You are going round in circles Charles, stop it before you get dizzy. Lie down and dream of the good old days when privilege and wealth were everything.
No, I'm not. I've been clear and consistent all the way through.
Social mobility is good. Education is a key way of achieving that. A society with high levels of social mobility will tend to be more equal.
Possibly something to do with golf courses and rich Americans? Neither the Yes or No camp have done much but hurl insults and made up figures about. It doesn't inspire much confidence either way on the journey to the ballot box
As portrayed in the mostly unionist media, remember. Which is a big problem for people trying to keep track of what is happening.
The thread this afternoon is reading like a practice run for a Turing test.
I don't know what's more terrifying.
The idea that other people might think my comments were the product of a computer algorithm, or the idea that everyone else's comments are the products of computer algorithms.
There's also the comparison between the headline Lord Ashcroft poll and the results before he reallocated the "don't knows" back to the way they voted in 2010. In other words, is Ashcroft correct in adding 2% to the Con score, 1% to Lab and 1% to the LDs by taking 2% off UKIP and 2% off others? The evidence from the recent by-elections says that he isn't. I expect the Con-UKIP % margin to be in single figures.
Personally I'll be financially content with any UKIP result between 30% and 35% given that the prize from the Euro elections comp is on that outcome. 6/4 seems generous.
Possibly something to do with golf courses and rich Americans? Neither the Yes or No camp have done much but hurl insults and made up figures about. It doesn't inspire much confidence either way on the journey to the ballot box
And I forgot. Labour FM brings Mr Trump in and promises him the earth. SNP FM upsets Mr Trump because he will not cancel a windpower development site visible out on the horizon. Pretty obvious which party sees Mr Trump as part of their utopia.
The thread this afternoon is reading like a practice run for a Turing test.
I don't know what's more terrifying.
The idea that other people might think my comments were the product of a computer algorithm, or the idea that everyone else's comments are the products of computer algorithms.
Why does this obsession with computer algorithms terrify you?
The thread this afternoon is reading like a practice run for a Turing test.
I don't know what's more terrifying.
The idea that other people might think my comments were the product of a computer algorithm, or the idea that everyone else's comments are the products of computer algorithms.
Well, what is a human brain but a massively parallel processing computer with algorithms evolved through natural selection?
A society with high levels of social mobility will tend to be more equal.
The interesting part of this social mobility lark that nobody wants to talk about is downward social mobility.
It is this that makes a society with high levels of social mobility more equal, because rich parents will know that they cannot buy their children a comfortable position in society with the right education, personal contacts, etc.
Faced with the possibility that their own children might not end up with comfortable professional careers and the upper middle classes will become a lot more interested in dignity at work, fair pay and a social welfare safety net.
Possibly something to do with golf courses and rich Americans? Neither the Yes or No camp have done much but hurl insults and made up figures about. It doesn't inspire much confidence either way on the journey to the ballot box
And I forgot. Labour FM brings Mr Trump in and promises him the earth. SNP FM upsets Mr Trump because he will not cancel a windpower development site visible out on the horizon. Pretty obvious which party sees Mr Trump as part of their utopia.
I'm sorry for sometimes quoting you on previous threads Carnyx. I don't think it's obvious and I think the media are getting confused.
@Charles Sweden, and most Scandinavian countries have a higher rate of social mobility than we do. They tend to be more equal, happier. and have more equality. They have had "socialist" style governments and policies for decades, and even their "right wing" is pretty leftist. Your contention seems to be that what we need is solely "better education" without tackling the underlying causes. This is nonsense. No matter how good the education system, or how expensive, the pupils who see their futures blocked by nepotism and vested interest are not going to listen. A few will make it through, but nothing like the numbers you envisage.
Oxford University Student Union (OUSU) is likely to remain affiliated to the National Union of Students after allegations of vote rigging in last month's referendum.
There's also the comparison between the headline Lord Ashcroft poll and the results before he reallocated the "don't knows" back to the way they voted in 2010. In other words, is Ashcroft correct in adding 2% to the Con score, 1% to Lab and 1% to the LDs by taking 2% off UKIP and 2% off others? The evidence from the recent by-elections says that he isn't. I expect the Con-UKIP % margin to be in single figures.
Personally I'll be financially content with any UKIP result between 30% and 35% given that the prize from the Euro elections comp is on that outcome. 6/4 seems generous.
Effective Reallocation from UKIP -> Conservative is a feature of all the pollsters so far as I can work out.
The thread this afternoon is reading like a practice run for a Turing test.
I don't know what's more terrifying.
The idea that other people might think my comments were the product of a computer algorithm, or the idea that everyone else's comments are the products of computer algorithms.
Well, what is a human brain but a massively parallel processing computer with algorithms evolved through natural selection?
Having written code to run on massively parallel supercomputers one likes to think that the emergent property of my consciousness is somewhat different to that.
Otherwise every time my code crashes due to my incompetence it is akin to a young baby dying of a hole in the heart.
According to the link "This post originally appeared on Buzzfeed". It's a Brave New World out there.
UK said indy cost a quid and now it says 1400, when if defence spending is cut and oil above 110 dollars the Scottish GDP is accepted as 112% that of the "new" UK. Not sure why exactly 1400 quid, but with all the BS from London this week what's another lie based on figures Dunleavy at the LSE never said and Young in Canada said were wrong too after Danny (pledge) Alexander on Radio Scotland to Gary Robertson changed the name he was quoting as the source (after the press release had been released) to a Canadian study from 20 years ago. Which of course said little similar to Alexander's diatribe. He was "in error" about Young and he sounded like he was. Young actually indicated set up costs were probably far less in Quebec. If they cost what UK claimed for Scotland based on that they have a screw loose. As such their one off costs would be as suggested, totally ridiculous. And no mention of assets of course. Funny that.
One thing is for sure; if the Scots believe that they will be better off with all that oil and no wars in middle east and no debt then they will vote YES, so the charade needs to continue. With more oil than Dubai and Qatar combined hard to do worse than now. And of course these countries never gave the oil dollars away to a neighbour to build a new rail link and airport as Scots are being asked to do, along with cutting their budgey by billions and then saying charge income tax at a higher rate than UK to make up for it. No oil and whisky revenue though of course!.
If they believe the admittedly constant propaganda from the BBC they are too poor and too wee and too stupid to look after themselves without the House of Lords and Commons to spend their money then more fool them.
Fascinated that BBC said only a few hundred in Spain against the monarchy when 20 cities had rallies and some went to 10's of 1000's. they hate Carlos with a passion, hunting elephants at a time of austerity did not help, so a swap may help prior to the catalan referendum. The new Queen is a honey so like Kate that will sell afew magazines. BBC cannot mention any major anti-monarchist sentiment in case it spreads perhaps?
Any backup for the claim that Scotland has greater oil reserves than Dubai and Qatar combined? Even given the fact that Abu Dhabi and not Dubai is the main oil and gas producer in the UAE and Qatar's (12th largest oil reserves in the world) wealth is more driven by gas that is an extraordinary claim!
@DJMatthewDalton Obama says he sometimes mixes up the European Commission with the European Council. Cameron says "Welcome to the club."
So it turns out all that drama about how Cameron didn't want the candidate whose party got the most votes to be President of the European Commission was just a big misunderstanding. The Council can pick their own guy and everything will work out fine.
For all the noise about President Obama's comments on Scotland, the far more interesting comment was on Britain's membership of the EU. The Americans have always wanted us to "have a seat at the table" as it gives them a degree of access and influence.
I didn't think Cameron looked comfortable when Obama was saying that but it's been the American line consistently since the 1960s.
I think this will cause Obama's popularity among the young SNP fanatics to drop a bit, but it won't move the polls. Que "outraged by foreign leader sticking his nose in internal affairs of our nation".
I think this will cause Obama's popularity among the young SNP fanatics to drop a bit, but it won't move the polls. Que "outraged by foreign leader sticking his nose in internal affairs of our nation".
"Naturally, there are some comparability problems, mainly to do with the higher home ownership in the UK and more generous public-sector pensions in other countries." A few others as well.
For all the noise about President Obama's comments on Scotland, the far more interesting comment was on Britain's membership of the EU. The Americans have always wanted us to "have a seat at the table" as it gives them a degree of access and influence.
I didn't think Cameron looked comfortable when Obama was saying that but it's been the American line consistently since the 1960s.
It's true, the americans want Britain in so they can have more control over the EU. However after the eurozone crisis the americans have shifted to dealing directly with the controller of the EU, Germany, bypassing Britain. Britain is no longer that usefull for the americans to control europe since Germany is controling it now not america.
"Naturally, there are some comparability problems, mainly to do with the higher home ownership in the UK and more generous public-sector pensions in other countries." A few others as well.
You're in the realms of policy-based evidence (have a look at suicide rates if you think Scandinavian countries are happier). You're welcome to your opinions, but don't present them as unarguable fact.
Afternoon all, if the Euros had been today the turnout would be about 20%. It is absolutely pishing down or as we Scots would say dreich!
So any reports from Newark apart from the silly Loughborough poll?
The Guardian pass on this tweet from Margaret Hodge MP:
"Hear from Tories labour voters in Newark voting Tory to keep UKIP out!"
If some erstwhile Labour voters are voting UKIP as the best placed to beat the Tories and some Labour voters are voting Tory in order to keep UKIP out then perhaps the surprise of the result will be just how low Labour's vote goes?
I'm still scratching my head to work out how Labour managed to surrender the role of principal challenger to UKIP in this seat. They started off 18.5% ahead of UKIP, with a large 2010 Lib Dem vote to squeeze and they had a candidate selected before Mercer stood down and well before UKIP had a candidate in place.
I think this will cause Obama's popularity among the young SNP fanatics to drop a bit, but it won't move the polls. Que "outraged by foreign leader sticking his nose in internal affairs of our nation".
Obama's less reported words were:
"ultimately it's a matter for the folks there"
He's been asked a question and he's given his view, but he's hardly sticking his nose in.
Afternoon all, if the Euros had been today the turnout would be about 20%. It is absolutely pishing down or as we Scots would say dreich!
So any reports from Newark apart from the silly Loughborough poll?
The Guardian pass on this tweet from Margaret Hodge MP:
"Hear from Tories labour voters in Newark voting Tory to keep UKIP out!"
If some erstwhile Labour voters are voting UKIP as the best placed to beat the Tories and some Labour voters are voting Tory in order to keep UKIP out then perhaps the surprise of the result will be just how low Labour's vote goes?
I'm still scratching my head to work out how Labour managed to surrender the role of principal challenger to UKIP in this seat. They started off 18.5% ahead of UKIP, with a large 2010 Lib Dem vote to squeeze and they had a candidate selected before Mercer stood down and well before UKIP had a candidate in place.
Strategy really. If UKIP wins Newark then game over for the Tories, there would be so much panic from now till the election in tory ranks it will make election night 1997 look like a picnic. However UKIP shot themselves by selecting the only candidate to make Labour voters vote tory.
norman smith @BBCNormanS · 26m Obama speaks out over Scottish independence - - "from the outside it looks like things have worked pretty well" in the UK #indyref
It's true, the americans want Britain in so they can have more control over the EU. However after the eurozone crisis the americans have shifted to dealing directly with the controller of the EU, Germany, bypassing Britain. Britain is no longer that usefull for the americans to control europe since Germany is controling it now not america.
If the British government had any strategic sense they'd be hustling to get the EU leadership chosen by EU-wide elections so they could still have a voice proportional to their population.
I'm still scratching my head to work out how Labour managed to surrender the role of principal challenger to UKIP in this seat. They started off 18.5% ahead of UKIP, with a large 2010 Lib Dem vote to squeeze and they had a candidate selected before Mercer stood down and well before UKIP had a candidate in place.
The Tories have a humungous majority and Tories are much more prone to defect to UKIP than they are to Labour. For Labour to win requires them to pick up all kinds of voters from... somewhere, whereas for UKIP to win is mostly just a matter of getting enough UKIP-curious Tories to follow their 1950s-conservative hearts.
A society with high levels of social mobility will tend to be more equal.
The interesting part of this social mobility lark that nobody wants to talk about is downward social mobility.
It is this that makes a society with high levels of social mobility more equal, because rich parents will know that they cannot buy their children a comfortable position in society with the right education, personal contacts, etc.
Faced with the possibility that their own children might not end up with comfortable professional careers and the upper middle classes will become a lot more interested in dignity at work, fair pay and a social welfare safety net.
Absolutely. Downward social mobility needs to be part of the process.
It's true, the americans want Britain in so they can have more control over the EU. However after the eurozone crisis the americans have shifted to dealing directly with the controller of the EU, Germany, bypassing Britain. Britain is no longer that usefull for the americans to control europe since Germany is controling it now not america.
If the British government had any strategic sense they'd be hustling to get the EU leadership chosen by EU-wide elections so they could still have a voice proportional to their population.
That would make the EU a democratic instrument with more authority that national governments, unacceptable by everyone from eurosceptics to parliaments to government leaders to have someone superior over their heads. Plus voters will still prefer candidates from their own nation so the Germans win because they are the largest single nationality in the EU.
"Naturally, there are some comparability problems, mainly to do with the higher home ownership in the UK and more generous public-sector pensions in other countries." A few others as well.
You're in the realms of policy-based evidence (have a look at suicide rates if you think Scandinavian countries are happier). You're welcome to your opinions, but don't present them as unarguable fact.
According to Wiki table of suicide rates, Norway just about equal with UK, Sweden & Denmark lower. Unfortunately Scotland beats them all in to a cocked hat, down to some inherent cultural defect no doubt.
@antifrank You do of course realize that living six months in total darkness increases the rate of immolation? On the other hand, they do have a very well funded psychiatric system that does more than SSRI tablets, and a six month visit to the "shrink" ?
@Charles Sweden, and most Scandinavian countries have a higher rate of social mobility than we do. They tend to be more equal, happier. and have more equality. They have had "socialist" style governments and policies for decades, and even their "right wing" is pretty leftist. Your contention seems to be that what we need is solely "better education" without tackling the underlying causes. This is nonsense. No matter how good the education system, or how expensive, the pupils who see their futures blocked by nepotism and vested interest are not going to listen. A few will make it through, but nothing like the numbers you envisage.
Sweden the socialist country where the health, social and elderly care and education systems are largely private?
My contention was not "solely education" but that is a critical component of the story. You need to give individuals the tools to achieve. I'm all for attacking vested interests wherever they exist as well. But education is probably the most important single factor.
The Tories have a humungous majority and Tories are much more prone to defect to UKIP than they are to Labour. For Labour to win requires them to pick up all kinds of voters from... somewhere,
Well, they could have started with squeezing the 20% LibDems, adding that to their own 22%, and persuading some former Conservative voters to switch to them, whilst leaving some disgruntled Tories to switch to UKIP. On paper such a strategy looks enough to at least be competitive, if not actually to win, in a by-election.
I'm still scratching my head to work out how Labour managed to surrender the role of principal challenger to UKIP in this seat. They started off 18.5% ahead of UKIP, with a large 2010 Lib Dem vote to squeeze and they had a candidate selected before Mercer stood down and well before UKIP had a candidate in place.
The Tories have a humungous majority and Tories are much more prone to defect to UKIP than they are to Labour. For Labour to win requires them to pick up all kinds of voters from... somewhere, whereas for UKIP to win is mostly just a matter of getting enough UKIP-curious Tories to follow their 1950s-conservative hearts.
That ignores the huge block of 2010 Lib Dems.
If you take 15 points from the 2010 Lib Dems and have them vote Labour and 15 points from the Conservatives and have them vote UKIP then the result would look something like this:
Conservative 38.9% (-15) Labour 37.3% (+15) UKIP 18.8 (+15) Lib Dem 5.0 (-15)
Surely Labour should be able to win most of the 2010 Lib Dems? After all, they're supposed to be the voters that Miliband is counting on to make himself PM...
I'm still scratching my head to work out how Labour managed to surrender the role of principal challenger to UKIP in this seat. They started off 18.5% ahead of UKIP, with a large 2010 Lib Dem vote to squeeze and they had a candidate selected before Mercer stood down and well before UKIP had a candidate in place.
The Tories have a humungous majority and Tories are much more prone to defect to UKIP than they are to Labour. For Labour to win requires them to pick up all kinds of voters from... somewhere, whereas for UKIP to win is mostly just a matter of getting enough UKIP-curious Tories to follow their 1950s-conservative hearts.
Not buying it, LAB+LD=42% in Newark, they could have had a chance if they really wanted, but they choose that's better for UKIP to beat the Tories for them, but UKIP didn't want to win either, so Tory hold.
I'm still scratching my head to work out how Labour managed to surrender the role of principal challenger to UKIP in this seat. They started off 18.5% ahead of UKIP, with a large 2010 Lib Dem vote to squeeze and they had a candidate selected before Mercer stood down and well before UKIP had a candidate in place.
The Tories have a humungous majority and Tories are much more prone to defect to UKIP than they are to Labour. For Labour to win requires them to pick up all kinds of voters from... somewhere, whereas for UKIP to win is mostly just a matter of getting enough UKIP-curious Tories to follow their 1950s-conservative hearts.
Not buying it, LAB+LD=42% in Newark, they could have had a chance if they really wanted, but they choose that's better for UKIP to beat the Tories for them, but UKIP didn't want to win either, so Tory hold.
Because Labour would prefer UKIP to win to give the Tories a bloody nose. Simple.
Afternoon all, if the Euros had been today the turnout would be about 20%. It is absolutely pishing down or as we Scots would say dreich!
So any reports from Newark apart from the silly Loughborough poll?
The Guardian pass on this tweet from Margaret Hodge MP:
"Hear from Tories labour voters in Newark voting Tory to keep UKIP out!"
If some erstwhile Labour voters are voting UKIP as the best placed to beat the Tories and some Labour voters are voting Tory in order to keep UKIP out then perhaps the surprise of the result will be just how low Labour's vote goes?
I'm still scratching my head to work out how Labour managed to surrender the role of principal challenger to UKIP in this seat. They started off 18.5% ahead of UKIP, with a large 2010 Lib Dem vote to squeeze and they had a candidate selected before Mercer stood down and well before UKIP had a candidate in place.
Yes that is a difficult one to fathom. Labour do seem to be going easy on the Kippers, presumably because they feel they will damage the Tories in the GE and one by-election victory here is not a huge prize in comparison.
It's true, the americans want Britain in so they can have more control over the EU. However after the eurozone crisis the americans have shifted to dealing directly with the controller of the EU, Germany, bypassing Britain. Britain is no longer that usefull for the americans to control europe since Germany is controling it now not america.
If the British government had any strategic sense they'd be hustling to get the EU leadership chosen by EU-wide elections so they could still have a voice proportional to their population.
That would make the EU a democratic instrument with more authority that national governments, unacceptable by everyone from eurosceptics to parliaments to government leaders to have someone superior over their heads.
I know it's unacceptable to them, that's because they either have no strategic sense or don't care about the national interest.
Plus voters will still prefer candidates from their own nation so the Germans win because they are the largest single nationality in the EU.
There's not much sign of that happening. Germans knew Schultz pretty well, but they didn't go massively PES. There may be a home-country advantage, but it's not very big, especially for big countries. (IIUC in US presidential there tends to be a reasonable home-state advantage for candidates from small states, but not much for big ones.)
Even if it did, the population difference isn't very big - something like 80 million vs 64 million, so only a 16 million difference in an area with a total population of 500 million.
Mostly private, but funded and controlled by the state.
I heard the question put to an astonished Swede on the radio the other night, She was adamant that though private, The state were the top bosses. Private business is not inherently bad, but when it is a public health matter it needs controlled. (properly of course, and in the interest of all the public). Lack of control and oversight leads to excesses, as you will know from reading the papers (or you may have insight into these matters and can inform further)
It's true, the americans want Britain in so they can have more control over the EU. However after the eurozone crisis the americans have shifted to dealing directly with the controller of the EU, Germany, bypassing Britain. Britain is no longer that usefull for the americans to control europe since Germany is controling it now not america.
If the British government had any strategic sense they'd be hustling to get the EU leadership chosen by EU-wide elections so they could still have a voice proportional to their population.
That would make the EU a democratic instrument with more authority that national governments, unacceptable by everyone from eurosceptics to parliaments to government leaders to have someone superior over their heads.
I know it's unacceptable to them, that's because they either have no strategic sense or don't care about the national interest.
Plus voters will still prefer candidates from their own nation so the Germans win because they are the largest single nationality in the EU.
There's not much sign of that happening. Germans knew Schultz pretty well, but they didn't go massively PES. There may be a home-country advantage, but it's not very big, especially for big countries. (IIUC in US presidential there tends to be a reasonable home-state advantage for candidates from small states, but not much for big ones.)
Even if it did, the population difference isn't very big - something like 80 million vs 64 million, so only a 16 million difference in an area with a total population of 500 million.
I suspect because they are voting for German MEPs from any party. If it was an election of a single candidate, I would bet that a large majority of voters would vote for their country's candidate.
Speedy ... How do the Germans 'win' when every other nation is available to vote against the German candidate, assuming there was one. Assuming each block puts up a candidate then there may be what... 4 candidates? How would Germany influence that. In any event of course the EU is not the USA. The EU president is something of a non job in something of a non organisation. What happens in due course in the eurozone may be different and we are not it ... which is why we need new negotiations in 2017 and a new mandate for our new position in a changing EU.
"I'm still scratching my head to work out how Labour managed to surrender the role of principal challenger to UKIP in this seat. They started off 18.5% ahead of UKIP, with a large 2010 Lib Dem vote to squeeze and they had a candidate selected before Mercer stood down and well before UKIP had a candidate in place."
That's easy. Mr. Fett gave us the answer a week or so ago. The voters in Newark live in a mono-cultural, semi-rural seat located at the back end of nowhere and as such they are not the sort people whose votes Labour want to chase.
I wonder what people like Winston Churchill, Lloyd George, Robert Peel and Pitt the Younger would make of the Better Together campaign. Hot dogs? Bovril? Haircuts? They must be turning in their graves.
Darling thinks that Scottish votes are still for sale, using other peoples' gold.
If "Yes" wins, it will be in a squeaker, and entirely down to the sheer appallingness of the Better Together campaign.
I'm not going to disagree with you. It is fast coming down to which campaign is worst: BT or YS.
I think it'll be won or lost on organisation on the ground. The air campaigns are mediocre to dire, but I have a lot of confidence in the YS GOTV capacity and implementation.
Speedy ... How do the Germans 'win' when every other nation is available to vote against the German candidate, assuming there was one. Assuming each block puts up a candidate then there may be what... 4 candidates? How would Germany influence that. In any event of course the EU is not the USA. The EU president is something of a non job in something of a non organisation. What happens in due course in the eurozone may be different and we are not it ... which is why we need new negotiations in 2017 and a new mandate for our new position in a changing EU.
I think the argument was that if each country could put up it's own candidate.
"I'm still scratching my head to work out how Labour managed to surrender the role of principal challenger to UKIP in this seat. They started off 18.5% ahead of UKIP, with a large 2010 Lib Dem vote to squeeze and they had a candidate selected before Mercer stood down and well before UKIP had a candidate in place."
That's easy. Mr. Fett gave us the answer a week or so ago. The voters in Newark live in a mono-cultural, semi-rural seat located at the back end of nowhere and as such they are not the sort people whose votes Labour want to chase.
If the EU president were directly elected power would rapidly flow to the position and it would immediately erode the relative power that national leaders possessed.
If we do see tactical voting for the Conservatives against UKIP today, that could be hugely important in quite a few constituencies. It's possibly the single most important thing to look out for tonight.
I suspect because they are voting for German MEPs from any party. If it was an election of a single candidate, I would bet that a large majority of voters would vote for their country's candidate.
Initially maybe, but not after a campaign. Would Tories vote for Gordon Brown over Merkel? Would Labour voters prefer Nigel Farage over Schulz?
I think there would actually be quite a bit of interest in having a foreigner who seemed to know what they were doing, in the same way that Audi thinks it profitable to claim Vorsprung durch Technik.
[I heard the question put to an astonished Swede on the radio the other night, She was adamant that though private, The state were the top bosses. Private business is not inherently bad, but when it is a public health matter it needs controlled. (properly of course, and in the interest of all the public). Lack of control and oversight leads to excesses, as you will know from reading the papers (or you may have insight into these matters and can inform further)]
I'm 90% sure I'd be able to operate a Swedish calculator.
It's true, the americans want Britain in so they can have more control over the EU. However after the eurozone crisis the americans have shifted to dealing directly with the controller of the EU, Germany, bypassing Britain. Britain is no longer that usefull for the americans to control europe since Germany is controling it now not america.
If the British government had any strategic sense they'd be hustling to get the EU leadership chosen by EU-wide elections so they could still have a voice proportional to their population.
That would make the EU a democratic instrument with more authority that national governments, unacceptable by everyone from eurosceptics to parliaments to government leaders to have someone superior over their heads.
I know it's unacceptable to them, that's because they either have no strategic sense or don't care about the national interest.
Plus voters will still prefer candidates from their own nation so the Germans win because they are the largest single nationality in the EU.
There's not much sign of that happening. Germans knew Schultz pretty well, but they didn't go massively PES. There may be a home-country advantage, but it's not very big, especially for big countries. (IIUC in US presidential there tends to be a reasonable home-state advantage for candidates from small states, but not much for big ones.)
Even if it did, the population difference isn't very big - something like 80 million vs 64 million, so only a 16 million difference in an area with a total population of 500 million.
I suspect because they are voting for German MEPs from any party. If it was an election of a single candidate, I would bet that a large majority of voters would vote for their country's candidate.
I guess you'd have had a bigger home country advantage if it had been a direct presidential election with Martin Schulz on the ballot rather than a parliamentary election with a candidate slightly ambiguously cobbled on top, but a large majority? Nah. Floating voters might float, but conservatives aren't generally going to vote for a socialist, and vice versa.
Maybe interesting to poll Conservatives and Kippers on this thread though.
[ ] Angela Merkel [ ] Ed Miliband [ ] Ebola / Don't vote / spoil ballot paper
If we do see tactical voting for the Conservatives against UKIP today, that could be hugely important in quite a few constituencies. It's possibly the single most important thing to look out for tonight.
How will you know who voted for the Conservatives, and who voted for UKIP?
It's true, the americans want Britain in so they can have more control over the EU. However after the eurozone crisis the americans have shifted to dealing directly with the controller of the EU, Germany, bypassing Britain. Britain is no longer that usefull for the americans to control europe since Germany is controling it now not america.
If the British government had any strategic sense they'd be hustling to get the EU leadership chosen by EU-wide elections so they could still have a voice proportional to their population.
That would make the EU a democratic instrument with more authority that national governments, unacceptable by everyone from eurosceptics to parliaments to government leaders to have someone superior over their heads.
I know it's unacceptable to them, that's because they either have no strategic sense or don't care about the national interest.
Plus voters will still prefer candidates from their own nation so the Germans win because they are the largest single nationality in the EU.
There's not much sign of that happening. Germans knew Schultz pretty well, but they didn't go massively PES. There may be a home-country advantage, but it's not very big, especially for big countries. (IIUC in US presidential there tends to be a reasonable home-state advantage for candidates from small states, but not much for big ones.)
Even if it did, the population difference isn't very big - something like 80 million vs 64 million, so only a 16 million difference in an area with a total population of 500 million.
I suspect because they are voting for German MEPs from any party. If it was an election of a single candidate, I would bet that a large majority of voters would vote for their country's candidate.
I guess you'd have had a bigger home country advantage if it had been a direct presidential election with Martin Schulz on the ballot rather than a parliamentary election with a candidate slightly ambiguously cobbled on top, but a large majority? Nah. Floating voters might float, but conservatives aren't generally going to vote for a socialist, and vice versa.
Maybe interesting to poll Conservatives and Kippers on this thread though.
[ ] Angela Merkel [ ] Ed Miliband [ ] Ebola / Don't vote / spoil ballot paper
Just checking please - you do mean the haemorrhagic virus?
It's true, the americans want Britain in so they can have more control over the EU. However after the eurozone crisis the americans have shifted to dealing directly with the controller of the EU, Germany, bypassing Britain. Britain is no longer that usefull for the americans to control europe since Germany is controling it now not america.
If the British government had any strategic sense they'd be hustling to get the EU leadership chosen by EU-wide elections so they could still have a voice proportional to their population.
That would make the EU a democratic instrument with more authority that national governments, unacceptable by everyone from eurosceptics to parliaments to government leaders to have someone superior over their heads.
I know it's unacceptable to them, that's because they either have no strategic sense or don't care about the national interest.
Plus voters will still prefer candidates from their own nation so the Germans win because they are the largest single nationality in the EU.
There's not much sign of that happening. Germans knew Schultz pretty well, but they didn't go massively PES. There may be a home-country advantage, but it's not very big, especially for big countries. (IIUC in US presidential there tends to be a reasonable home-state advantage for candidates from small states, but not much for big ones.)
Even if it did, the population difference isn't very big - something like 80 million vs 64 million, so only a 16 million difference in an area with a total population of 500 million.
I suspect because they are voting for German MEPs from any party. If it was an election of a single candidate, I would bet that a large majority of voters would vote for their country's candidate.
I guess you'd have had a bigger home country advantage if it had been a direct presidential election with Martin Schulz on the ballot rather than a parliamentary election with a candidate slightly ambiguously cobbled on top, but a large majority? Nah. Floating voters might float, but conservatives aren't generally going to vote for a socialist, and vice versa.
Maybe interesting to poll Conservatives and Kippers on this thread though.
[ ] Angela Merkel [ ] Ed Miliband [ ] Ebola / Don't vote / spoil ballot paper
Totally unfair to group Merkel with those two ;-)
I do see your point, but I think the campaign would be relentlessly about voting for the candidate who will fight for your country's interest.
If the EU president were directly elected power would rapidly flow to the position and it would immediately erode the relative power that national leaders possessed.
Right, that's the point. Speedy said - maybe overstating it but with some justification - that when the US (or in future China presumably) wants to call Europe they call Angela Merkel, and the UK no longer has much influence. If that's right, and the UK doesn't want to get overlooked and trampled on, it needs to erode the power of the national leaders. That way its voters still get a look in because they can vote on the president, which is better than a world where everyone is listening to Germany's national leader, who they can't vote on, and ignoring Britain's.
If we do see tactical voting for the Conservatives against UKIP today, that could be hugely important in quite a few constituencies. It's possibly the single most important thing to look out for tonight.
How will you know who voted for the Conservatives, and who voted for UKIP?
We won't know for definite, but if the Conservative tally holds up surprisingly well and the Labour/Lib Dem share falls surprisingly far, we can draw inferences. I suppose the Conservative share is the primary indicator.
If we do see tactical voting for the Conservatives against UKIP today, that could be hugely important in quite a few constituencies. It's possibly the single most important thing to look out for tonight.
How will you know who voted for the Conservatives, and who voted for UKIP?
We won't know for definite, but if the Conservative tally holds up surprisingly well and the Labour/Lib Dem share falls surprisingly far, we can draw inferences. I suppose the Conservative share is the primary indicator.
Can you recall if there have been polls after a by-election to work out how many people changed parties? I suppose some of the parties may do private polling on this.
Just checking please - you do mean the haemorrhagic virus?
Yeah - I thought I should provide a third choice for people who didn't like either of the first two. (The idea of putting it on the ballot comes from Nate Silver talking about political pundits, who said that if he had a choice between pundits and ebola, he'd vote either ebola or third-party.)
If the EU president were directly elected power would rapidly flow to the position and it would immediately erode the relative power that national leaders possessed.
Right, that's the point. Speedy said - maybe overstating it but with some justification - that when the US (or in future China presumably) wants to call Europe they call Angela Merkel, and the UK no longer has much influence. If that's right, and the UK doesn't want to get overlooked and trampled on, it needs to erode the power of the national leaders. That way its voters still get a look in because they can vote on the president, which is better than a world where everyone is listening to Germany's national leader, who they can't vote on, and ignoring Britain's.
That is quite clearly the strangest example of 'to save the village we had to destroy it' for a while.
If the EU president were directly elected power would rapidly flow to the position and it would immediately erode the relative power that national leaders possessed.
Right, that's the point. Speedy said - maybe overstating it but with some justification - that when the US (or in future China presumably) wants to call Europe they call Angela Merkel, and the UK no longer has much influence. If that's right, and the UK doesn't want to get overlooked and trampled on, it needs to erode the power of the national leaders. That way its voters still get a look in because they can vote on the president, which is better than a world where everyone is listening to Germany's national leader, who they can't vote on, and ignoring Britain's.
That is quite clearly the strangest example of 'to save the village we had to destroy it' for a while.
'To increase UK influence, we must remove it'.
It's more like, "to increase the influence of the people of the UK", and if that's what you're doing you don't need to remove them.
If the EU president were directly elected power would rapidly flow to the position and it would immediately erode the relative power that national leaders possessed.
Right, that's the point. Speedy said - maybe overstating it but with some justification - that when the US (or in future China presumably) wants to call Europe they call Angela Merkel, and the UK no longer has much influence. If that's right, and the UK doesn't want to get overlooked and trampled on, it needs to erode the power of the national leaders. That way its voters still get a look in because they can vote on the president, which is better than a world where everyone is listening to Germany's national leader, who they can't vote on, and ignoring Britain's.
That is quite clearly the strangest example of 'to save the village we had to destroy it' for a while.
'To increase UK influence, we must remove it'.
It's more like, "to increase the influence of the people of the UK", and if that's what you're doing you don't need to remove them.
And how would that affect the good citizens of Tokyo?
If the EU president were directly elected power would rapidly flow to the position and it would immediately erode the relative power that national leaders possessed.
Right, that's the point. Speedy said - maybe overstating it but with some justification - that when the US (or in future China presumably) wants to call Europe they call Angela Merkel, and the UK no longer has much influence. If that's right, and the UK doesn't want to get overlooked and trampled on, it needs to erode the power of the national leaders. That way its voters still get a look in because they can vote on the president, which is better than a world where everyone is listening to Germany's national leader, who they can't vote on, and ignoring Britain's.
That is quite clearly the strangest example of 'to save the village we had to destroy it' for a while.
'To increase UK influence, we must remove it'.
It's more like, "to increase the influence of the people of the UK", and if that's what you're doing you don't need to remove them.
And how would that affect the good citizens of Tokyo?
Godzilla attacks would increase by 8%. Hang on, what?
Comments
Social mobility is good. Education is a key way of achieving that. A society with high levels of social mobility will tend to be more equal.
What is so difficult to understand?
Oh, wait...
The idea that other people might think my comments were the product of a computer algorithm, or the idea that everyone else's comments are the products of computer algorithms.
Personally I'll be financially content with any UKIP result between 30% and 35% given that the prize from the Euro elections comp is on that outcome. 6/4 seems generous.
(is what a machine would ask)
It is this that makes a society with high levels of social mobility more equal, because rich parents will know that they cannot buy their children a comfortable position in society with the right education, personal contacts, etc.
Faced with the possibility that their own children might not end up with comfortable professional careers and the upper middle classes will become a lot more interested in dignity at work, fair pay and a social welfare safety net.
Sweden, and most Scandinavian countries have a higher rate of social mobility than we do.
They tend to be more equal, happier. and have more equality. They have had "socialist" style governments and policies for decades, and even their "right wing" is pretty leftist.
Your contention seems to be that what we need is solely "better education" without tackling the underlying causes.
This is nonsense. No matter how good the education system, or how expensive, the pupils who see their futures blocked by nepotism and vested interest are not going to listen.
A few will make it through, but nothing like the numbers you envisage.
Oxford University Student Union (OUSU) is likely to remain affiliated to the National Union of Students after allegations of vote rigging in last month's referendum.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-27713546
Otherwise every time my code crashes due to my incompetence it is akin to a young baby dying of a hole in the heart.
So any reports from Newark apart from the silly Loughborough poll?
However, the university has been on in the last few minutes saying it can't locate anyone responsible for it.
http://www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk/articles/news/Newark-by-election-Should-the-Tories-be-ratt
For all the noise about President Obama's comments on Scotland, the far more interesting comment was on Britain's membership of the EU. The Americans have always wanted us to "have a seat at the table" as it gives them a degree of access and influence.
I didn't think Cameron looked comfortable when Obama was saying that but it's been the American line consistently since the 1960s.
Que "outraged by foreign leader sticking his nose in internal affairs of our nation".
"Naturally, there are some comparability problems, mainly to do with the higher home ownership in the UK and more generous public-sector pensions in other countries."
A few others as well.
However after the eurozone crisis the americans have shifted to dealing directly with the controller of the EU, Germany, bypassing Britain.
Britain is no longer that usefull for the americans to control europe since Germany is controling it now not america.
"Hear from Tories labour voters in Newark voting Tory to keep UKIP out!"
If some erstwhile Labour voters are voting UKIP as the best placed to beat the Tories and some Labour voters are voting Tory in order to keep UKIP out then perhaps the surprise of the result will be just how low Labour's vote goes?
I'm still scratching my head to work out how Labour managed to surrender the role of principal challenger to UKIP in this seat. They started off 18.5% ahead of UKIP, with a large 2010 Lib Dem vote to squeeze and they had a candidate selected before Mercer stood down and well before UKIP had a candidate in place.
"ultimately it's a matter for the folks there"
He's been asked a question and he's given his view, but he's hardly sticking his nose in.
US 85%
S Africa 84%
Sweden 80%
Norway 78%
Germany 77%
Netherlands 73%
France 69%
UK 68%
End YELLOW BOX
Yeah!! - Gini bitches!!!
Pint of Lager and a Casio please.
If UKIP wins Newark then game over for the Tories, there would be so much panic from now till the election in tory ranks it will make election night 1997 look like a picnic.
However UKIP shot themselves by selecting the only candidate to make Labour voters vote tory.
Obama speaks out over Scottish independence - - "from the outside it looks like things have worked pretty well" in the UK #indyref
Plus voters will still prefer candidates from their own nation so the Germans win because they are the largest single nationality in the EU.
You do of course realize that living six months in total darkness increases the rate of immolation?
On the other hand, they do have a very well funded psychiatric system that does more than SSRI tablets, and a six month visit to the "shrink" ?
I've got Cameroon.
My contention was not "solely education" but that is a critical component of the story. You need to give individuals the tools to achieve. I'm all for attacking vested interests wherever they exist as well. But education is probably the most important single factor.
Just give me a Casio you hippy idiot.
If you take 15 points from the 2010 Lib Dems and have them vote Labour and 15 points from the Conservatives and have them vote UKIP then the result would look something like this:
Conservative 38.9% (-15)
Labour 37.3% (+15)
UKIP 18.8 (+15)
Lib Dem 5.0 (-15)
Surely Labour should be able to win most of the 2010 Lib Dems? After all, they're supposed to be the voters that Miliband is counting on to make himself PM...
Oh, and I don't think UKIP don't want to win.
Even if it did, the population difference isn't very big - something like 80 million vs 64 million, so only a 16 million difference in an area with a total population of 500 million.
Mostly private, but funded and controlled by the state.
I heard the question put to an astonished Swede on the radio the other night, She was adamant that though private, The state were the top bosses.
Private business is not inherently bad, but when it is a public health matter it needs controlled. (properly of course, and in the interest of all the public).
Lack of control and oversight leads to excesses, as you will know from reading the papers (or you may have insight into these matters and can inform further)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-27710739
Assuming each block puts up a candidate then there may be what... 4 candidates? How would Germany influence that.
In any event of course the EU is not the USA. The EU president is something of a non job in something of a non organisation. What happens in due course in the eurozone may be different and we are not it ... which is why we need new negotiations in 2017 and a new mandate for our new position in a changing EU.
That's easy. Mr. Fett gave us the answer a week or so ago. The voters in Newark live in a mono-cultural, semi-rural seat located at the back end of nowhere and as such they are not the sort people whose votes Labour want to chase.
I think it'll be won or lost on organisation on the ground. The air campaigns are mediocre to dire, but I have a lot of confidence in the YS GOTV capacity and implementation.
http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2014/05/newark_voters_have_differing_priorities_when_picking_mayoral_candidate.html
Sharapova Vs Bouchard has gone to the third set.
If the EU president were directly elected power would rapidly flow to the position and it would immediately erode the relative power that national leaders possessed.
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/06/vince-cable-referred-to-standards-commissioner-over-clegg-coup-poll/
I think there would actually be quite a bit of interest in having a foreigner who seemed to know what they were doing, in the same way that Audi thinks it profitable to claim Vorsprung durch Technik.
Private business is not inherently bad, but when it is a public health matter it needs controlled. (properly of course, and in the interest of all the public).
Lack of control and oversight leads to excesses, as you will know from reading the papers (or you may have insight into these matters and can inform further)]
I'm 90% sure I'd be able to operate a Swedish calculator.
Maybe interesting to poll Conservatives and Kippers on this thread though.
[ ] Angela Merkel
[ ] Ed Miliband
[ ] Ebola / Don't vote / spoil ballot paper
"Some of us don't want foreigners to rule Britain"
Not a chance Mr.Dancer! They would have to fight the multi nationals for it, and they would probably lose.
I do see your point, but I think the campaign would be relentlessly about voting for the candidate who will fight for your country's interest.
Smarmeron -
From someone who's worked in an office to someone who hasn't-
It's difficult to cook your transaction costs. I honestly wouldn't worry so much.
You're very far away.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
'To increase UK influence, we must remove it'.
Democracy tries to listen to all voices equally....but money buys you a really good PA system, Which in turn leads to tax reductions and "grey areas"
Or in a more folksy tradition, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease"