Someone who thinks that transport links are the drivers of prosperity has never visited Burton-upon-Trent.
I would put it the other way round. Bad transport links are a barrier to prosperity, but building good transport links does not guarantee that prosperity will follow.
I have an abiding affection for Burton-upon-Trent that I can't really explain. 25 years ago it was on the fringers of my manor when I was a sales rep. One day out of curiosity I set off east from home instead of west and found myself in Burton. I seem to recall a town full of refinery-like towers full of lager. Overall, it wasn't as bad as Stoke.
If you moved the capital to Burton-upon-Trent then the UK's Great Britain's centre of population would likely end up roughly around thereabouts.
Sounds interesting Robert, look forward to seeing how accurate it is.
Off topic
"New high-speed rail link needed to boost north of England, Osborne to say"
How about parliament is moved to Birmingham so that the centre of gravity in this country is shifted?
Morning all. What has Birmingham ever done to you to deserve such a fate?
Quite. Shap services on the M6 would be the best location for the UK Parliament. It's bang in the geographical centre of the UK and has plenty of space and excellent transport links with the odd old airfield down by Carlisle or Preston and a natural extension to HS2.
..... and they do an excellent sausage, egg and chips.
Is Shap the privately run service station ...... as opposed to McD’s KFC etc?
Re incumbency: seats with high incumbency have relatively small changes in share for the incumbent party relative to the national trend. This is not based on something hardcoded, but on local, general and European election data.
Are you intending to adjust for the case where the incumbent MP is retiring, and also for the first-time incumbency bonus?
There are some stats for these effects in the appendix to The British General Election of 2010
Nate Silver predicted a Tory majority in 2010 IIRC. He was genuinely surprised when "his model" didn't work out.
Nah, his model showed a Hung parliament and wasn't that far off the Tory share of the vote.
Where it went wrong was he predicted over 100 LD seats.
Edit:
Silver's method breaks up the monolithic uniform swing and instead assigns specific percentages of the parties' votes in 2005 to other parties in 2010.
Using a recent polling average of the three main parties – with the Conservatives on 34%, the Lib Dems on 29.1%, and Labour on 26.9% – the differences between the two methods become stark.
Using uniform swing, those percentages translate into 253 Labour MPs, 271 Conservatives, and 93 Lib Dems. Using Silver's method, Labour ends up with just 214, with the Conservatives surging to 304, and the Lib Dems on 101.
Just caught up with Rachel Borng Snoring Reeve on Sunday Politics. Does any enlightened P-Ber know why Labour types as a policy only refer to Social Security instead of Welfare?
I'm speculating here but I'm guessing that if you polled it you'd find that since the press talk about welfare a lot in the context of scroungers, and when you actually get payments they come branded as "Social Security", a lot of people who receive Social Security payments are aware that they receive Social Security, but think that Welfare is something that other, less deserving people get.
Nate Silver predicted a Tory majority in 2010 IIRC. He was genuinely surprised when "his model" didn't work out.
Nah, his model showed a Hung parliament and wasn't that far off the Tory share of the vote.
Where it went wrong was he predicted over 100 LD seats.
Edit:
Silver's method breaks up the monolithic uniform swing and instead assigns specific percentages of the parties' votes in 2005 to other parties in 2010.
Using a recent polling average of the three main parties – with the Conservatives on 34%, the Lib Dems on 29.1%, and Labour on 26.9% – the differences between the two methods become stark.
Using uniform swing, those percentages translate into 253 Labour MPs, 271 Conservatives, and 93 Lib Dems. Using Silver's method, Labour ends up with just 214, with the Conservatives surging to 304, and the Lib Dems on 101.
Edit: The value is in backing Darling, as Shadsy will be using YouGov to decide, and YouGov polls have consistently shown larger/largest leads for No.
Thanks for putting that up. It will be interesting to see who the referee is. And if Mr D adopts the same debating [sic] tactics as other prominent No campaigners have in similar circumstances.
I note with interest that the No campaign cannot in this instance adopt their usual tactic of dismissing Mr Salmond or anyone else on the Yes side as racist, sexist, etc., simply because the person whose views they are criticising is a southron, female, etc. irrespective of whether this is relevant to the actual discussion.
Finally, I wouldn't be so sure as sone on PB that this is a climbdown by Mr S - in some ways it may be, but it does put the No campaign in a potentially difficult position. As with devomax, Mr S can with justice portray himself as having acceded to the known wish of the electorate but unable to do more because Mr Cameron is, again, refusing. And moreover it is the indy campaign in microcosm - Mr Cameron the chateau general prodding the Labour sacrificial battalion over the top to face the machine guns he's too metaphorically cowardly to dare. That's quite a potent image and we may see it play.
Nate Silver predicted a Tory majority in 2010 IIRC. He was genuinely surprised when "his model" didn't work out.
Nah, his model showed a Hung parliament and wasn't that far off the Tory share of the vote.
Where it went wrong was he predicted over 100 LD seats.
Edit:
Silver's method breaks up the monolithic uniform swing and instead assigns specific percentages of the parties' votes in 2005 to other parties in 2010.
Using a recent polling average of the three main parties – with the Conservatives on 34%, the Lib Dems on 29.1%, and Labour on 26.9% – the differences between the two methods become stark.
Using uniform swing, those percentages translate into 253 Labour MPs, 271 Conservatives, and 93 Lib Dems. Using Silver's method, Labour ends up with just 214, with the Conservatives surging to 304, and the Lib Dems on 101.
it is to be held at the Hydro so the audience will be limited to 16,000 party hacks. I can feel a great collective yawn coming over the Scottish people already.
That's not the Eck & Al show, it's being held in Edinburgh in front of a 'selected' audience of, I think, 500.
Yes, the 12,000 first time voters one is just a publicity stunt , pretty pointless given they will get to ask a dozen questions at best. Hard to see what the point of it is.
Perhaps they'll have Galloway & Farage on as they did for a similar Scottish Question Time.
Ratty Alexander on to explain his £2.7 Billion start up costs
Nate Silver predicted a Tory majority in 2010 IIRC. He was genuinely surprised when "his model" didn't work out.
Nah, his model showed a Hung parliament and wasn't that far off the Tory share of the vote.
Where it went wrong was he predicted over 100 LD seats.
Edit:
Silver's method breaks up the monolithic uniform swing and instead assigns specific percentages of the parties' votes in 2005 to other parties in 2010.
Using a recent polling average of the three main parties – with the Conservatives on 34%, the Lib Dems on 29.1%, and Labour on 26.9% – the differences between the two methods become stark.
Using uniform swing, those percentages translate into 253 Labour MPs, 271 Conservatives, and 93 Lib Dems. Using Silver's method, Labour ends up with just 214, with the Conservatives surging to 304, and the Lib Dems on 101.
Do we know if it went wrong because the national percentages fed into it were wrong, or because the model itself was defective?
The Nate Silver / VIPA methods worked on cross-tabs: i.e. x% of 2005 LibDem voters will do this, y% will do that, etc. However, because they were based entirely on what people said to ICM you couldn't check against actuals. So: there was no "what did you vote in 2005" box for people to fill in in the polling station. In addition, Nate Silver did not meaningfully down-weight "did not vote in 2005, will vote in 2010" - and so he dramatically over-estimated the strength of the Cleggasm. VIPA only gave a 50% weighting to those who did not vote in 2005. And, realistically, the number should probably have been 33%.
I wonder if this overweights for local elections, as parties have very different priorities in different seats. In my patch, the LibDems have tried really hard, with significant success, to hold council seats, but are really not bothering much at the GE (no candidate yet and no significant funding allocated). In some other seats I suspect the reverse may be true. Possibly feeding in the Ashcroft constituency polls as input may be useful?
What Nate Silver in 2010 proved was that you need to have a bit of experience of the politics of a particular country before making predictions. You can't just come in with a model that might have worked elsewhere and expect it to produce results.
I've just backed Sri Lanka to win... they only need 50 more runs I think...
"You can't win anything with kids"
I backed Ceylon last night as well.
I've effectivley got Sri Lanka backed at 3-1 with a zero on the draw, all liability on England. I don't think ti'll be a draw but if the Lanka stay in the price will invariably come in.
That's because the market has no desire to deliver growth in the North. To do so requires some form of socialist intervention, and that, as we all know, is taboo.
Err....no. Socialist intervention never delivers growth. Ask Hollande. The way to deliver growth is to get the state out of the way. The North underperforms precisely because it is over-socialised, over dependent on the state. What it needs is pro-business reform.
This is clearly not true for a student of history. The Soviet Union achieved a lot of growth from state-led industrialisation. It could only go so far, however, and led to all sorts of distortions and other problems, but it likely made them an industrial economy far faster than a free market would have.
The best way to deliver growth is to have the right regulation, which can mean deregulation but can also mean govt intervention to encourage competition (e.g. anti-trust laws), and also to have the right enablers in place, like education, infrastructure etc.
I'm not so sure. Russia was industrialising at a very rapid pace prior to 1914 (one reason why revolutionary socialism was gaining ground). The Soviets built up a very impressive military-industrial complex (by 1935 they probably had the world's best armed forces, and the industrial infrastructure to support them). The production of consumer goods, OTOH, was woeful, and the diversion of resources from agriculture caused real problems for the peasants.
I wonder if this overweights for local elections, as parties have very different priorities in different seats. In my patch, the LibDems have tried really hard, with significant success, to hold council seats, but are really not bothering much at the GE (no candidate yet and no significant funding allocated). In some other seats I suspect the reverse may be true. Possibly feeding in the Ashcroft constituency polls as input may be useful?
Edit: The value is in backing Darling, as Shadsy will be using YouGov to decide, and YouGov polls have consistently shown larger/largest leads for No.
Thanks for putting that up. It will be interesting to see who the referee is. And if Mr D adopts the same debating [sic] tactics as other prominent No campaigners have in similar circumstances.
I note with interest that the No campaign cannot in this instance adopt their usual tactic of dismissing Mr Salmond or anyone else on the Yes side as racist, sexist, etc., simply because the person whose views they are criticising is a southron, female, etc. irrespective of whether this is relevant to the actual discussion.
Finally, I wouldn't be so sure as sone on PB that this is a climbdown by Mr S - in some ways it may be, but it does put the No campaign in a potentially difficult position. As with devomax, Mr S can with justice portray himself as having acceded to the known wish of the electorate but unable to do more because Mr Cameron is, again, refusing. And moreover it is the indy campaign in microcosm - Mr Cameron the chateau general prodding the Labour sacrificial battalion over the top to face the machine guns he's too metaphorically cowardly to dare. That's quite a potent image and we may see it play.
I'm considering a Victory, some of us tipped and backed there would be a Darling v Salmond debate, when others said it wouldn't happen, because Darling's equivalent in Yes, was Denis Canavan, and that Salmond wouldn't lower himself.
Interesting that Labour are increasing their lead. Maybe the leader's personal ratings don't matter so much. After all Thatcher was behind Callaghan in 1978/79 and Heath managed to win once in spite of being a boorish grump with a tin ear for how to communicate with the public.
Interesting that Labour are increasing their lead. Maybe the leader's personal ratings don't matter so much. After all Thatcher was behind Callaghan in 1978/79 and Heath managed to win once in spite of being a boorish grump with a tin ear for how to communicate with the public.
Change switchers are coming home a little faster than government defence/stop Miliband switchers. Worrying for Cam and co, unless they can start to tick up as well
Smithson’s Merveilleux Election Resultes Systeme des Heuristics (SMERSH)
which also has the benefit of being pre compliant with the new EU President's requirement to adopt French as the official language of the UK.
I could live with that, despite my annoyance at the French, I do like the French Language, particularly swearing in French, it is like wiping your arse with silk.
"... diversion of resources from agriculture caused real problems for the [Soviet] peasants"
Masterly use of the understatement there. Stalin's policies produced a dreadful famine in the countryside in which about 6 million died in a single year (1932-33).
Smithson’s Merveilleux Election Resultes Systeme des Heuristics (SMERSH)
which also has the benefit of being pre compliant with the new EU President's requirement to adopt French as the official language of the UK.
I could live with that, despite my annoyance at the French, I do like the French Language, particularly swearing in French, it is like wiping your arse with silk.
No no: I think we should agree to join the euro on condition that there is also a Single European Language which will, of course, be English.
(And BTW I am not Taffys - whoever he / she is... the very idea!)
Smithson’s Merveilleux Election Resultes Systeme des Heuristics (SMERSH)
which also has the benefit of being pre compliant with the new EU President's requirement to adopt French as the official language of the UK.
I could live with that, despite my annoyance at the French, I do like the French Language, particularly swearing in French, it is like wiping your arse with silk.
And it has the added benefit that all cats (including English ones) speak French as their native language.
Alas, my German is super ropey. I blame videogames for not having enough German translations. I think my Game of Thrones DVDs have various subtitle options, but none are German.
Smithson’s Merveilleux Election Resultes Systeme des Heuristics (SMERSH)
which also has the benefit of being pre compliant with the new EU President's requirement to adopt French as the official language of the UK.
I could live with that, despite my annoyance at the French, I do like the French Language, particularly swearing in French, it is like wiping your arse with silk.
No no: I think we should agree to join the euro on condition that there is also a Single European Language which will, of course, be English.
(And BTW I am not Taffys - whoever he / she is... the very idea!)
I've been re-reading and re-watching the original House of Cards trilogy, and Francis Urquhart's plan was to have a common language (English) for the EU instead of the single currency.
Smithson’s Merveilleux Election Resultes Systeme des Heuristics (SMERSH)
which also has the benefit of being pre compliant with the new EU President's requirement to adopt French as the official language of the UK.
I could live with that, despite my annoyance at the French, I do like the French Language, particularly swearing in French, it is like wiping your arse with silk.
No no: I think we should agree to join the euro on condition that there is also a Single European Language which will, of course, be English.
(And BTW I am not Taffys - whoever he / she is... the very idea!)
This is going to be Cameron's big renegotiation win: Schools across the EU will teach English, and it will routinely be used as the common language of business.
Smithson’s Merveilleux Election Resultes Systeme des Heuristics (SMERSH)
which also has the benefit of being pre compliant with the new EU President's requirement to adopt French as the official language of the UK.
I could live with that, despite my annoyance at the French, I do like the French Language, particularly swearing in French, it is like wiping your arse with silk.
No no: I think we should agree to join the euro on condition that there is also a Single European Language which will, of course, be English.
(And BTW I am not Taffys - whoever he / she is... the very idea!)
At one point Beppe Grillo, of the Five Star party in Italy, called for a single European language.
I don't recall whether he specified which language was to be 'the one'. (Esperanto?)
More interesting than the HS3 proposal is that the government is wanting greater urban area mayors for other English cities. It's a long overdue idea and badly needed. The London Mayoralty has been a great role for forcing through initiatives over bureaucratic inertia and being a champion for the city on the national stage. What's crucial is that they do not have power over the whole metropolitan area, so they have a wide enough geographic mandate that they can make a proper difference to the city economy. It should certainly done for at least Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds.
Smithson’s Merveilleux Election Resultes Systeme des Heuristics (SMERSH)
which also has the benefit of being pre compliant with the new EU President's requirement to adopt French as the official language of the UK.
I could live with that, despite my annoyance at the French, I do like the French Language, particularly swearing in French, it is like wiping your arse with silk.
No no: I think we should agree to join the euro on condition that there is also a Single European Language which will, of course, be English.
(And BTW I am not Taffys - whoever he / she is... the very idea!)
This is going to be Cameron's big renegotiation win: Schools across the EU will teach English, and it will routinely be used as the common language of business.
Apparently, he's going to get an official directive that says that correct way to spell 'color' is actually 'colour'.
Smithson’s Merveilleux Election Resultes Systeme des Heuristics (SMERSH)
which also has the benefit of being pre compliant with the new EU President's requirement to adopt French as the official language of the UK.
I could live with that, despite my annoyance at the French, I do like the French Language, particularly swearing in French, it is like wiping your arse with silk.
No no: I think we should agree to join the euro on condition that there is also a Single European Language which will, of course, be English.
(And BTW I am not Taffys - whoever he / she is... the very idea!)
This is going to be Cameron's big renegotiation win: Schools across the EU will teach English, and it will routinely be used as the common language of business.
I could become a Europhile if we get a directive requiring all signs across the EU have to have an English translation. It would be worth it just to see the reaction of the French.
Smithson’s Merveilleux Election Resultes Systeme des Heuristics (SMERSH)
which also has the benefit of being pre compliant with the new EU President's requirement to adopt French as the official language of the UK.
I could live with that, despite my annoyance at the French, I do like the French Language, particularly swearing in French, it is like wiping your arse with silk.
No no: I think we should agree to join the euro on condition that there is also a Single European Language which will, of course, be English.
(And BTW I am not Taffys - whoever he / she is... the very idea!)
I've been re-reading and re-watching the original House of Cards trilogy, and Francis Urquhart's plan was to have a common language (English) for the EU instead of the single currency.
Mr. Socrates, not seen the US version but if you've not seen House of Cards you really should. Ian Richardson is spectacularly good as Francis Urquhart.
Smithson’s Merveilleux Election Resultes Systeme des Heuristics (SMERSH)
which also has the benefit of being pre compliant with the new EU President's requirement to adopt French as the official language of the UK.
I could live with that, despite my annoyance at the French, I do like the French Language, particularly swearing in French, it is like wiping your arse with silk.
No no: I think we should agree to join the euro on condition that there is also a Single European Language which will, of course, be English.
(And BTW I am not Taffys - whoever he / she is... the very idea!)
I've been re-reading and re-watching the original House of Cards trilogy, and Francis Urquhart's plan was to have a common language (English) for the EU instead of the single currency.
How does it compare to the American one?
The original series is by far the best.
As much as I like Kevin Spacey, he's no Ian Richardson.
The American series is great if you've never seen the original.
Edit: And I think Kevin Spacey's performances as Verbal Kint, John Doe and Lester Burnham are awesome.
That's because the market has no desire to deliver growth in the North. To do so requires some form of socialist intervention, and that, as we all know, is taboo.
Err....no. Socialist intervention never delivers growth. Ask Hollande. The way to deliver growth is to get the state out of the way. The North underperforms precisely because it is over-socialised, over dependent on the state. What it needs is pro-business reform.
This is clearly not true for a student of history. The Soviet Union achieved a lot of growth from state-led industrialisation. It could only go so far, however, and led to all sorts of distortions and other problems, but it likely made them an industrial economy far faster than a free market would have.
The best way to deliver growth is to have the right regulation, which can mean deregulation but can also mean govt intervention to encourage competition (e.g. anti-trust laws), and also to have the right enablers in place, like education, infrastructure etc.
I'm not so sure. Russia was industrialising at a very rapid pace prior to 1914 (one reason why revolutionary socialism was gaining ground). The Soviets built up a very impressive military-industrial complex (by 1935 they probably had the world's best armed forces, and the industrial infrastructure to support them). The production of consumer goods, OTOH, was woeful, and the diversion of resources from agriculture caused real problems for the peasants.
Which years are you talking about? Per capita GDP was falling during much of the 19th century:
Interesting that Labour are increasing their lead. Maybe the leader's personal ratings don't matter so much. After all Thatcher was behind Callaghan in 1978/79 and Heath managed to win once in spite of being a boorish grump with a tin ear for how to communicate with the public.
This is a very speculative idea but my only thought is that the Labour lead has narrowed as the economy seems to be picking up. That is certainly the media narrative. So the public start to give the government the benefit of the doubt in the expectation that their living standards are soon to be on the rise. Over a year into the recovery and yet people still aren't feeling it. So perhaps they start to doubt whether it's a true recovery at all. Maybe, just maybe, Ed has got his living standards thing right.
As I say it's very speculative. However the Labour lead does seem up a bit and for no obvious reason. There's no 'narrative', which the village claims is all important.
Smithson’s Merveilleux Election Resultes Systeme des Heuristics (SMERSH)
which also has the benefit of being pre compliant with the new EU President's requirement to adopt French as the official language of the UK.
I could live with that, despite my annoyance at the French, I do like the French Language, particularly swearing in French, it is like wiping your arse with silk.
No no: I think we should agree to join the euro on condition that there is also a Single European Language which will, of course, be English.
(And BTW I am not Taffys - whoever he / she is... the very idea!)
This is going to be Cameron's big renegotiation win: Schools across the EU will teach English, and it will routinely be used as the common language of business.
I could become a Europhile if we get a directive requiring all signs across the EU have to have an English translation. It would be worth it just to see the reaction of the French.
More seriously, if English were to become the Single European Language then it would do a lot to reduce immigration to Britain, as Europeans and others with English-language skills would be able to use them in all the countries of the EU and not just the UK.
It could also form the basis of a grand bargain that would see us accept the German Deutschmark as our currency [this is called the Euro to mollify the French].
Smithson’s Merveilleux Election Resultes Systeme des Heuristics (SMERSH)
which also has the benefit of being pre compliant with the new EU President's requirement to adopt French as the official language of the UK.
I could live with that, despite my annoyance at the French, I do like the French Language, particularly swearing in French, it is like wiping your arse with silk.
No no: I think we should agree to join the euro on condition that there is also a Single European Language which will, of course, be English.
(And BTW I am not Taffys - whoever he / she is... the very idea!)
I've been re-reading and re-watching the original House of Cards trilogy, and Francis Urquhart's plan was to have a common language (English) for the EU instead of the single currency.
How does it compare to the American one?
The original series is by far the best.
As much as I like Kevin Spacey, he's no Ian Richardson.
The American series is great if you've never seen the original.
Edit: And I think Kevin Spacey's performances as Verbal Kint, John Doe and Lester Burnham are awesome.
I thought he was great as David Gale, but that movie never got as much attention.
More seriously, if English were to become the Single European Language then it would do a lot to reduce immigration to Britain, as Europeans and others with English-language skills would be able to use them in all the countries of the EU and not just the UK.
It could also form the basis of a grand bargain that would see us accept the German Deutschmark as our currency [this is called the Euro to mollify the French].
De-facto, both these things are likely to eventually happen, regardless of what the politicians do.
I didn’t think you could BECOME a Yorkshireman! I thought you had to be born there, and preferably have both parents born there, too!
Otherwise, surely, one can only be someone who now lives in Yorkshire!
We're very tolerant in Yorkshire, it's not about ethnicity or bloodlines, it's about a state of mind.
Hmmm. A Yorkshire state of mind and tolerant in the same post. Having lived in Lancashire .......
I've lived (and currently work) in Lancashire and in the past London, Yorkshire is the best.
I used to do a lot of business in Wakefield, which was a fun place especially in the evenings, and more recently in Leeds, which I rather like, but if you are going to claim Yorkshire as the best then you have to explain Sheffield. What a dump.
That's because the market has no desire to deliver growth in the North. To do so requires some form of socialist intervention, and that, as we all know, is taboo.
Err....no. Socialist intervention never delivers growth. Ask Hollande. The way to deliver growth is to get the state out of the way. The North underperforms precisely because it is over-socialised, over dependent on the state. What it needs is pro-business reform.
This is clearly not true for a student of history. The Soviet Union achieved a lot of growth from state-led industrialisation. It could only go so far, however, and led to all sorts of distortions and other problems, but it likely made them an industrial economy far faster than a free market would have.
The best way to deliver growth is to have the right regulation, which can mean deregulation but can also mean govt intervention to encourage competition (e.g. anti-trust laws), and also to have the right enablers in place, like education, infrastructure etc.
I'm not so sure. Russia was industrialising at a very rapid pace prior to 1914 (one reason why revolutionary socialism was gaining ground). The Soviets built up a very impressive military-industrial complex (by 1935 they probably had the world's best armed forces, and the industrial infrastructure to support them). The production of consumer goods, OTOH, was woeful, and the diversion of resources from agriculture caused real problems for the peasants.
Which years are you talking about? Per capita GDP was falling during much of the 19th century:
I've not seen any figures, but most books I've read suggest that after 1890, Russia was industrialising rapidly (eg the oil industry on the Caspian Sea).
Comments
Currently it is a little ways to the south and east.
Unsurprisingly, Darling is not the favourite to win.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/salmond-v-darling-wholl-win-the-tv-debate/
Edit: The value is in backing Darling, as Shadsy will be using YouGov to decide, and YouGov polls have consistently shown larger/largest leads for No.
Edit II: Link to Shadsy's market
http://sportsbeta.ladbrokes.com/Scottish-Referendum/First-TV-Debate/Politics-N-1z141mxZ1z0llvjZ1z141ne/?member=TDoubler&tdaffid=1503186&tdprgid=73074&tduid=ba59e9fe53ecfffa70b208a69e0690d2&campaign=CPA
There are some stats for these effects in the appendix to The British General Election of 2010
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-British-General-Election-2010/dp/0230521908
Where it went wrong was he predicted over 100 LD seats.
Edit:
Silver's method breaks up the monolithic uniform swing and instead assigns specific percentages of the parties' votes in 2005 to other parties in 2010.
Using a recent polling average of the three main parties – with the Conservatives on 34%, the Lib Dems on 29.1%, and Labour on 26.9% – the differences between the two methods become stark.
Using uniform swing, those percentages translate into 253 Labour MPs, 271 Conservatives, and 93 Lib Dems. Using Silver's method, Labour ends up with just 214, with the Conservatives surging to 304, and the Lib Dems on 101.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/27/nate-silver-labour-swing
Titter ....
I've just backed Sri Lanka to win... they only need 50 more runs I think...
"You can't win anything with kids"
I note with interest that the No campaign cannot in this instance adopt their usual tactic of dismissing Mr Salmond or anyone else on the Yes side as racist, sexist, etc., simply because the person whose views they are criticising is a southron, female, etc. irrespective of whether this is relevant to the actual discussion.
Finally, I wouldn't be so sure as sone on PB that this is a climbdown by Mr S - in some ways it may be, but it does put the No campaign in a potentially difficult position. As with devomax, Mr S can with justice portray himself as having acceded to the known wish of the electorate but unable to do more because Mr Cameron is, again, refusing. And moreover it is the indy campaign in microcosm - Mr Cameron the chateau general prodding the Labour sacrificial battalion over the top to face the machine guns he's too metaphorically cowardly to dare. That's quite a potent image and we may see it play.
At the time some polls showed LDs in either first or second place.
I think Mr Silver also noted he wasn't aware just how much the electoral geography favoured Labour
SMERSH looks interesting and sounds like:
SMURFS or SMASH!
I'm not so sure. Russia was industrialising at a very rapid pace prior to 1914 (one reason why revolutionary socialism was gaining ground). The Soviets built up a very impressive military-industrial complex (by 1935 they probably had the world's best armed forces, and the industrial infrastructure to support them). The production of consumer goods, OTOH, was woeful, and the diversion of resources from agriculture caused real problems for the peasants.
New Populus VI: Lab 37 (+1); Cons 32 (-2); LD 9 (+1); UKIP 13 (=); Oth 8 (-1) Tables http://popu.lu/s_vi260614
What's interesting is the growing gap between labour's lead and the ''ed under pressure'' rhetoric in the newspapers, and not just the tabloids.
Clearly it is not just some folk on here who think the polls are not indicative of the country's true sentiment.
Worrying for Cam and co, unless they can start to tick up as well
Tories lead in the opinion polls = Bad for the No campaign.
We are Tories are taking one for the United Kingdom
(Plus if the polls continued to show Tories leading, Labour might ditch Ed before the election)
Then I read the newspaper websites and realise they hardly need campaign at the moment.
Have Cyclefree and taffys ever been seen in the same room together?
[I must admit I only know because of a spy book I got as a child].
Smithson’s Merveilleux Election Resultes Systeme des Heuristics (SMERSH)
which also has the benefit of being pre compliant with the new EU President's requirement to adopt French as the official language of the UK.
Masterly use of the understatement there. Stalin's policies produced a dreadful famine in the countryside in which about 6 million died in a single year (1932-33).
And German's besser als Franzosisch. In German, any word can sound like a swear word.
(And BTW I am not Taffys - whoever he / she is... the very idea!)
I can also speak Urdu, and any word can also sound like a swear word.
Though the Russians are the undisputed champions of words that sound like swear words.
*sighs*
When I was still at school Germany used English pretty often as the language of work, even when most/all of the attendees were German.
Cyclefree is a clearly a bit chippy ever since being monstered by me on the subject of legal aid (see threads passim).
It's understandable.
I don't recall whether he specified which language was to be 'the one'. (Esperanto?)
It will be a victory up there with Agrippa's victory at the Battle of Actium
And isn’t Ballance Zimbabwean?
As much as I like Kevin Spacey, he's no Ian Richardson.
The American series is great if you've never seen the original.
Edit: And I think Kevin Spacey's performances as Verbal Kint, John Doe and Lester Burnham are awesome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence#mediaviewer/File:Biaroch_European_GDP_per_capita_1830-1890.svg
Apprentices have to say in writing 'what interests you about working for the Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP?' The job pays £8.80 an hour.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10919612/Ed-Miliband-asks-what-is-interesting-about-working-for-me-answer-in-250-words.html
Seems to cover the bases?
As his apprentice, knowing where their allegiances lie would seem reasonable?
Otherwise, surely, one can only be someone who now lives in Yorkshire!
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics 1m
Bookies say Juncker now a 1/5 chance (83%) to be next Commission President.
pic.twitter.com/XtpMSYxizl
I don't think there's time to list all of Batman's foes.
Though he did have as his opponents, The Court of Owls.
So Ed Miliband is the foe of Batman
[Technological Hierarchy for the Removal of Undesirables and the Subjugation of Humanity]
As I say it's very speculative. However the Labour lead does seem up a bit and for no obvious reason. There's no 'narrative', which the village claims is all important.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Owls
It could also form the basis of a grand bargain that would see us accept the German Deutschmark as our currency [this is called the Euro to mollify the French].
BBC Politics ✔ @BBCPolitics
Michael Meacher says some Labour figures briefing against Ed Miliband are "almost certainly" in the shadow cabinet. http://bbc.in/Tnr90u
The Screaming Eagles @TSEofPB 17s
So True.
pic.twitter.com/1E00eLjLgS