eyes the man most responsible outside of the SNP for the push towards independence. His tactics of defining Scottish politics as "anti-Westminster" and anti-Tory came home to roost when Scotland turned to the only viable alternative Scottish Govt (compared to Labour) which is the SNP. Now at the 11th hour Brown attempts to undo his divisive nationalist politicing. My irony meter has melted! Brown even tried to set up his own "Labour only" anti-Yes group rather than join Better Together. More splits from Brown as usual.
Gordon Brown really has been a malign influence on our national discourse hasn't he? Dreadful, dreadful politician...
Quite. If Gordon Brown said that prosperity was a good thing, I'd instinctively want to disagree. He would probably be found to using some peculiar definition of prosperity, such as higher taxes on anyone he hates.
Labour does have this habit of electing leaders utterly, palpably unfit to do the job of PM. Most obvious is Brown, but let's not forget also Neil Kinnock and Ed Miliband.
As I've suggested before, elections over the last 40-odd years have tended to be won by the party whose leader is obviously better. Thus one had Wilson beating Heath, who had patently failed; Thatcher beating Callaghan, who had also patently failed, then Foot and Kinnock; Major beating Kinnock, but losing to Blair; Blair beating Hague and Howard; and then Brown losing to Cameron - on a minority basis, true, but Brown still lost even, if Cameron didn't win.
For the same reason, it seems obvious that Miliband can't win in 2015 against Cameron. One's a proven quantity leading a pretty effective government from a disastrous starting place; the other's an oily lightweight ʇɐɹd.
Based on past evidence the best way for NO to gain votes is to abandon economic sanity, spend taxpayers money on their own whims, pick a nearby country to abuse, whine and blame for all the ills of the world and to call anyone who disagrees with their view point scum and unpatriotic.
One of the reasons I am very nervous about postal voting is that it makes it easier for mid-level voting fraud. Electronic voting opens the door for mass fraud - there is no way for candidates or their representatives to check that the button that I pressed in the booth has been counted, or counted in the way I wanted. They cannot follow the bits through the system.
This is generally true, but only because the people implementing these systems are doing it wrong. A properly designed electronic system will be far easier to audit, and more resistant to the many gruesome insider vulnerabilities that plague paper-based voting systems.
I think the real problem here is that the people involved wouldn't be capable of evaluating a cryptographically-secured system properly, and wouldn't want to listen to the smelly hackers who could explain how it needs to be done.
For a bit of fun I would have a small bet, (£25?) at 2/1 that Labour do offer a referendum. So you're having £50@1/2 they don't.
Yes, I'd be very happy with that. We need to pin down exactly what we mean - would something like 'Labour's manifesto will contain a committment to hold an EU In/Out referendum in the next parliament' be OK?
If you're happy with that I'll email Peter the Punter to confirm (I think I already have your email address).
A guy whose father came to UK on the Windrush has moved on to Estonia and is hoping to be elected to the Euorpean Parliament on their SocDem list.
The pieve also makes the point that any EU citizen can vote in the EP elections in the country in which they are living. I wonder if Clegg's best bet is to conduct a quick campaign among "all" the EU immigrants here, and swamp UKIP. As is Farage is right they would!
Today could mark a key date in the indyref with Brown's "big speech". Brown is in many eyes the man most responsible outside of the SNP for the push towards independence. His tactics of defining Scottish politics as "anti-Westminster" and anti-Tory came home to roost when Scotland turned to the only viable alternative Scottish Govt (compared to Labour) which is the SNP. Now at the 11th hour Brown attempts to undo his divisive nationalist politicing. My irony meter has melted! Brown even tried to set up his own "Labour only" anti-Yes group rather than join Better Together. More splits from Brown as usual.
Gordon Brown really has been a malign influence on our national discourse hasn't he? Dreadful, dreadful politician...
Quite. If Gordon Brown said that prosperity was a good thing, I'd instinctively want to disagree. He would probably be found to using some peculiar definition of prosperity, such as higher taxes on anyone he hates.
Labour does have this habit of electing leaders utterly, palpably unfit to do the job of PM. Most obvious is Brown, but let's not forget also Neil Kinnock and Ed Miliband.
As I've suggested before, elections over the last 40-odd years have tended to be won by the party whose leader is obviously better. Thus one had Wilson beating Heath, who had patently failed; Thatcher beating Callaghan, who had also patently failed, then Foot and Kinnock; Major beating Kinnock, but losing to Blair; Blair beating Hague and Howard; and then Brown losing to Cameron - on a minority basis, true, but Brown still lost even, if Cameron didn't win.
For the same reason, it seems obvious that Miliband can't win in 2015 against Cameron. One's a proven quantity leading a pretty effective government from a disastrous starting place; the other's an oily lightweight ʇɐɹd.
Bad news for the Better Together campaign today. Gordon Brown is making a speech in Glasgow tonight warning the Scottish public sector that their pensions are not safe in the hands of an independent Scottish government.
This kind of thing is why I suspect that the Better Together campaign is actually playing to lose, or at least has a fifth column within it that wants to. Deploying Gordon Brown is genius. When, rarely, he was right about something, such as not joining the Euro, it was for entirely wrong, always discreditable reasons. So BT is putting up a major political figure to support its cause, but one who is utter poison, and with whom no complete human being would wish to agree. On anything.
Something that became increasingly clear to me about Gordon Brown the longer he was leader is that he was a man born out of his time. He would quite clearly have been much, much happier leading some Marxist state of the 1930s, in which he could simply exile or shoot anyone who disagreed with him. It took me a while to work out what it was about him that was so unpleasant, and I think it is this.
When as a youth I used to read accounts of life in Nazi-occupied Europe, I used to struggle to imagine what kind of people in Britain would have collaborated with them, in the way people collaborated with them in France and Holland and Poland. I have since realised that in a counterfactual history of the UK, in which we got occupied by the Nazis, the kind of people who'd have taken jobs whipping their neighbours into cattle trucks would have been people like Gordon Brown, Arthur Scargill, Damian McBride, and the kind of spittle-flecked UKIP supporter who posts comments under Daily Telegraph articles.
Basically, anyone whose political creed is based essentially on hatred for someone else, rather than on any positive values, would have loved such a job. I don't think many Labour or Tory figures would have done so.
But a very smart move by the fifth column Yes campaign.
Brown was often wrong but he got the big calls right: staying out of the Euro, and concerted international action after the global economic meltdown.
The rest of your post is bizarre. Brown rarely even sacked political opponents. Blair was more ruthless, see for instance Robin Cook or Mo Mowlam, and Mrs Thatcher more vindictive, abolishing the GLC and Thames Television, and consigning Aitken to political obscurity for the crime of not marrying Carol, but I do not recall anyone being machine-gunned.
I suppose if Tap were here, he'd remind us of Hilda Murrell and Dr David Kelly.
One of the reasons I am very nervous about postal voting is that it makes it easier for mid-level voting fraud. Electronic voting opens the door for mass fraud - there is no way for candidates or their representatives to check that the button that I pressed in the booth has been counted, or counted in the way I wanted. They cannot follow the bits through the system.
This is generally true, but only because the people implementing these systems are doing it wrong. A properly designed electronic system will be far easier to audit, and more resistant to the many gruesome insider vulnerabilities that plague paper-based voting systems.
I think the real problem here is that the people involved wouldn't be capable of evaluating a cryptographically-secured system properly, and wouldn't want to listen to the smelly hackers who could explain how it needs to be done.
Whilst I partially agree with you, that's part of the problem. Confidence in the system is vital, and will not be got by moving belief in the system to some (smelly or not) high priests who speak impenetrable language before proclaiming everything's okay. Especially when those high priests are in the pay of companies. Why should we trust the hardware designers and coders, either to do it right or securely?
The current system is at least understandable. You take your ballot card in, you get given a paper, and you put your cross(es) where they are needed. The box is sealed, then taken securely for counting, a process which can be watched at all stages by candidates or their representatives.
It's simple and easy to understand.
A secure electronic system would be many orders of magnitude more complex, and hence untrustworthy to too many of the public.
Today could mark a key date in the indyref with Brown's "big speech". Brown is in many eyes the man most responsible outside of the SNP for the push towards independence. His tactics of defining Scottish politics as "anti-Westminster" and anti-Tory came home to roost when Scotland turned to the only viable alternative Scottish Govt (compared to Labour) which is the SNP. Now at the 11th hour Brown attempts to undo his divisive nationalist politicing. My irony meter has melted! Brown even tried to set up his own "Labour only" anti-Yes group rather than join Better Together. More splits from Brown as usual.
Gordon Brown really has been a malign influence on our national discourse hasn't he? Dreadful, dreadful politician...
Quite. If Gordon Brown said that prosperity was a good thing, I'd instinctively want to disagree. He would probably be found to using some peculiar definition of prosperity, such as higher taxes on anyone he hates.
Labour does have this habit of electing leaders utterly, palpably unfit to do the job of PM. Most obvious is Brown, but let's not forget also Neil Kinnock and Ed Miliband.
As I've suggested before, elections over the last 40-odd years have tended to be won by the party whose leader is obviously better. Thus one had Wilson beating Heath, who had patently failed; Thatcher beating Callaghan, who had also patently failed, then Foot and Kinnock; Major beating Kinnock, but losing to Blair; Blair beating Hague and Howard; and then Brown losing to Cameron - on a minority basis, true, but Brown still lost even, if Cameron didn't win.
For the same reason, it seems obvious that Miliband can't win in 2015 against Cameron. One's a proven quantity leading a pretty effective government from a disastrous starting place; the other's an oily lightweight ʇɐɹd.
Brown may be toxic South of the Border, but 2010's result suggests he's popular North of it.
For a bit of fun I would have a small bet, (£25?) at 2/1 that Labour do offer a referendum. So you're having £50@1/2 they don't.
Yes, I'd be very happy with that. We need to pin down exactly what we mean - would something like 'Labour's manifesto will contain a committment to hold an EU In/Out referendum in the next parliament' be OK?
If you're happy with that I'll email Peter the Punter to confirm (I think I already have your email address).
Hmmm
Just seen Hills are 10/3 a referendum to take place during the lifetime of the next government
I guess any coalition with Lib Dems would scupper that bet though, and as we are talking about a manifesto promise rather than it taking place, I am happy to go with 2/1 and the terms you describe
As I understand it, this is the first election where voters will have to register individually for postal votes. The practice of householders declaring the number of voters under their roofs is no longer valid.
A guy whose father came to UK on the Windrush has moved on to Estonia and is hoping to be elected to the Euorpean Parliament on their SocDem list.
The pieve also makes the point that any EU citizen can vote in the EP elections in the country in which they are living. I wonder if Clegg's best bet is to conduct a quick campaign among "all" the EU immigrants here, and swamp UKIP. As is Farage is right they would!
The great unknown for the LDs is if their new 'party of in' branding for the EU Parliament elections will hurt them in the local elections by repelling anti-EU voters.
A YouGov survey revealed that nearly seven in 10 (69%) oppose a ban on parents smacking their children, compared to just 19% in favour. A further 13% said they didn’t know.
The findings will represent a blow to supporters of a smacking ban, which has been repeatedly raised as an issue over the past decade in the (Welsh) Assembly.
Assembly Members have voted in favour of a ban, in principle, in the past, though the Welsh Government has never brought forward any proposals to formally make it law.
Champions of a ban have amassed more than 600 organisations to support the removal of the “reasonable punishment”, including 130 in Wales, with 34 countries across the world moving to ban physical punishment of children.
But the results showed support for a ban ebbed away the older the respondents got, with support among those aged 18-24 for a ban running at only just over a third (34%), compared to just over half (51%) opposed, while those aged 60 and older opposed a ban even more vociferously, with just 14% in favour and 79% against.
Support for a ban was most pronounced among Liberal Democrat voters, with a quarter in favour and 48% against, while Conservative voters showed least support at 15% in favour and 77% against.
An amendment tabled by Plaid Cymru AM Lindsay Whittle during the passage of the Social Services Bill to remove the defence of reasonable punishment was defeated in February after the 30-strong Labour group was whipped to oppose it – over fears the whole Bill could be legally challenged for exceeding the Assembly’s powers if the amendment succeeded.
One of the reasons I am very nervous about postal voting is that it makes it easier for mid-level voting fraud. Electronic voting opens the door for mass fraud - there is no way for candidates or their representatives to check that the button that I pressed in the booth has been counted, or counted in the way I wanted. They cannot follow the bits through the system.
This is generally true, but only because the people implementing these systems are doing it wrong. A properly designed electronic system will be far easier to audit, and more resistant to the many gruesome insider vulnerabilities that plague paper-based voting systems.
I think the real problem here is that the people involved wouldn't be capable of evaluating a cryptographically-secured system properly, and wouldn't want to listen to the smelly hackers who could explain how it needs to be done.
Whilst I partially agree with you, that's part of the problem. Confidence in the system is vital, and will not be got by moving belief in the system to some (smelly or not) high priests who speak impenetrable language before proclaiming everything's okay. Especially when those high priests are in the pay of companies. Why should we trust the hardware designers and coders, either to do it right or securely?
The current system is at least understandable. You take your ballot card in, you get given a paper, and you put your cross(es) where they are needed. The box is sealed, then taken securely for counting, a process which can be watched at all stages by candidates or their representatives.
It's simple and easy to understand.
A secure electronic system would be many orders of magnitude more complex, and hence untrustworthy to too many of the public.
With the recent revelations about the Heartbleed bug in the OpenSSL system which a number of IT specialists I have spoken to seem to think is an extremely dangerous situation, I would certainly not trust any supposedly secure system right now. It is scary how many major companies (including Amazon and Yahoo) have been using the Open Source system for their security.
One of the reasons I am very nervous about postal voting is that it makes it easier for mid-level voting fraud. Electronic voting opens the door for mass fraud - there is no way for candidates or their representatives to check that the button that I pressed in the booth has been counted, or counted in the way I wanted. They cannot follow the bits through the system.
This is generally true, but only because the people implementing these systems are doing it wrong. A properly designed electronic system will be far easier to audit, and more resistant to the many gruesome insider vulnerabilities that plague paper-based voting systems.
I think the real problem here is that the people involved wouldn't be capable of evaluating a cryptographically-secured system properly, and wouldn't want to listen to the smelly hackers who could explain how it needs to be done.
Whilst I partially agree with you, that's part of the problem. Confidence in the system is vital, and will not be got by moving belief in the system to some (smelly or not) high priests who speak impenetrable language before proclaiming everything's okay. Especially when those high priests are in the pay of companies. Why should we trust the hardware designers and coders, either to do it right or securely?
The current system is at least understandable. You take your ballot card in, you get given a paper, and you put your cross(es) where they are needed. The box is sealed, then taken securely for counting, a process which can be watched at all stages by candidates or their representatives.
It's simple and easy to understand.
A secure electronic system would be many orders of magnitude more complex, and hence untrustworthy to too many of the public.
Security analysis is hard, the people involved in the paper system aren't qualified to do it, and the people who would be able to do it aren't in the room where the paper is being handled for logistical reasons, so what you're really getting is the illusion of security. I'm not whether sure the illusion of security is a feature or a bug - you can make the argument either way...
A YouGov survey revealed that nearly seven in 10 (69%) oppose a ban on parents smacking their children, compared to just 19% in favour. A further 13% said they didn’t know.
The findings will represent a blow to supporters of a smacking ban, which has been repeatedly raised as an issue over the past decade in the (Welsh) Assembly.
Assembly Members have voted in favour of a ban, in principle, in the past, though the Welsh Government has never brought forward any proposals to formally make it law.
Champions of a ban have amassed more than 600 organisations to support the removal of the “reasonable punishment”, including 130 in Wales, with 34 countries across the world moving to ban physical punishment of children.
But the results showed support for a ban ebbed away the older the respondents got, with support among those aged 18-24 for a ban running at only just over a third (34%), compared to just over half (51%) opposed, while those aged 60 and older opposed a ban even more vociferously, with just 14% in favour and 79% against.
Support for a ban was most pronounced among Liberal Democrat voters, with a quarter in favour and 48% against, while Conservative voters showed least support at 15% in favour and 77% against.
An amendment tabled by Plaid Cymru AM Lindsay Whittle during the passage of the Social Services Bill to remove the defence of reasonable punishment was defeated in February after the 30-strong Labour group was whipped to oppose it – over fears the whole Bill could be legally challenged for exceeding the Assembly’s powers if the amendment succeeded.
One of the reasons I am very nervous about postal voting is that it makes it easier for mid-level voting fraud. Electronic voting opens the door for mass fraud - there is no way for candidates or their representatives to check that the button that I pressed in the booth has been counted, or counted in the way I wanted. They cannot follow the bits through the system.
This is generally true, but only because the people implementing these systems are doing it wrong. A properly designed electronic system will be far easier to audit, and more resistant to the many gruesome insider vulnerabilities that plague paper-based voting systems.
I think the real problem here is that the people involved wouldn't be capable of evaluating a cryptographically-secured system properly, and wouldn't want to listen to the smelly hackers who could explain how it needs to be done.
Whilst I partially agree with you, that's part of the problem. Confidence in the system is vital, and will not be got by moving belief in the system to some (smelly or not) high priests who speak impenetrable language before proclaiming everything's okay. Especially when those high priests are in the pay of companies. Why should we trust the hardware designers and coders, either to do it right or securely?
The current system is at least understandable. You take your ballot card in, you get given a paper, and you put your cross(es) where they are needed. The box is sealed, then taken securely for counting, a process which can be watched at all stages by candidates or their representatives.
It's simple and easy to understand.
A secure electronic system would be many orders of magnitude more complex, and hence untrustworthy to too many of the public.
With the recent revelations about the Heartbleed bug in the OpenSSL system which a number of IT specialists I have spoken to seem to think is an extremely dangerous situation, I would certainly not trust any supposedly secure system right now. It is scary how many major companies (including Amazon and Yahoo) have been using the Open Source system for their security.
Wrong revelation. What should worry you -- post Snowden leaking news of official NSA backdoors -- is that the government, and the American government, and [insert your own bogeyman here] can potentially know in real time how *everyone*, each individual person, voted.
Now, the current system means the spooks can potentially trace ballot papers back to individual voters but sheer logistics means this cannot be done on a large scale. How can voters be sure it is still a secret ballot?
"Farage is now just another politician. Scrabbling around in the gutter, making any promise, stoking any fear, just so long as it will get him a few more votes.
And he’ll get those votes. Come May he’ll get lots of votes. We’ll have more photos of him outside the pub, grinning, pint in hand. And the obligatory sound-bites about shattering the cozy Westminster consensus.
Then it will all drift away. People’s thoughts will turn to electing a government and electing a prime minister. And Farage’s cheap populism will face its reckoning.
Leaving him with what? Nothing. A footnote in history. A footnote as a plastic Nick Griffin. The BNP at least had the courage of their racist convictions. In 12 months' time Ukip won’t even have that."
LOW TURNOUT People who really care about and/or take a close interest in EU issues will vote in the EU elections.
People who don't care or take any interest in EU issues will either not vote or vote loyally for their political tribe.
So the people who care and/or take an interest in the issues have a greater weighting in the outcome - which seems fair to me. So I don't see a problem with low turnout. At least the unthinking vote is less than in a general election.
CHOICE OF CANDIDATE - PARTY LISTING SYSTEM What is a problem is the party listing of candidates in mainland UK. This means I can only vote for the party and not individual candidates. If I don't like the party's first choice but prefer their second choice, the only way I can help get that candidate elected is by giving my vote for the party and helping the candidate I don't like to get elected.
In Northern Ireland you can vote for your preferred candidate using the Single Transferable Vote system, ranking candidates by preference - a much better system.
A YouGov survey revealed that nearly seven in 10 (69%) oppose a ban on parents smacking their children, compared to just 19% in favour. A further 13% said they didn’t know.
The findings will represent a blow to supporters of a smacking ban...
Whilst I partially agree with you, that's part of the problem. Confidence in the system is vital, and will not be got by moving belief in the system to some (smelly or not) high priests who speak impenetrable language before proclaiming everything's okay. Especially when those high priests are in the pay of companies. Why should we trust the hardware designers and coders, either to do it right or securely?
The current system is at least understandable. You take your ballot card in, you get given a paper, and you put your cross(es) where they are needed. The box is sealed, then taken securely for counting, a process which can be watched at all stages by candidates or their representatives.
It's simple and easy to understand.
A secure electronic system would be many orders of magnitude more complex, and hence untrustworthy to too many of the public.
Security analysis is hard, the people involved in the paper system aren't qualified to do it, and the people who would be able to do it aren't in the room where the paper is being handled for logistical reasons, so what you're really getting is the illusion of security. I'm not whether sure the illusion of security is a feature or a bug - you can make the argument either way...
Yep, it is hard. But I think you overestimate the current system. On the ground it's quite obvious: ensure people are free to vote, that there's no tampering with the boxes, and that the count is done correctly.
As Mr Tyndall points out below, although the Heartbleed bug is not directly relevant, it does indicate that security bugs can remain active for many years, even in open source.
There's another point: to perform large-scale fraud in the current physical system, you would need to gain access to many boxes physically in different areas, or have suitable people in many different counts. That is very difficult to do. On an electronic system, it could just be one system bug or exploit.
We keep on doing the rounds on this every few months: what's your proposal for an electronic voting system?
With the recent revelations about the Heartbleed bug in the OpenSSL system which a number of IT specialists I have spoken to seem to think is an extremely dangerous situation, I would certainly not trust any supposedly secure system right now. It is scary how many major companies (including Amazon and Yahoo) have been using the Open Source system for their security.
Wrong revelation. What should worry you -- post Snowden leaking news of official NSA backdoors -- is that the government, and the American government, and [insert your own bogeyman here] can potentially know in real time how *everyone*, each individual person, voted.
Now, the current system means the spooks can potentially trace ballot papers back to individual voters but sheer logistics means this cannot be done on a large scale. How can voters be sure it is still a secret ballot?
Even if the ballot wasn't hackable, I'd guess you could predict somebody's voting habits fairly accurately if you knew everything they did on the internet. This will be especially true for politically active people, who are the ones who'd have the most to worry about.
Combine that with cheap, omnipresent, easy-to-hide cameras that you can make people use if you're coercing them and I don't think the secret ballot can be saved. At this point we should probably just give up on it and go for 100% transparency, which obviously makes things vastly easier to secure.
"Farage is now just another politician. Scrabbling around in the gutter, making any promise, stoking any fear, just so long as it will get him a few more votes.
And he’ll get those votes. Come May he’ll get lots of votes. We’ll have more photos of him outside the pub, grinning, pint in hand. And the obligatory sound-bites about shattering the cozy Westminster consensus.
Then it will all drift away. People’s thoughts will turn to electing a government and electing a prime minister. And Farage’s cheap populism will face its reckoning.
Leaving him with what? Nothing. A footnote in history. A footnote as a plastic Nick Griffin. The BNP at least had the courage of their racist convictions. In 12 months' time Ukip won’t even have that."
"But the definition of racism as set out by the Equality and Human Rights commission is clear: discrimination can be practised on the basis of nationality"
Brilliant!
When Enoch Powell was making his point about the effects of mass immigration from the commonwealth, he said that the same problem would be caused by the mass influx of Germans, using Germans as there was no racial difference so people would see the point.
So the Equality and Human Rights commission changed the meaning of racism to catch all.. anyone who disagrees with mass immigration is racist.
One of the reasons I am very nervous about postal voting is that it makes it easier for mid-level voting fraud. Electronic voting opens the door for mass fraud - there is no way for candidates or their representatives to check that the button that I pressed in the booth has been counted, or counted in the way I wanted. They cannot follow the bits through the system.
This is generally true, but only because the people implementing these systems are doing it wrong. A properly designed electronic system will be far easier to audit, and more resistant to the many gruesome insider vulnerabilities that plague paper-based voting systems.
I think the real problem here is that the people involved wouldn't be capable of evaluating a cryptographically-secured system properly, and wouldn't want to listen to the smelly hackers who could explain how it needs to be done.
Whilst I partially agree with you, that's part of the problem. Confidence in the system is vital, and will not be got by moving belief in the system to some (smelly or not) high priests who speak impenetrable language before proclaiming everything's okay. Especially when those high priests are in the pay of companies. Why should we trust the hardware designers and coders, either to do it right or securely?
The current system is at least understandable. You take your ballot card in, you get given a paper, and you put your cross(es) where they are needed. The box is sealed, then taken securely for counting, a process which can be watched at all stages by candidates or their representatives.
It's simple and easy to understand.
A secure electronic system would be many orders of magnitude more complex, and hence untrustworthy to too many of the public.
With the recent revelations about the Heartbleed bug in the OpenSSL system which a number of IT specialists I have spoken to seem to think is an extremely dangerous situation, I would certainly not trust any supposedly secure system right now. It is scary how many major companies (including Amazon and Yahoo) have been using the Open Source system for their security.
Personally, as an mathematical abstractionist ( the spell checker wanted "obstructionist") I don't suppose I should admit to never doing money online, but that's the case. Actually I always try to pay in cash, as best I can. Carrying what I'm told are large sums around has never worried me.
Bad news for the Better Together campaign today. Gordon Brown is making a speech in Glasgow tonight warning the Scottish public sector that their pensions are not safe in the hands of an independent Scottish government.
This kind of thing is why I suspect that the Better Together campaign is actually playing to lose, or at least has a fifth column within it that wants to. Deploying Gordon Brown is genius. When, rarely, he was right about something, such as not joining the Euro, it was for entirely wrong, always discreditable reasons. So BT is putting up a major political figure to support its cause, but one who is utter poison, and with whom no complete human being would wish to agree. On anything.
Brown was often wrong but he got the big calls right: staying out of the Euro, and concerted international action after the global economic meltdown.
The rest of your post is bizarre. Brown rarely even sacked political opponents. Blair was more ruthless, see for instance Robin Cook or Mo Mowlam, and Mrs Thatcher more vindictive, abolishing the GLC and Thames Television, and consigning Aitken to political obscurity for the crime of not marrying Carol, but I do not recall anyone being machine-gunned.
I suppose if Tap were here, he'd remind us of Hilda Murrell and Dr David Kelly.
As I said, when Brown got something right, it was for discreditable reasons. He wanted to stay out of the Euro not because it was the right course for Britain but because he personally would have lost power if we had gone in.
Similarly, he bailed out the banks because the inept oversight regime he had put in place was the cause of the crisis in the first place. He was just hiding the body.
Brown didn't sack political opponents, but only because he was an abject coward. Instead, he had his little henchmen undermine them, while trying to distance himself. He was duplicitous, treacherous and underhand, rather than violent. Damian McBride, for example, fabricated for Dolly Draper's Red Rag blog the story that Ivan Cameron was born disabled because Cameron gave Samantha the clap. At the time he did this, he was working from a desk in the same room as Brown, perhaps six feet away from him. Brown then had to write to Cameron and apologise.
I can very easily imagine Brown in a British USSR sending people off to be killed.
With the recent revelations about the Heartbleed bug in the OpenSSL system which a number of IT specialists I have spoken to seem to think is an extremely dangerous situation, I would certainly not trust any supposedly secure system right now. It is scary how many major companies (including Amazon and Yahoo) have been using the Open Source system for their security.
Wrong revelation. What should worry you -- post Snowden leaking news of official NSA backdoors -- is that the government, and the American government, and [insert your own bogeyman here] can potentially know in real time how *everyone*, each individual person, voted.
Now, the current system means the spooks can potentially trace ballot papers back to individual voters but sheer logistics means this cannot be done on a large scale. How can voters be sure it is still a secret ballot?
Even if the ballot wasn't hackable, I'd guess you could predict somebody's voting habits fairly accurately if you knew everything they did on the internet. This will be especially true for politically active people, who are the ones who'd have the most to worry about.
Combine that with cheap, omnipresent, easy-to-hide cameras that you can make people use if you're coercing them and I don't think the secret ballot can be saved. At this point we should probably just give up on it and go for 100% transparency, which obviously makes things vastly easier to secure.
Yes, I'm sure the BNP (and other extremist parties) voters would be fine with there being a big database stating who they voted for.
We fought for years for a secret ballot; although we don't quite have on in the UK, it's better than an open one.
The dangers of an open ballot are all too obvious. "You want benefits / a tax cut? Well, let me just check the computer..."
Yes, I'm sure the BNP (and other extremist parties) voters would be fine with there being a big database stating who they voted for.
We fought for years for a secret ballot; although we don't quite have on in the UK, it's better than an open one.
The dangers of an open ballot are all too obvious. "You want benefits / a tax cut? Well, let me just check the computer..."
An open database of who everyone voted for would, however, be extremely handy for resolving without ambiguity the question of the political bias of the BBC.
With the recent revelations about the Heartbleed bug in the OpenSSL system which a number of IT specialists I have spoken to seem to think is an extremely dangerous situation, I would certainly not trust any supposedly secure system right now. It is scary how many major companies (including Amazon and Yahoo) have been using the Open Source system for their security.
Wrong revelation. What should worry you -- post Snowden leaking news of official NSA backdoors -- is that the government, and the American government, and [insert your own bogeyman here] can potentially know in real time how *everyone*, each individual person, voted.
Now, the current system means the spooks can potentially trace ballot papers back to individual voters but sheer logistics means this cannot be done on a large scale. How can voters be sure it is still a secret ballot?
Even if the ballot wasn't hackable, I'd guess you could predict somebody's voting habits fairly accurately if you knew everything they did on the internet. This will be especially true for politically active people, who are the ones who'd have the most to worry about.
Combine that with cheap, omnipresent, easy-to-hide cameras that you can make people use if you're coercing them and I don't think the secret ballot can be saved. At this point we should probably just give up on it and go for 100% transparency, which obviously makes things vastly easier to secure.
Yes, I'm sure the BNP (and other extremist parties) voters would be fine with there being a big database stating who they voted for.
We fought for years for a secret ballot; although we don't quite have on in the UK, it's better than an open one.
The dangers of an open ballot are all too obvious. "You want benefits / a tax cut? Well, let me just check the computer..."
Or just "You want that bottle of gin the XXX candidate promised? Well, let me just check the computer ..." Like the good old days, really.
Brown and economic statistics. It's not a very happy combination is it?
Why might Scotland have a pensions "time bomb"?
Well, on average, Scotland has more public sector workers than England so they have more people entitled to a public pension.
In addition the public sector pays better than the private sector by a larger margin in Scotland so the extent of that entitlement is greater than the equivalent private pension entitlement. National wage schemes have aggravated the differentials in areas with few very high earners.
Although those born and brought up in Glasgow may struggle to live to receive their pension many parts of Scotland have similar life expectancies to most of England and these better areas are where professional public sector pension retirees tend to live.
The population of Scotland has also been relatively static in recent years meaning that there is not the same increase in contributors as there is south of the border to keep the Ponzi schemes running.
Is this a "time bomb"? No. Some of these pensions are funded. Some are not. What we are dealing with is yet another consequence of having an inadequate private sector economy to support our public sector to the standard it has become accustomed to. It is indeed another reason that an independent Scotland would have to make even greater cuts than those south of the border. It is not a "time bomb".
Brown and economic statistics. It's not a very happy combination is it?
Why might Scotland have a pensions "time bomb"?
Well, on average, Scotland has more public sector workers than England so they have more people entitled to a public pension.
In addition the public sector pays better than the private sector by a larger margin in Scotland so the extent of that entitlement is greater than the equivalent private pension entitlement. National wage schemes have aggravated the differentials in areas with few very high earners.
Although those born and brought up in Glasgow may struggle to live to receive their pension many parts of Scotland have similar life expectancies to most of England and these better areas are where professional public sector pension retirees tend to live.
The population of Scotland has also been relatively static in recent years meaning that there is not the same increase in contributors as there is south of the border to keep the Ponzi schemes running.
Is this a "time bomb"? No. Some of these pensions are funded. Some are not. What we are dealing with is yet another consequence of having an inadequate private sector economy to support our public sector to the standard it has become accustomed to. It is indeed another reason that an independent Scotland would have to make even greater cuts than those south of the border. It is not a "time bomb".
Interesting analysis. But on one small point, is that public sector figure really true? I seem to recall Scotland actually having a smaller proportion of public sector employees than the UK average.
Brown and economic statistics. It's not a very happy combination is it?
Why might Scotland have a pensions "time bomb"?
Well, on average, Scotland has more public sector workers than England so they have more people entitled to a public pension.
In addition the public sector pays better than the private sector by a larger margin in Scotland so the extent of that entitlement is greater than the equivalent private pension entitlement. National wage schemes have aggravated the differentials in areas with few very high earners.
Although those born and brought up in Glasgow may struggle to live to receive their pension many parts of Scotland have similar life expectancies to most of England and these better areas are where professional public sector pension retirees tend to live.
The population of Scotland has also been relatively static in recent years meaning that there is not the same increase in contributors as there is south of the border to keep the Ponzi schemes running.
Is this a "time bomb"? No. Some of these pensions are funded. Some are not. What we are dealing with is yet another consequence of having an inadequate private sector economy to support our public sector to the standard it has become accustomed to. It is indeed another reason that an independent Scotland would have to make even greater cuts than those south of the border. It is not a "time bomb".
David, it is also bollocks, there is not a significant difference in public sector between north and south to start with and most if not all of the public sector pensions are funded. Given we are supposed to die off so early I hardly think they need worry about paying out the only unfunded pension , the state one. Most are dead before they are eligible. Brown the liar would be far better apologising for ruining so many people's private pensions whilst ensuring that he has a humungous one for himself.
Brown and economic statistics. It's not a very happy combination is it?
Why might Scotland have a pensions "time bomb"?
Well, on average, Scotland has more public sector workers than England so they have more people entitled to a public pension.
In addition the public sector pays better than the private sector by a larger margin in Scotland so the extent of that entitlement is greater than the equivalent private pension entitlement. National wage schemes have aggravated the differentials in areas with few very high earners.
Although those born and brought up in Glasgow may struggle to live to receive their pension many parts of Scotland have similar life expectancies to most of England and these better areas are where professional public sector pension retirees tend to live.
The population of Scotland has also been relatively static in recent years meaning that there is not the same increase in contributors as there is south of the border to keep the Ponzi schemes running.
Is this a "time bomb"? No. Some of these pensions are funded. Some are not. What we are dealing with is yet another consequence of having an inadequate private sector economy to support our public sector to the standard it has become accustomed to. It is indeed another reason that an independent Scotland would have to make even greater cuts than those south of the border. It is not a "time bomb".
Interesting analysis. But on one small point, is that public sector figure really true? I seem to recall Scotland actually having a smaller proportion of public sector employees than the UK average.
Carnyx, Wishful unionist thinking as usual. One can only assume they believe the guff they are fed from the propaganda department.
Interesting analysis. But on one small point, is that public sector figure really true? I seem to recall Scotland actually having a smaller proportion of public sector employees than the UK average.
Northern Ireland has the most, with 27.7 per cent of all workers on the public payroll. This is closely followed by 25.7 per cent in Wales and 23.5 per cent in Scotland. Across the country fewer than one in fi e workers – 19.4 per cent, or 5.7 million people – are reliant on state jobs thanks to Coalition cuts.
Talking of Scotland, it's a few days old, but I was much amused by the entry by Hugh King in the Spectator's challenge to compose the most off-putting book blurb imaginable:
With the recent revelations about the Heartbleed bug in the OpenSSL system which a number of IT specialists I have spoken to seem to think is an extremely dangerous situation, I would certainly not trust any supposedly secure system right now. It is scary how many major companies (including Amazon and Yahoo) have been using the Open Source system for their security.
Wrong revelation. What should worry you -- post Snowden leaking news of official NSA backdoors -- is that the government, and the American government, and [insert your own bogeyman here] can potentially know in real time how *everyone*, each individual person, voted.
Now, the current system means the spooks can potentially trace ballot papers back to individual voters but sheer logistics means this cannot be done on a large scale. How can voters be sure it is still a secret ballot?
Even if the ballot wasn't hackable, I'd guess you could predict somebody's voting habits fairly accurately if you knew everything they did on the internet. This will be especially true for politically active people, who are the ones who'd have the most to worry about.
Combine that with cheap, omnipresent, easy-to-hide cameras that you can make people use if you're coercing them and I don't think the secret ballot can be saved. At this point we should probably just give up on it and go for 100% transparency, which obviously makes things vastly easier to secure.
Yes. The use of cameras to confirm sold and coerced votes might be the next scandal to erupt.
There is a chart in that link showing English public sector employment was 17.9% at the same time in Q3 of 2013.
Some of the difference may come from classification. For example English college staff were reclassified as private sector relatively recently and Scottish colleges have gone the other way but I don't think that there is any doubt that Scotland has a higher percentage of its workforce in the public sector and has done for a considerable time, hence the additional pension entitlements.
Given we are supposed to die off so early I hardly think they need worry about paying out the only unfunded pension , the state one. Most are dead before they are eligible.
We keep on doing the rounds on this every few months: what's your proposal for an electronic voting system?
Like I say I'd go for 100% transparency which makes everything easy, since the secret ballot was defeated by Sharp Corporation when they started putting cameras on phones.
But for the UK, if we insist on secret ballots, I'd do something like (pulling this out of my arse - better to ask someone smarter than me who could use all kinds of clevers involving cryptographic blinding and things): - A pre-shared secret, consisting of an animal or something equally memorable, communicated to the voter on registration. Phase this system in by starting with school kids. You could send the electoral registrar out to the school to do it. - A standard username + password gets you to the voting form. This can be reset if you forget it and have a new one mailed to your house. - On the voting screen, each option has a random animal next to it. Hit space to randomize the animals, until you see your animal next to your preferred option, then hit enter to vote. - Your vote is encrypted with the public key of the returning officer, and stored in a publicly visible place, like the bitcoin blockchain. Even if the key leaks, nobody knows which is your animal, so nobody knows how you voted. You can use any other computer to recreate the vote and verify that the encrypted result is what you intended, so you'll be able to find out if your computer or somebody en route has somehow tinkered with it. - In secret, the returning officer decrypts the vote with his private key. He takes it to his computer with the list of animals-to-voters, and turns it into an actual vote. - He makes a long random number that's too long for a human to remember, and combines it with the vote to make a hash, and notes the candidate who got that hash. - He publishes all the hashes and the associated candidates in a separate, publicly-visible record (again, the bitcoin blockchain would work for storing this data). - Everybody looks at the public record, counts the votes for the candidates and finds out who won. - If you ever wonder whether he counted your vote correctly, you show up at the City Hall, go into a little room, and ask him to recreate your vote, add the random number and recreate your hash, and point at which vote is yours in the public record. If you like you could bring your own computer to do this since you don't want to trust his computer and you probably can't make cryptographic hashes in your head, but it would have to be inspected for devices able to transmit the number out of the little room, and you couldn't take it home with you.
Interesting analysis. But on one small point, is that public sector figure really true? I seem to recall Scotland actually having a smaller proportion of public sector employees than the UK average.
Northern Ireland has the most, with 27.7 per cent of all workers on the public payroll. This is closely followed by 25.7 per cent in Wales and 23.5 per cent in Scotland. Across the country fewer than one in fi e workers – 19.4 per cent, or 5.7 million people – are reliant on state jobs thanks to Coalition cuts.
"Farage is now just another politician. Scrabbling around in the gutter, making any promise, stoking any fear, just so long as it will get him a few more votes.
And he’ll get those votes. Come May he’ll get lots of votes. We’ll have more photos of him outside the pub, grinning, pint in hand. And the obligatory sound-bites about shattering the cozy Westminster consensus.
Then it will all drift away. People’s thoughts will turn to electing a government and electing a prime minister. And Farage’s cheap populism will face its reckoning.
Leaving him with what? Nothing. A footnote in history. A footnote as a plastic Nick Griffin. The BNP at least had the courage of their racist convictions. In 12 months' time Ukip won’t even have that."
"But the definition of racism as set out by the Equality and Human Rights commission is clear: discrimination can be practised on the basis of nationality"
Brilliant!
When Enoch Powell was making his point about the effects of mass immigration from the commonwealth, he said that the same problem would be caused by the mass influx of Germans, using Germans as there was no racial difference so people would see the point.
So the Equality and Human Rights commission changed the meaning of racism to catch all.. anyone who disagrees with mass immigration is racist.
We'll see
Changed Mr Isam?
Don't lets do this again, that wider meaning of the word 'racism' is certainly in evidence at least 50 years before the Equalities and Human Rights commission existed. (That much is fact, we've stalemated out on whether it is in common use).
I personally wouldn't mind going to the pub for a bit of Althetico Madrid V Chelsea (ITV 7.45ko) warm up. However I note that Eck in is wisdom has chosen the following year to have his Scottish culture civil war wankathon-
Winter Olympics (Sochi), Commonwealth games (Glasgow), World Cup, WW1 An., Bannockburn An., Euro elections, Ukraine and Syria (admittedly Ukraine wasn't predictable).
Thanks Eck - If it all works out for you I hope you enjoy your Irn-Bru while not smoking watching Celtic with Gordron Brewer to look forward to afterwards.
Bad news for the Better Together campaign today. Gordon Brown is making a speech in Glasgow tonight warning the Scottish public sector that their pensions are not safe in the hands of an independent Scottish government.
This kind of thing is why I suspect that the Better Together campaign is actually playing to lose, or at least has a fifth column within it that wants to. Deploying Gordon Brown is genius. When, rarely, he was right about something, such as not joining the Euro, it was for entirely wrong, always discreditable reasons. So BT is putting up a major political figure to support its cause, but one who is utter poison, and with whom no complete human being would wish to agree. On anything.
Brown was often wrong but he got the big calls right: staying out of the Euro, and concerted international action after the global economic meltdown.
The rest of your post is bizarre. Brown rarely even sacked political opponents. Blair was more ruthless, see for instance Robin Cook or Mo Mowlam, and Mrs Thatcher more vindictive, abolishing the GLC and Thames Television, and consigning Aitken to political obscurity for the crime of not marrying Carol, but I do not recall anyone being machine-gunned.
I suppose if Tap were here, he'd remind us of Hilda Murrell and Dr David Kelly.
As I said, when Brown got something right, it was for discreditable reasons. He wanted to stay out of the Euro not because it was the right course for Britain but because he personally would have lost power if we had gone in.
Similarly, he bailed out the banks because the inept oversight regime he had put in place was the cause of the crisis in the first place. He was just hiding the body.
Brown didn't sack political opponents, but only because he was an abject coward. Instead, he had his little henchmen undermine them, while trying to distance himself. He was duplicitous, treacherous and underhand, rather than violent. Damian McBride, for example, fabricated for Dolly Draper's Red Rag blog the story that Ivan Cameron was born disabled because Cameron gave Samantha the clap. At the time he did this, he was working from a desk in the same room as Brown, perhaps six feet away from him. Brown then had to write to Cameron and apologise.
I can very easily imagine Brown in a British USSR sending people off to be killed.
Brown's "inept oversight regime" was not the cause of the crisis, which, as the saying goes, started in America. It was a global crisis, not a British one.
Today could mark a key date in the indyref with Brown's "big speech". Brown is in many eyes the man most responsible outside of the SNP for the push towards independence. His tactics of defining Scottish politics as "anti-Westminster" and anti-Tory came home to roost when Scotland turned to the only viable alternative Scottish Govt (compared to Labour) which is the SNP. Now at the 11th hour Brown attempts to undo his divisive nationalist politicing. My irony meter has melted! Brown even tried to set up his own "Labour only" anti-Yes group rather than join Better Together. More splits from Brown as usual.
Gordon Brown really has been a malign influence on our national discourse hasn't he? Dreadful, dreadful politician...
Quite. If Gordon Brown said that prosperity was a good thing, I'd instinctively want to disagree. He would probably be found to using some peculiar definition of prosperity, such as higher taxes on anyone he hates.
Labour does have this habit of electing leaders utterly, palpably unfit to do the job of PM. Most obvious is Brown, but let's not forget also Neil Kinnock and Ed Miliband.
As I've suggested before, elections over the last 40-odd years have tended to be won by the party whose leader is obviously better. Thus one had Wilson beating Heath, who had patently failed; Thatcher beating Callaghan, who had also patently failed, then Foot and Kinnock; Major beating Kinnock, but losing to Blair; Blair beating Hague and Howard; and then Brown losing to Cameron - on a minority basis, true, but Brown still lost even, if Cameron didn't win.
For the same reason, it seems obvious that Miliband can't win in 2015 against Cameron. One's a proven quantity leading a pretty effective government from a disastrous starting place; the other's an oily lightweight ʇɐɹd.
Based on past evidence the best way for NO to gain votes is to abandon economic sanity, spend taxpayers money on their own whims, pick a nearby country to abuse, whine and blame for all the ills of the world and to call anyone who disagrees with their view point scum and unpatriotic.
Farage is available I believe..
Funny you should mention that:
How Ukip is turning left on the economy The party now favours strict limits on zero-hour contracts, the abolition of the bedroom tax and progressive taxation.
We keep on doing the rounds on this every few months: what's your proposal for an electronic voting system?
Like I say I'd go for 100% transparency which makes everything easy, since the secret ballot was defeated by Sharp Corporation when they started putting cameras on phones.
But for the UK, if we insist on secret ballots, I'd do something like (pulling this out of my arse - better to ask someone smarter than me who could use all kinds of clevers involving cryptographic blinding and things): - A pre-shared secret, consisting of an animal or something equally memorable, communicated to the voter on registration. Phase this system in by starting with school kids. You could send the electoral registrar out to the school to do it. - A standard username + password gets you to the voting form. This can be reset if you forget it and have a new one mailed to your house. - On the voting screen, each option has a random animal next to it. Hit space to randomize the animals, until you see your animal next to your preferred option, then hit enter to vote. - Your vote is encrypted with the public key of the returning officer, and stored in a publicly visible place, like the bitcoin blockchain. Even if the key leaks, nobody knows which is your animal, so nobody knows how you voted. You can use any other computer to recreate the vote and verify that the encrypted result is what you intended, so you'll be able to find out if your computer or somebody en route has somehow tinkered with it. - In secret, the returning officer decrypts the vote with his private key. He takes it to his computer with the list of animals-to-voters, and turns it into an actual vote. - He makes a long random number that's too long for a human to remember, and combines it with the vote to make a hash, and notes the candidate who got that hash. - He publishes all the hashes and the associated candidates in a separate, publicly-visible record (again, the bitcoin blockchain would work for storing this data). - Everybody looks at the public record, counts the votes for the candidates and finds out who won. - If you ever wonder whether he counted your vote correctly, you show up at the City Hall, go into a little room, and ask him to recreate your vote, add the random number and recreate your hash, and point at which vote is yours in the public record. If you like you could bring your own computer to do this since you don't want to trust his computer and you probably can't make cryptographic hashes in your head, but it would have to be inspected for devices able to transmit the number out of the little room, and you couldn't take it home with you.
What about Rain Man? He could probably remember the number. Critical flaw.
We keep on doing the rounds on this every few months: what's your proposal for an electronic voting system?
Like I say I'd go for 100% transparency which makes everything easy, since the secret ballot was defeated by Sharp Corporation when they started putting cameras on phones.
But for the UK, if we insist on secret ballots, I'd do something like (pulling this out of my arse - better to ask someone smarter than me who could use all kinds of clevers involving cryptographic blinding and things): - A pre-shared secret, consisting of an animal or something equally memorable, communicated to the voter on registration. Phase this system in by starting with school kids. You could send the electoral registrar out to the school to do it. - A standard username + password gets you to the voting form. This can be reset if you forget it and have a new one mailed to your house. - On the voting screen, each option has a random animal next to it. Hit space to randomize the animals, until you see your animal next to your preferred option, then hit enter to vote. - Your vote is encrypted with the public key of the returning officer, and stored in a publicly visible place, like the bitcoin blockchain. Even if the key leaks, nobody knows which is your animal, so nobody knows how you voted. You can use any other computer to recreate the vote and verify that the encrypted result is what you intended, so you'll be able to find out if your computer or somebody en route has somehow tinkered with it. - In secret, the returning officer decrypts the vote with his private key. He takes it to his computer with the list of animals-to-voters, and turns it into an actual vote. - He makes a long random number that's too long for a human to remember, and combines it with the vote to make a hash, and notes the candidate who got that hash. - He publishes all the hashes and the associated candidates in a separate, publicly-visible record (again, the bitcoin blockchain would work for storing this data). - Everybody looks at the public record, counts the votes for the candidates and finds out who won. - If you ever wonder whether he counted your vote correctly, you show up at the City Hall, go into a little room, and ask him to recreate your vote, add the random number and recreate your hash, and point at which vote is yours in the public record. If you like you could bring your own computer to do this since you don't want to trust his computer and you probably can't make cryptographic hashes in your head, but it would have to be inspected for devices able to transmit the number out of the little room, and you couldn't take it home with you.
What about Rain Man? He could probably remember the number. Critical flaw.
Shit, you're right. I bet he could do SHA-256 hashing in his head as well.
Brown and economic statistics. It's not a very happy combination is it?
Why might Scotland have a pensions "time bomb"?
Well, on average, Scotland has more public sector workers than England so they have more people entitled to a public pension.
In addition the public sector pays better than the private sector by a larger margin in Scotland so the extent of that entitlement is greater than the equivalent private pension entitlement. National wage schemes have aggravated the differentials in areas with few very high earners.
Although those born and brought up in Glasgow may struggle to live to receive their pension many parts of Scotland have similar life expectancies to most of England and these better areas are where professional public sector pension retirees tend to live.
The population of Scotland has also been relatively static in recent years meaning that there is not the same increase in contributors as there is south of the border to keep the Ponzi schemes running.
Is this a "time bomb"? No. Some of these pensions are funded. Some are not. What we are dealing with is yet another consequence of having an inadequate private sector economy to support our public sector to the standard it has become accustomed to. It is indeed another reason that an independent Scotland would have to make even greater cuts than those south of the border. It is not a "time bomb".
Interesting analysis. But on one small point, is that public sector figure really true? I seem to recall Scotland actually having a smaller proportion of public sector employees than the UK average.
Carnyx, Wishful unionist thinking as usual. One can only assume they believe the guff they are fed from the propaganda department.
Where as your self treats all that is emitted from Alec Salmond & YESNP with true objectivity?
We keep on doing the rounds on this every few months: what's your proposal for an electronic voting system?
Like I say I'd go for 100% transparency which makes everything easy, since the secret ballot was defeated by Sharp Corporation when they started putting cameras on phones.
But for the UK, if we insist on secret ballots, I'd do something like (pulling this out of my arse - better to ask someone smarter than me who could use all kinds of clevers involving cryptographic blinding and things):
(snip good stuff)
Thanks for that, but I'll have to peruse it in detail later after a meeting. But for the moment I will say that anything that relies on memory to that degree is easily broken: people will just write down the animal, username and password, as so many people do with simple PIN codes and Internet passwords. Anything that creates 'magic' people ('the returning officer decrypts the vote with his private key. He takes it to his computer with the list of animals-to-voters, and turns it into an actual vote.') is a weak point.
I also fundamentally disagree that: a) 100% transparency is a good, democratic idea. b) That the advent of camera phones has led to the end of the secret ballot. True, it can be defeated in a minor way, but widescale transgressions would be very difficult, if not impossible.
Basically: I think you underestimate the benefits of the secret ballot.
However, I've only been able to give it a quick scan, so I'll get back to it later. Again, thanks.
"Farage is now just another politician. Scrabbling around in the gutter, making any promise, stoking any fear, just so long as it will get him a few more votes.
And he’ll get those votes. Come May he’ll get lots of votes. We’ll have more photos of him outside the pub, grinning, pint in hand. And the obligatory sound-bites about shattering the cozy Westminster consensus.
Then it will all drift away. People’s thoughts will turn to electing a government and electing a prime minister. And Farage’s cheap populism will face its reckoning.
Leaving him with what? Nothing. A footnote in history. A footnote as a plastic Nick Griffin. The BNP at least had the courage of their racist convictions. In 12 months' time Ukip won’t even have that."
"But the definition of racism as set out by the Equality and Human Rights commission is clear: discrimination can be practised on the basis of nationality"
Brilliant!
When Enoch Powell was making his point about the effects of mass immigration from the commonwealth, he said that the same problem would be caused by the mass influx of Germans, using Germans as there was no racial difference so people would see the point.
So the Equality and Human Rights commission changed the meaning of racism to catch all.. anyone who disagrees with mass immigration is racist.
We'll see
Changed Mr Isam?
Don't lets do this again, that wider meaning of the word 'racism' is certainly in evidence at least 50 years before the Equalities and Human Rights commission existed. (That much is fact, we've stalemated out on whether it is in common use).
Lefties incorporate words that describe fears and concerns of many people about immigration into the catchment area of a abhorrent term in order to close down debate. That much is fact
I have to ask this question (and I know the shame from asking it) but with Better Together letting Gordon speak, wouldn't it be better to just admit that we are happy for Scotland to go....
"Farage is now just another politician. Scrabbling around in the gutter, making any promise, stoking any fear, just so long as it will get him a few more votes.
And he’ll get those votes. Come May he’ll get lots of votes. We’ll have more photos of him outside the pub, grinning, pint in hand. And the obligatory sound-bites about shattering the cozy Westminster consensus.
Then it will all drift away. People’s thoughts will turn to electing a government and electing a prime minister. And Farage’s cheap populism will face its reckoning.
Leaving him with what? Nothing. A footnote in history. A footnote as a plastic Nick Griffin. The BNP at least had the courage of their racist convictions. In 12 months' time Ukip won’t even have that."
"But the definition of racism as set out by the Equality and Human Rights commission is clear: discrimination can be practised on the basis of nationality"
Brilliant!
When Enoch Powell was making his point about the effects of mass immigration from the commonwealth, he said that the same problem would be caused by the mass influx of Germans, using Germans as there was no racial difference so people would see the point.
So the Equality and Human Rights commission changed the meaning of racism to catch all.. anyone who disagrees with mass immigration is racist.
We'll see
Changed Mr Isam?
Don't lets do this again, that wider meaning of the word 'racism' is certainly in evidence at least 50 years before the Equalities and Human Rights commission existed. (That much is fact, we've stalemated out on whether it is in common use).
Lefties incorporate words that describe fears and concerns of many people about immigration into the catchment area of a abhorrent term in order to close down debate. That much is fact
By incorporating xenophobia into racism? Is xenophobia the word they should have used?
Of course, it is only those horrible lefties who change laws to implement their agenda At least our politicians and financial sector are above reproach, unlike Russia, China, etc.(you can hardly blame our politicians for pandering to their future employers wishes)
Thanks for that, but I'll have to peruse it in detail later after a meeting. But for the moment I will say that anything that relies on memory to that degree is easily broken: people will just write down the animal, username and password, as so many people do with simple PIN codes and Internet passwords. Anything that creates 'magic' people ('the returning officer decrypts the vote with his private key. He takes it to his computer with the list of animals-to-voters, and turns it into an actual vote.') is a weak point.
Don't think about it too hard as like I say it's just something I pulled out of my bum. People much smarter than me are thinking about this stuff a lot harder.
The memory isn't too bad, because the point of voting secrecy is to make it possible to lie. Write down another animal and you've defeated the attack. But the reason for suggesting animals here is that they can make very memorable noises.
I agree the returning officer stage is the weak point here (where you have a secret list, and turn it into the vote you're trying to keep secret) but there are a lot of things you can do here to make him easier to audit. (BTW in practice he's probably several different computers.)
Of course, it is only those horrible lefties who change laws to implement their agenda At least our politicians and financial sector are above reproach, unlike Russia, China, etc.(you can hardly blame our politicians for pandering to their future employers wishes)
So, to be clear, you think a householder in London should be able to prevent a sewer being dug under his house, or withdraw permission for the Bakerloo line to run under it, or a landowner in a mining area should be able to prevent a coal seam being mined under his land?
Arguable, certainly, but I think you'll struggle to find a government of the left or the right, in any country, who agrees with you.
Of course, it is only those horrible lefties who change laws to implement their agenda At least our politicians and financial sector are above reproach, unlike Russia, China, etc.(you can hardly blame our politicians for pandering to their future employers wishes)
So, to be clear, you think a householder in London should be able to prevent a sewer being dug under his house, or withdraw permission for the Bakerloo line to run under it, or a landowner in a mining area should be able to prevent a coal seam being mined under his land?
Arguable, certainly, but I think you'll struggle to find a government of the left or the right, in any country, who agrees with you.
As you may know, opinion polls, council elections and other recent elections have shown an increase in support for the UK Independence Party. Which ONE of the following statements do you think best explains UKIP's increase in popularity?
Strong on Immigration: 26 Want to exit EU: 24 Farage charismatic/convincing leader: 5 Credible plans for economy: 2 Dissatisfaction with mainstream (C/L/LD) parties: 42
Cameron alternatives - net more likely to vote Conservative if leader was: Boris: -14 (Con: +6) May: -64 Osborne: -70 Gove: -82
Of course, it is only those horrible lefties who change laws to implement their agenda At least our politicians and financial sector are above reproach, unlike Russia, China, etc.(you can hardly blame our politicians for pandering to their future employers wishes)
So, to be clear, you think a householder in London should be able to prevent a sewer being dug under his house, or withdraw permission for the Bakerloo line to run under it, or a landowner in a mining area should be able to prevent a coal seam being mined under his land?
Arguable, certainly, but I think you'll struggle to find a government of the left or the right, in any country, who agrees with you.
An Englishman's home is his castle, from ionosphere to mantle.
A phobia is defined as being intense or irrational. If you have some fear for the effect on your future employment status, that may not be intense or irrational.
Yes, I know. My daughter once said ... "Dad, pack up with your pedanticness. "Daughter, I replied, "the correct word is pedantry."
A phobia is defined as being intense or irrational. If you have some fear for the effect on your future employment status, that may not be intense or irrational.
Yes, I know. My daughter once said ... "Dad, pack up with your pedanticness. "Daughter, I replied, "the correct word is pedantry."
A phobia is defined as being intense or irrational. If you have some fear for the effect on your future employment status, that may not be intense or irrational.
Yes, I know. My daughter once said ... "Dad, pack up with your pedanticness. "Daughter, I replied, "the correct word is pedantry."
What's more xenophobia refers to a dislike of people from other countries, such that you'd dislike them whether you have a rational fear for your employment status or not.
There is a chart in that link showing English public sector employment was 17.9% at the same time in Q3 of 2013.
Some of the difference may come from classification. For example English college staff were reclassified as private sector relatively recently and Scottish colleges have gone the other way but I don't think that there is any doubt that Scotland has a higher percentage of its workforce in the public sector and has done for a considerable time, hence the additional pension entitlements.
Interesting analysis. But on one small point, is that public sector figure really true? I seem to recall Scotland actually having a smaller proportion of public sector employees than the UK average.
Northern Ireland has the most, with 27.7 per cent of all workers on the public payroll. This is closely followed by 25.7 per cent in Wales and 23.5 per cent in Scotland. Across the country fewer than one in fi e workers – 19.4 per cent, or 5.7 million people – are reliant on state jobs thanks to Coalition cuts.
Many thanks for that. 23% was the sort of figure I had had in mind. Also worth remembering that Scottish Water etc and much of the health service are still not privatised. Of course, if we are talking about public sector pensions (which are now in any case very different from what they used to be) this is not strictly relevant.
I have tried to find what I had read, without any luck, but did find this Scottish Pmt briefing paper (by the equivalent of the HoC Library)
So Barclay's borrowed money to keep Lehman Brothers afloat at the request of the fed. And RBS and BoS got money to avoid them having to close their US offshoots....
In no case does this show your argument that the Fed bailed out UK banks, they bailed out their own (local) banks some of whom happened to be subsidiaries with British parent companies (albeit badly run overexpanded, Scottish banks) to avoid the parent companies pulling the plug on them....
I told him this a couple of weeks ago, but he chose to ignore it.
Brown and economic statistics. It's not a very happy combination is it?
Why might Scotland have a pensions "time bomb"?
Well, on average, Scotland has more public sector workers than England so they have more people entitled to a public pension.
In addition the public sector pays better than the private sector by a larger margin in Scotland so the extent of that entitlement is greater than the equivalent private pension entitlement. National wage schemes have aggravated the differentials in areas with few very high earners.
Although those born and brought up in Glasgow may struggle to live to receive their pension many parts of Scotland have similar life expectancies to most of England and these better areas are where professional public sector pension retirees tend to live.
The population of Scotland has also been relatively static in recent years meaning that there is not the same increase in contributors as there is south of the border to keep the Ponzi schemes running.
Is this a "time bomb"? No. Some of these pensions are funded. Some are not. What we are dealing with is yet another consequence of having an inadequate private sector economy to support our public sector to the standard it has become accustomed to. It is indeed another reason that an independent Scotland would have to make even greater cuts than those south of the border. It is not a "time bomb".
Interesting analysis. But on one small point, is that public sector figure really true? I seem to recall Scotland actually having a smaller proportion of public sector employees than the UK average.
Carnyx, Wishful unionist thinking as usual. One can only assume they believe the guff they are fed from the propaganda department.
Where as your self treats all that is emitted from Alec Salmond & YESNP with true objectivity?
What makes you think that. lesser of two evils I would say and at least have some positive thinking of a better way forward. Sure beats lies and disinformation. Given their track record from 2007 they are a far better bet than the unionists.
George Eaton@georgeeaton·20 mins The Tories' lead on "helping people get onto the housing ladder" has fallen from 11 points (in October) to two. http://bit.ly/1ibbKuV
Those figures help to explain why Labour is losing ground on economic competence. YouGov repeated six questions we asked last autumn, about six different aspects of the party battle on living standards. Would a Miliband-led Labour government or a Cameron-led Conservative government do better? Our results give far more comfort to the Prime Minister than his rival.
On three aspects where Labour held clear leads six months ago, the race has tightened: providing more jobs (Labour lead down from 8% to 1%), keeping prices down (lead down from 6% to 1%) and “improving the standards of living for people like you” (9% lead down to 4%).
In contrast, two big Tory leads have grown even bigger – on managing the economy (lead up from 15% to 21%) and tackling the government’s deficit (lead up from 22% to 29%).
One issue bucks the trend. Last October, the Conservatives enjoyed an 11% lead on “helping people get onto the housing ladder”. This is down to just 2%. For many people, of course, affordable housing is a huge concern. Its impact on millions of families could yet undermine the Prime Minister’s claims to improve real lives and not just statistical averages.
So Barclay's borrowed money to keep Lehman Brothers afloat at the request of the fed. And RBS and BoS got money to avoid them having to close their US offshoots....
In no case does this show your argument that the Fed bailed out UK banks, they bailed out their own (local) banks some of whom happened to be subsidiaries with British parent companies (albeit badly run overexpanded, Scottish banks) to avoid the parent companies pulling the plug on them....
I told him this a couple of weeks ago, but he chose to ignore it.
You boys like to twist the facts, the US bailed out UK banks and in future they will do the same. UK also bailed out Ireland and Iceland. Get over it and stop trying to peddle untruths by using weasely words.
There is a chart in that link showing English public sector employment was 17.9% at the same time in Q3 of 2013.
Some of the difference may come from classification. For example English college staff were reclassified as private sector relatively recently and Scottish colleges have gone the other way but I don't think that there is any doubt that Scotland has a higher percentage of its workforce in the public sector and has done for a considerable time, hence the additional pension entitlements.
Interesting analysis. But on one small point, is that public sector figure really true? I seem to recall Scotland actually having a smaller proportion of public sector employees than the UK average.
Northern Ireland has the most, with 27.7 per cent of all workers on the public payroll. This is closely followed by 25.7 per cent in Wales and 23.5 per cent in Scotland. Across the country fewer than one in fi e workers – 19.4 per cent, or 5.7 million people – are reliant on state jobs thanks to Coalition cuts.
Many thanks for that. 23% was the sort of figure I had had in mind. Also worth remembering that Scottish Water etc and much of the health service are still not privatised. Of course, if we are talking about public sector pensions (which are now in any case very different from what they used to be) this is not strictly relevant.
I have tried to find what I had read, without any luck, but did find this Scottish Pmt briefing paper (by the equivalent of the HoC Library)
There is a chart in that link showing English public sector employment was 17.9% at the same time in Q3 of 2013.
Some of the difference may come from classification. For example English college staff were reclassified as private sector relatively recently and Scottish colleges have gone the other way but I don't think that there is any doubt that Scotland has a higher percentage of its workforce in the public sector and has done for a considerable time, hence the additional pension entitlements.
Interesting analysis. But on one small point, is that public sector figure really true? I seem to recall Scotland actually having a smaller proportion of public sector employees than the UK average.
Northern Ireland has the most, with 27.7 per cent of all workers on the public payroll. This is closely followed by 25.7 per cent in Wales and 23.5 per cent in Scotland. Across the country fewer than one in fi e workers – 19.4 per cent, or 5.7 million people – are reliant on state jobs thanks to Coalition cuts.
Interesting. Noteworthy that they compare vs "total UK" rather than "balance UK"....if they had public sector employment as the same proportion of the workforce as balance UK there would be nearly 100,000 fewer in Scotland...
"But the definition of racism as set out by the Equality and Human Rights commission is clear: discrimination can be practised on the basis of nationality"
Brilliant!
When Enoch Powell was making his point about the effects of mass immigration from the commonwealth, he said that the same problem would be caused by the mass influx of Germans, using Germans as there was no racial difference so people would see the point.
So the Equality and Human Rights commission changed the meaning of racism to catch all.. anyone who disagrees with mass immigration is racist.
We'll see
Changed Mr Isam?
Don't lets do this again, that wider meaning of the word 'racism' is certainly in evidence at least 50 years before the Equalities and Human Rights commission existed. (That much is fact, we've stalemated out on whether it is in common use).
Lefties incorporate words that describe fears and concerns of many people about immigration into the catchment area of a abhorrent term in order to close down debate. That much is fact
By incorporating xenophobia into racism? Is xenophobia the word they should have used?
I wouldn't even call it xenophobia. It's an economic concern for low skilled British people that people from poorer countries have free access to our labour market. I don't think that concern is based on dislike of the people personally or their culture. In small doses I think people quite like having a few immigrants working with them/opening businesses locally etc
It is, and always has been, a question of numbers. What is the right amount to allow in so that the immigrants are not victims of prejudice themselves and their presence isn't making the people here already feel threatened. Uncontrolled immigration isn't the right amount in my opinion.
But confusing that fear of economic welfare and change to their home with a word associated with hatred of people based on skin colour is poor form.
Sadly that is what has been done.. UKIP aren't afraid to say what hundreds of thousands maybe millions are thinking. Hence the opinion polls/election results
''Uncontrolled immigration isn't the right amount in my opinion.''
One problem UKIP might have is that they are making much of EU immigration. They say very little about non-EU immigration, and yet this seems to incense potential supporters at least as much.
There is a chart in that link showing English public sector employment was 17.9% at the same time in Q3 of 2013.
Some of the difference may come from classification. For example English college staff were reclassified as private sector relatively recently and Scottish colleges have gone the other way but I don't think that there is any doubt that Scotland has a higher percentage of its workforce in the public sector and has done for a considerable time, hence the additional pension entitlements.
Interesting analysis. But on one small point, is that public sector figure really true? I seem to recall Scotland actually having a smaller proportion of public sector employees than the UK average.
Northern Ireland has the most, with 27.7 per cent of all workers on the public payroll. This is closely followed by 25.7 per cent in Wales and 23.5 per cent in Scotland. Across the country fewer than one in fi e workers – 19.4 per cent, or 5.7 million people – are reliant on state jobs thanks to Coalition cuts.
Many thanks for that. 23% was the sort of figure I had had in mind. Also worth remembering that Scottish Water etc and much of the health service are still not privatised. Of course, if we are talking about public sector pensions (which are now in any case very different from what they used to be) this is not strictly relevant.
I have tried to find what I had read, without any luck, but did find this Scottish Pmt briefing paper (by the equivalent of the HoC Library)
Carnyx, also English numbers do not count the millions of jobs that they outsourced so are far from accurate. Typical unionist accounting tactics.
To quote the Scottish Parliament paper:
The figures show that the share of public sector jobs in Scotland was generally 3-4 percentage points more than in the UK. The gap narrowed a little up to 2011 but widened in 2012, this was not solely due to the reclassification of colleges in England.
''Uncontrolled immigration isn't the right amount in my opinion.''
One problem UKIP might have is that they are making much of EU immigration. They say very little about non-EU immigration, and yet this seems to incense potential supporters at least as much.
Well I guess that's because there are controls on non EU immigration..
If parties campaigned for freedom of movement for Europeans but strict controls on Africans and Asians that would appear to be more racist to me...
Interesting analysis. But on one small point, is that public sector figure really true? I seem to recall Scotland actually having a smaller proportion of public sector employees than the UK average.
Northern Ireland has the most, with 27.7 per cent of all workers on the public payroll. This is closely followed by 25.7 per cent in Wales and 23.5 per cent in Scotland. Across the country fewer than one in fi e workers – 19.4 per cent, or 5.7 million people – are reliant on state jobs thanks to Coalition cuts.
Many thanks for that. 23% was the sort of figure I had had in mind. Also worth remembering that Scottish Water etc and much of the health service are still not privatised. Of course, if we are talking about public sector pensions (which are now in any case very different from what they used to be) this is not strictly relevant.
I have tried to find what I had read, without any luck, but did find this Scottish Pmt briefing paper (by the equivalent of the HoC Library)
Carnyx, also English numbers do not count the millions of jobs that they outsourced so are far from accurate. Typical unionist accounting tactics.
To quote the Scottish Parliament paper:
The figures show that the share of public sector jobs in Scotland was generally 3-4 percentage points more than in the UK. The gap narrowed a little up to 2011 but widened in 2012, this was not solely due to the reclassification of colleges in England.
Scotland has been a bit higher at times but the numbers are dubious. They are not comparing like for like so it is very difficult if not impossible to get a real picture. Flippant statements such as the earlier poster made are typical of the attempt to paint Scotland as a subsidy junkie and then use differing scales to prove they are correct. Even trying to compare to when labour was in power is rubbish when you consider outsourcing and subcontracting etc that flatters to deceive in certain areas.
Comments
For a bit of fun I would have a small bet, (£25?) at 2/1 that Labour do offer a referendum. So you're having £50@1/2 they don't.
Labour does have this habit of electing leaders utterly, palpably unfit to do the job of PM. Most obvious is Brown, but let's not forget also Neil Kinnock and Ed Miliband.
As I've suggested before, elections over the last 40-odd years have tended to be won by the party whose leader is obviously better. Thus one had Wilson beating Heath, who had patently failed; Thatcher beating Callaghan, who had also patently failed, then Foot and Kinnock; Major beating Kinnock, but losing to Blair; Blair beating Hague and Howard; and then Brown losing to Cameron - on a minority basis, true, but Brown still lost even, if Cameron didn't win.
For the same reason, it seems obvious that Miliband can't win in 2015 against Cameron. One's a proven quantity leading a pretty effective government from a disastrous starting place; the other's an oily lightweight ʇɐɹd.
Before @thetimes ran @Nigel_Farage expenses story on April 15th #UKIP on 12-13%. After story #UKIP on 15%. Crude measure but point made.
Farage is available I believe..
I think the real problem here is that the people involved wouldn't be capable of evaluating a cryptographically-secured system properly, and wouldn't want to listen to the smelly hackers who could explain how it needs to be done.
If you're happy with that I'll email Peter the Punter to confirm (I think I already have your email address).
A guy whose father came to UK on the Windrush has moved on to Estonia and is hoping to be elected to the Euorpean Parliament on their SocDem list.
The pieve also makes the point that any EU citizen can vote in the EP elections in the country in which they are living. I wonder if Clegg's best bet is to conduct a quick campaign among "all" the EU immigrants here, and swamp UKIP.
As is Farage is right they would!
The rest of your post is bizarre. Brown rarely even sacked political opponents. Blair was more ruthless, see for instance Robin Cook or Mo Mowlam, and Mrs Thatcher more vindictive, abolishing the GLC and Thames Television, and consigning Aitken to political obscurity for the crime of not marrying Carol, but I do not recall anyone being machine-gunned.
I suppose if Tap were here, he'd remind us of Hilda Murrell and Dr David Kelly.
The current system is at least understandable. You take your ballot card in, you get given a paper, and you put your cross(es) where they are needed. The box is sealed, then taken securely for counting, a process which can be watched at all stages by candidates or their representatives.
It's simple and easy to understand.
A secure electronic system would be many orders of magnitude more complex, and hence untrustworthy to too many of the public.
twitter.com/PopulusPolls/status/458521723684786176
Just seen Hills are 10/3 a referendum to take place during the lifetime of the next government
I guess any coalition with Lib Dems would scupper that bet though, and as we are talking about a manifesto promise rather than it taking place, I am happy to go with 2/1 and the terms you describe
A YouGov survey revealed that nearly seven in 10 (69%) oppose a ban on parents smacking their children, compared to just 19% in favour. A further 13% said they didn’t know.
The findings will represent a blow to supporters of a smacking ban, which has been repeatedly raised as an issue over the past decade in the (Welsh) Assembly.
Assembly Members have voted in favour of a ban, in principle, in the past, though the Welsh Government has never brought forward any proposals to formally make it law.
Champions of a ban have amassed more than 600 organisations to support the removal of the “reasonable punishment”, including 130 in Wales, with 34 countries across the world moving to ban physical punishment of children.
But the results showed support for a ban ebbed away the older the respondents got, with support among those aged 18-24 for a ban running at only just over a third (34%), compared to just over half (51%) opposed, while those aged 60 and older opposed a ban even more vociferously, with just 14% in favour and 79% against.
Support for a ban was most pronounced among Liberal Democrat voters, with a quarter in favour and 48% against, while Conservative voters showed least support at 15% in favour and 77% against.
An amendment tabled by Plaid Cymru AM Lindsay Whittle during the passage of the Social Services Bill to remove the defence of reasonable punishment was defeated in February after the 30-strong Labour group was whipped to oppose it – over fears the whole Bill could be legally challenged for exceeding the Assembly’s powers if the amendment succeeded.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/bid-ban-smacking-children-little-7013008
With the recent revelations about the Heartbleed bug in the OpenSSL system which a number of IT specialists I have spoken to seem to think is an extremely dangerous situation, I would certainly not trust any supposedly secure system right now. It is scary how many major companies (including Amazon and Yahoo) have been using the Open Source system for their security.
Now, the current system means the spooks can potentially trace ballot papers back to individual voters but sheer logistics means this cannot be done on a large scale. How can voters be sure it is still a secret ballot?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100268508/ukip-are-worse-than-the-bnp-at-least-nick-griffin-has-the-courage-of-his-racist-convictions/
"Farage is now just another politician. Scrabbling around in the gutter, making any promise, stoking any fear, just so long as it will get him a few more votes.
And he’ll get those votes. Come May he’ll get lots of votes. We’ll have more photos of him outside the pub, grinning, pint in hand. And the obligatory sound-bites about shattering the cozy Westminster consensus.
Then it will all drift away. People’s thoughts will turn to electing a government and electing a prime minister. And Farage’s cheap populism will face its reckoning.
Leaving him with what? Nothing. A footnote in history. A footnote as a plastic Nick Griffin.
The BNP at least had the courage of their racist convictions. In 12 months' time Ukip won’t even have that."
I don't think Brown was evil or worse than many other politicians in the black arts. But he was mentally unsuited to be being PM.
I think Frank Field had it right - Blair should have checked the lock to the attic.
LOW TURNOUT
People who really care about and/or take a close interest in EU issues will vote in the EU elections.
People who don't care or take any interest in EU issues will either not vote or vote loyally for their political tribe.
So the people who care and/or take an interest in the issues have a greater weighting in the outcome - which seems fair to me. So I don't see a problem with low turnout. At least the unthinking vote is less than in a general election.
CHOICE OF CANDIDATE - PARTY LISTING SYSTEM
What is a problem is the party listing of candidates in mainland UK. This means I can only vote for the party and not individual candidates. If I don't like the party's first choice but prefer their second choice, the only way I can help get that candidate elected is by giving my vote for the party and helping the candidate I don't like to get elected.
In Northern Ireland you can vote for your preferred candidate using the Single Transferable Vote system, ranking candidates by preference - a much better system.
As Mr Tyndall points out below, although the Heartbleed bug is not directly relevant, it does indicate that security bugs can remain active for many years, even in open source.
There's another point: to perform large-scale fraud in the current physical system, you would need to gain access to many boxes physically in different areas, or have suitable people in many different counts. That is very difficult to do. On an electronic system, it could just be one system bug or exploit.
We keep on doing the rounds on this every few months: what's your proposal for an electronic voting system?
Combine that with cheap, omnipresent, easy-to-hide cameras that you can make people use if you're coercing them and I don't think the secret ballot can be saved. At this point we should probably just give up on it and go for 100% transparency, which obviously makes things vastly easier to secure.
Brilliant!
When Enoch Powell was making his point about the effects of mass immigration from the commonwealth, he said that the same problem would be caused by the mass influx of Germans, using Germans as there was no racial difference so people would see the point.
So the Equality and Human Rights commission changed the meaning of racism to catch all.. anyone who disagrees with mass immigration is racist.
We'll see
‘Top comment’ - “Give it up, Dan, you're a better journo than that.”
‘Reply’ - "He's not you know. I think this is the best he can do."
Awesome...!
Similarly, he bailed out the banks because the inept oversight regime he had put in place was the cause of the crisis in the first place. He was just hiding the body.
Brown didn't sack political opponents, but only because he was an abject coward. Instead, he had his little henchmen undermine them, while trying to distance himself. He was duplicitous, treacherous and underhand, rather than violent. Damian McBride, for example, fabricated for Dolly Draper's Red Rag blog the story that Ivan Cameron was born disabled because Cameron gave Samantha the clap. At the time he did this, he was working from a desk in the same room as Brown, perhaps six feet away from him. Brown then had to write to Cameron and apologise.
I can very easily imagine Brown in a British USSR sending people off to be killed.
I imagine there's nothing Farage would relish more than a battle with the EHRC
We fought for years for a secret ballot; although we don't quite have on in the UK, it's better than an open one.
The dangers of an open ballot are all too obvious. "You want benefits / a tax cut? Well, let me just check the computer..."
Why might Scotland have a pensions "time bomb"?
Well, on average, Scotland has more public sector workers than England so they have more people entitled to a public pension.
In addition the public sector pays better than the private sector by a larger margin in Scotland so the extent of that entitlement is greater than the equivalent private pension entitlement. National wage schemes have aggravated the differentials in areas with few very high earners.
Although those born and brought up in Glasgow may struggle to live to receive their pension many parts of Scotland have similar life expectancies to most of England and these better areas are where professional public sector pension retirees tend to live.
The population of Scotland has also been relatively static in recent years meaning that there is not the same increase in contributors as there is south of the border to keep the Ponzi schemes running.
Is this a "time bomb"? No. Some of these pensions are funded. Some are not. What we are dealing with is yet another consequence of having an inadequate private sector economy to support our public sector to the standard it has become accustomed to. It is indeed another reason that an independent Scotland would have to make even greater cuts than those south of the border. It is not a "time bomb".
That'll be the Saltire on its own then......:Innocent Face:.......
https://twitter.com/hotrodcadets/status/458530303137816576/photo/1
PS, Brown is such a known liability that he only makes page 5 or 6 in the Scottish papers. They at least know he will bomb.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/382386/Jobs-in-bloated-public-sector-cut-but-5-7m-still-rely-on-the-taxpayer
Full details (Q1 2013) here:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm:77-303285
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/lucy-vickery/2014/04/six-books-to-leave-unread-when-you-die/
In the UK public sector employment is now 18.8% : http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/december-2013/sty-public-sector-employment.html
A dramatic fall since Brown was kicked out of office.
The latest figure I can find for Scotland is 22.7% http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/compendiums/compendium-of-uk-statistics/economy/index.html
There is a chart in that link showing English public sector employment was 17.9% at the same time in Q3 of 2013.
Some of the difference may come from classification. For example English college staff were reclassified as private sector relatively recently and Scottish colleges have gone the other way but I don't think that there is any doubt that Scotland has a higher percentage of its workforce in the public sector and has done for a considerable time, hence the additional pension entitlements.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/barely-worth-the-bother/#more-53734
But for the UK, if we insist on secret ballots, I'd do something like (pulling this out of my arse - better to ask someone smarter than me who could use all kinds of clevers involving cryptographic blinding and things):
- A pre-shared secret, consisting of an animal or something equally memorable, communicated to the voter on registration. Phase this system in by starting with school kids. You could send the electoral registrar out to the school to do it.
- A standard username + password gets you to the voting form. This can be reset if you forget it and have a new one mailed to your house.
- On the voting screen, each option has a random animal next to it. Hit space to randomize the animals, until you see your animal next to your preferred option, then hit enter to vote.
- Your vote is encrypted with the public key of the returning officer, and stored in a publicly visible place, like the bitcoin blockchain. Even if the key leaks, nobody knows which is your animal, so nobody knows how you voted. You can use any other computer to recreate the vote and verify that the encrypted result is what you intended, so you'll be able to find out if your computer or somebody en route has somehow tinkered with it.
- In secret, the returning officer decrypts the vote with his private key. He takes it to his computer with the list of animals-to-voters, and turns it into an actual vote.
- He makes a long random number that's too long for a human to remember, and combines it with the vote to make a hash, and notes the candidate who got that hash.
- He publishes all the hashes and the associated candidates in a separate, publicly-visible record (again, the bitcoin blockchain would work for storing this data).
- Everybody looks at the public record, counts the votes for the candidates and finds out who won.
- If you ever wonder whether he counted your vote correctly, you show up at the City Hall, go into a little room, and ask him to recreate your vote, add the random number and recreate your hash, and point at which vote is yours in the public record. If you like you could bring your own computer to do this since you don't want to trust his computer and you probably can't make cryptographic hashes in your head, but it would have to be inspected for devices able to transmit the number out of the little room, and you couldn't take it home with you.
Don't lets do this again, that wider meaning of the word 'racism' is certainly in evidence at least 50 years before the Equalities and Human Rights commission existed. (That much is fact, we've stalemated out on whether it is in common use).
Brown's argument is very easily rebutted. But not like that.
I personally wouldn't mind going to the pub for a bit of Althetico Madrid V Chelsea (ITV 7.45ko) warm up. However I note that Eck in is wisdom has chosen the following year to have his Scottish culture civil war wankathon-
Winter Olympics (Sochi), Commonwealth games (Glasgow), World Cup, WW1 An., Bannockburn An., Euro elections, Ukraine and Syria (admittedly Ukraine wasn't predictable).
Thanks Eck - If it all works out for you I hope you enjoy your Irn-Bru while not smoking watching Celtic with Gordron Brewer to look forward to afterwards.
How Ukip is turning left on the economy
The party now favours strict limits on zero-hour contracts, the abolition of the bedroom tax and progressive taxation.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/how-ukip-turning-left-economy
I also fundamentally disagree that:
a) 100% transparency is a good, democratic idea.
b) That the advent of camera phones has led to the end of the secret ballot. True, it can be defeated in a minor way, but widescale transgressions would be very difficult, if not impossible.
Basically: I think you underestimate the benefits of the secret ballot.
However, I've only been able to give it a quick scan, so I'll get back to it later. Again, thanks.
Running out of reasons to support "no"...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27110655
Britain, where your rights are guaranteed,..... until it inconveniences someone important.
http://www.icmresearch.com/data/media/pdf/ST_april14_poll.pdf
Of course, it is only those horrible lefties who change laws to implement their agenda
At least our politicians and financial sector are above reproach, unlike Russia, China, etc.(you can hardly blame our politicians for pandering to their future employers wishes)
The memory isn't too bad, because the point of voting secrecy is to make it possible to lie. Write down another animal and you've defeated the attack. But the reason for suggesting animals here is that they can make very memorable noises.
I agree the returning officer stage is the weak point here (where you have a secret list, and turn it into the vote you're trying to keep secret) but there are a lot of things you can do here to make him easier to audit. (BTW in practice he's probably several different computers.)
2010 LDs split
LD 29%, Lab 25%, UKIP 23%, Green 12%, Con 6%
Arguable, certainly, but I think you'll struggle to find a government of the left or the right, in any country, who agrees with you.
Who owns the mineral rights under land in America?
In further breaking news.....protest will only be allowed in specified places Rannoch and Bodmin moors being hot favourites... possibly
http://www.icmresearch.com/data/media/pdf/ST_april14_poll.pdf
As you may know, opinion polls, council elections and other recent elections have shown an increase in support for the UK Independence Party. Which ONE of the following statements do you think best explains UKIP's increase in popularity?
Strong on Immigration: 26
Want to exit EU: 24
Farage charismatic/convincing leader: 5
Credible plans for economy: 2
Dissatisfaction with mainstream (C/L/LD) parties: 42
Cameron alternatives - net more likely to vote Conservative if leader was:
Boris: -14 (Con: +6)
May: -64
Osborne: -70
Gove: -82
(But not really).
A phobia is defined as being intense or irrational. If you have some fear for the effect on your future employment status, that may not be intense or irrational.
Yes, I know. My daughter once said ... "Dad, pack up with your pedanticness. "Daughter, I replied, "the correct word is pedantry."
What is the basis of your opposition to fracking? Environment? Danger to homes?
I sometimes think the left's opposition to fracking is not much more than that it is far too good and simple a solution to a pressing problem.
The left want the solution to be far more difficult and expensive, possibly involving power cuts to middle class homes and the finance sector.
I have tried to find what I had read, without any luck, but did find this Scottish Pmt briefing paper (by the equivalent of the HoC Library)
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S4/SB_13-36.pdf
"You've muddled up your quotation marks there."
Indeed. Slaps self on wrist (literally).
Personally I have nothing against fracking, (given reasonable safeguards)
What I am against is changing laws to suit the interests of companies (green belts. areas of special scientific interest, etc.)
George Eaton@georgeeaton·20 mins
The Tories' lead on "helping people get onto the housing ladder" has fallen from 11 points (in October) to two. http://bit.ly/1ibbKuV
Compare to the source:
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/04/22/labour-loses-ground-economy/
Those figures help to explain why Labour is losing ground on economic competence. YouGov repeated six questions we asked last autumn, about six different aspects of the party battle on living standards. Would a Miliband-led Labour government or a Cameron-led Conservative government do better? Our results give far more comfort to the Prime Minister than his rival.
On three aspects where Labour held clear leads six months ago, the race has tightened: providing more jobs (Labour lead down from 8% to 1%), keeping prices down (lead down from 6% to 1%) and “improving the standards of living for people like you” (9% lead down to 4%).
In contrast, two big Tory leads have grown even bigger – on managing the economy (lead up from 15% to 21%) and tackling the government’s deficit (lead up from 22% to 29%).
One issue bucks the trend. Last October, the Conservatives enjoyed an 11% lead on “helping people get onto the housing ladder”. This is down to just 2%. For many people, of course, affordable housing is a huge concern. Its impact on millions of families could yet undermine the Prime Minister’s claims to improve real lives and not just statistical averages.
The biggest problem facing the tories, without a doubt.
It is, and always has been, a question of numbers. What is the right amount to allow in so that the immigrants are not victims of prejudice themselves and their presence isn't making the people here already feel threatened. Uncontrolled immigration isn't the right amount in my opinion.
But confusing that fear of economic welfare and change to their home with a word associated with hatred of people based on skin colour is poor form.
Sadly that is what has been done.. UKIP aren't afraid to say what hundreds of thousands maybe millions are thinking. Hence the opinion polls/election results
twitter.com/UKIP/status/458576509616144384/photo/1
Is there a particular reason to pick Sheffield?
One problem UKIP might have is that they are making much of EU immigration. They say very little about non-EU immigration, and yet this seems to incense potential supporters at least as much.
The figures show that the share of public sector jobs in Scotland was generally 3-4 percentage points more than in the UK. The gap narrowed a little up to 2011 but widened in 2012, this was not solely due to the reclassification of colleges in England.
If parties campaigned for freedom of movement for Europeans but strict controls on Africans and Asians that would appear to be more racist to me...
A la Thatcher launching it in Cardiff vs Callaghan.