Thanks, David. I had forgotten about science parks. Of course, some of us regard them merely as part of the process of commercialisation of learning. No doubt the jobs will be relocated offshore in a decade or two at most.
What is cutting edge is always changing. And people on the other side of the world are hungrier and poorer than us, and willing to work for less money.
It is inevitable that our share of the world's wealth is going decline.
We can - as has happened in the US - try hard to be top of the world in emerging technologies, and try and have the best education system, and remember that protecting jobs in the short-run, costs jobs in the long-run (see France).
The alternative is worse. We pull up the moat. We try and save jobs by first preventing people from coming here and taking our jobs. Then we try and keep factories open by preventing people from importing goods which compete with them. We restrict people's freedom to buy from who they want in some desperate attempt to stop times changing. We rage at the world, while we buy our cheap TVs or mobile phones from China.
And all the time, those poor people are getting smarter, and can do what we do for less. And even if we stop an Indian pharmaceutical company selling its drug here to protect our own drug companies, they will beat us in exports to America or Canada or wherever. And they will get richer, and they will compete with us to buy oil from the Middle East.
Our way of life is being destroyed every day because someone somewhere is prepared to do what we do, and will do it a little bit harder and for a little bit less money.
What will send the balloon up is if Tories and Labour both get about 290 seats, libs and UKIP get a handful each and the SNP get 30 or so seats holding the balance of power while expecting full devolution of Scottish affairs to their own parliament.
No one is discussing the SNP holding the balance of power, but with current Scottish opinion polls this dangerous scenario is quite probable.
If you are basing your betting on Scottish sub-samples then you will be a poor man.
My prediction is that Scotland specific polling will put Labour-SNP ithin 2 percentage points of each other which means no vast haul of seats for the SNP.
That would be a swing of getting on for 10% from Lab to SNP. If it happens on a UNS basis then yes, in most seats it would simply result in smaller Labour majorities. On the other hand, if there's a much wider range of individual swings then the SNP stand the chance of upping their representation markedly. And there are the Scottish Lib Dem seats that the SNP have their eye on too.
Am surprised that the Nats have followed Brown and set themselves up for a more prolier than thou approach to politics in Scotland. Crowning Sturgeon looks like a short term fix, unless she wanted to make sure that Salmond was stuffed by his failure to secure a result.
Good luck in attracting investment to Scotland, because leaving the leftist fishwife in charge doesn't look too smart.
Is there any form of investment these days which produces large numbers of well-paid jobs (by well-paid I suppose one might say 1.5+ times the average wage)? It sounds like a pre-globalisation model to me.
Yes there is. In Dundee we have this: http://www.biodundee.co.uk/Life+Science+in+Dundee/ The investments by Welcome Trust and others has transformed the City, the housing market, the shops, restaurants and the general feel of the place.
The SNP anti business (seeking to out compete Scottish Labour on this involves taking fairly radical positions) model is relatively new, it is not really John Swinney's cup of iron bru, but became increasingly prominent during the referendum. I think it is highly likely that Sturgeon will continue down this path.
Thanks, David. I had forgotten about science parks. Of course, some of us regard them merely as part of a wider process of commercialisation of learning.
No doubt the jobs will be relocated offshore in a decade or two at most.
You make "commercialisation of learning" sound like a bad thing! I would like to see a lot more of it personally.
My wife's college, for example, teaches a course called "Event Management" which every year churns out about 20 people supposedly trained how to put on concerts etc. I wonder if any of them ever have. Most of them seem to end up working in retail.
There really has to be much more responsibility on the part of academic institutions like that not to miss sell fantasies to young, inexperienced and poorly educated kids. Their courses should be much more focussed on what is actually available and needed in the local market. Not as glamorous but a lot more useful.
A Tory/UKIP pact would kill UKIP in all Labour held seats and may drive a fair few moderate Tories into the arms of the LDs. For UKIP to give it any consideration the Tories would have to stand aside in some seats they currently hold, because these would be the only ones in which UKIP would have a chance. The Tories won't do that. So David is correct - there is not a chance of a pact.
As a long-time supporter of PR it would be great to see the Tories embrace it. A rock solid commitment may be the one way I might - as a one off - actually vote Tory. Unfortunately, as is the case with Labour FPTP delivers too many advantages to the Tories for them to change their minds.
A Tory UKIP pact will only happen when the Tories have become so weakened as to become the junior partner.
A Miliband government is a price well worth paying for a repeat of the 1993 Canadian Federal elections where the Progressive Conservative party was reduced from 156 to two seats. The Canadian UKIP (Reform Party) only got 52 seats and they had to put up with a Liberal government.
Eventually the two merged with the old Progressive Conservative party (what an Oxymoron that was) the junior partner and there is now a Conservative government in Canada.
The destruction of the Conservative party has been inevitable since the treachery of November 1990.
While I disagreed with some of Thatchers policies, she was quite clearly for ordinary hardworking people, not the gilded elite, which is why the wets despised her.
The Liberal party in Canada was in power for 13 years after 1993. 13 years of Milipedism!! What a thought.
Unlike in 1993 it is unlikely the Tories will be reduced to 2 seats or that UKIP will become the official opposition (weren´t Reform pipped by the BQ by one seat in 1993?).
"Ukip needs to be truly radical and think outside the box. It must look at reversing the State dependency of 4/5ths of all families that Labour brought about through it so-called ‘tax’ credits system. It has to look at ending expensive one option childcare subsidies, in return for notional work, and set families free. Instead, it must, unashamedly, through tax allowances promote marriage and support responsible families. Relieving families of those responsibilities via state subsidised institutionalisation of children makes no more economic than it does social sense."
There is a basic problem with this analysis - wages are too low. Should we have had to implement tax credits? No, its a subsidy for low wages. But take away tax credits and will either wages rise or living costs fall? No? And do people have enough to make them loyal consumers now? No?
Open door free migration is mandatory in the EU. I don't blame migrants from coming here one little bit, just as I don't blame British migrants going the other way. But what migrant labour does is suppress wages, and add to that globalisation where you can outsource jobs and and services to cheaper populaces (migration without actually needing migrants). Which is why wages have stagnated and CEOs now earn 129x average wages.
But where we don't help ourselves is that we price people out of the labour market. I remember one vivid example a few years ago where a government minister visited Merthyr Tydfil to bemoan local unemployment, pointing to jobs in Cardiff. That the jobs were shift based on minimum wage with no public transport available early or late, and that many of the unemployed had children where even if the childcare was available for shifts it would completely swallow the wages didn't seem to be understood. Want to combat tax credits, economic inactivity, migration all in one go? Massively subsidise childcare as they do in most civilised countries. Then you get less migrant labour, wages rise, you can cut tax credits.
Or, you can insist no one needs "government handouts", cut them up front, and wonder why your economy just crashed.
The problem with your analysis [and most others both left and right] is the failure to accept that people in most western countries want a much better standard of living than their economies can afford. Unfortunately the markets will win one way or another - we in the west will have to accept economic reality one way or another. We simply cannot tax/spend/borrow our way out of it.
In Scotland we have had 4 party politics for a while and the result is indeed grossly disproportionate outcomes. At the last election the Tories got about 16% of the vote and they got 1 MP, not even a particularly good one unfortunately. On a PR basis they would have had 9.
At the next election it is likely, on current polling, that the Lib Dems will be put through the mincer and these ratios will recover somewhat from a Tory perspective but Scotland faces the choice of which of the 2 larger parties is going to be most disproportionately represented.
I think there are lessons here for the UK. Parties that have that extra 10% do disproportionately well under FPTP in a multi party system. Look at what Labour achieved in Scotland. 42% of the vote obtained 72% of the seats. Joe Public may think this is unfair but there is vanishingly little evidence that politicians think that way until it happens to them. Labour could well repeat this success in the UK next time around. Anyone who thinks their reaction to that would be "maybe we need to change this" is deluding themselves.
Another lesson from Scotland is that in a multi party system regional strength is critical. The Tories suffer because their support is broadly spread. The Lib Dems do relatively well because of their strength in the north and the borders.
In the UK the Tories are incredibly strong in most of the south and a significant rump will survive the worst of disasters (look at 1997). Labour has their rotten boroughs in the Northern cities and London and are secure. The Lib Dems have (or had) the south west. UKIP, it seems to me are in danger of being the equivalent of the Scottish Tories with too broad a support to score significantly.
And that will suit the traditional parties just fine, thank you very much.
UKIP's support does seem be concentrated enough to produce clusters of councillors.
...
No, it was *high* enough to give them councillors, which is a rather different thing. In 2014:
UKIP national vote share 17%, 166 seats won. Lib Dems national vote share 13%, 427 seats won.
Spot the party with the genuinely concentrated support.
Yes, but look at the direction of travel. UKIP support is increasing, LD support is decreasing.
- Re-invigorate the Lib Dems as the party of the centre
Do the LDs have an automatic leadership contest after a general election?
I don't think it is automatic but in practice I think there will be one after next May.
My best guess is a minority Labour government, supported in confidence votes by the LibDems, until the LibDems elect a new leadership and coalition negotiation team. Then, by say November next year, there will be a formal coalition between Labour and LibDems.
The new leadership team will include Fallon and Cable but not Clegg, Laws and Alexander.
I have recently rejoined the LibDems to ensure I have a vote on this.
Thanks, David. I had forgotten about science parks. Of course, some of us regard them merely as part of the process of commercialisation of learning. No doubt the jobs will be relocated offshore in a decade or two at most.
What is cutting edge is always changing. And people on the other side of the world are hungrier and poorer than us, and willing to work for less money.
It is inevitable that our share of the world's wealth is going decline.
We can - as has happened in the US - try hard to be top of the world in emerging technologies, and try and have the best education system, and remember that protecting jobs in the short-run, costs jobs in the long-run (see France).
The alternative is worse. We pull up the moat. We try and save jobs by first preventing people from coming here and taking our jobs. Then we try and keep factories open by preventing people from importing goods which compete with them. We restrict people's freedom to buy from who they want in some desperate attempt to stop times changing. We rage at the world, while we buy our cheap TVs or mobile phones from China.
And all the time, those poor people are getting smarter, and can do what we do for less. And even if we stop an Indian pharmaceutical company selling its drug here to protect our own drug companies, they will beat us in exports to America or Canada or wherever. And they will get richer, and they will compete with us to buy oil from the Middle East.
Our way of life is being destroyed every day because someone somewhere is prepared to do what we do, and will do it a little bit harder and for a little bit less money.
The alternatives are worse.
If ever either of my children express an interest in becoming a terrorist (they are probably too old for that sort of thing now) I shall e-mail them your comment. Life as you describe it is not worth living - what you ignore is that all this "harder" and "cheaper" is because the mega-rich control all the rest of us. If you really believe that they too are an inevitable product of the system, why on earth do you want to worship it? (No other word seems to match your tone of voice.) And if you account for them in some other way, where has your miraculous system gone wrong?
As an active member of the SDP in those days I can confirm the majority view was that Labour were a bunch of loons who had betrayed their principles and lost all contact with reality (as perceived by the ex Labour supporters who were dominant). Supporting them would have been anathema to most SDP supporters even if, or possibly because, their platforms and backgrounds were similar.
I think we see the same dynamic now with UKIP. Leaving a party after a number of years is a wrench, not as bad as changing loyalty to a football team but close. Relatively small differences have become exaggerated and given wildly disproportionate importance. Sharp and bitter words will have been said.
There is more chance of most UKIP supporters wanting to support a minority Labour administration next time around than dealing with Cameron and his ilk. Its pure psychology.
Indeed. I was much more politically active in the 80s and among the SDP members I knew in the Alliance, there was a clear divide between those who had come from Labour and detested Kinnock and all he stood for and those who had never been in another party and had joined in 1981-2. I found those SDP people much more amenable to the Liberals and more willing to consider working with Labour as well. That was in the Kinnock years - a number of ex-SDP people found Blair much more to their liking (as others found Major more to their liking).
I don't think however that more than a tiny minority would have considered supporting a minority Conservative administration led by Margaret Thatcher. Had it been a Howe or a Heseltine, that would have been very different.
I've only considered leaving the Party (I've been a member for over 30 years) on a couple of occasions and have never considered defecting. I just don't get that though I realise to have any chance of elected office you need a Party behind you so those who jump are by definition politically ambitious. I could imagine leaving the LDs and being non-aligned (as most people are in truth) but not just jumping into another Party.
As one of those who had not previously been in another party I found the hatred of the ex Labour people for Kinnock & co quite bizarre. The Liberals had a bit more of a sandal reputation in those days, well meaning dilatants.
If what became the Orange Bookers had been as organised as they subsequently became I may never have joined the SDP in the first place (although it was an exciting adventure to be in on the ground floor, so to speak).
Is Stephen Webb not going to be a candidate? He has been an excellent minister, one of the best in the whole government. Probably the best not at cabinet level actually.
I don't believe for a moment a committed Tory like TSE was ever serious about voting LD - as the GE approaches, his inner Tory has been shining ever more brightly.
On topic, David's article is, as always, well argued and constructed so thanks for that. It reminded me of debates about the SDP in the 1980s and particularly as the 1987 election approached (and there are some striking parallels between then and now) as to whether David Owen could support a minority Labour administration led by Neil Kinnock.
Had a Hung Parliament occurred in 1987 (which many thought until quite late in the day was a real possibility) the Alliance leaders, who had tried (and not often successfully) to play the equidistance card, faced a real problem. It's probably fair to say most Liberals then much preferred supporting Kinnock to Thatcher but on the SDP side it was much less clear.
While I doubt it would have been in Thatcher's nature to play the game, the possibility of supporting a post-Thatcher minority Conservative administration was there and had the scenario arisen, it might well have torn the Alliance apart.
For UKIP, the position is the same - if push comes to shove and they have enough MPs to make the difference and the phone rings, what are they going to do ? Would the Party be cohesive enough (and it's not been easy for the LDs) to survive entering into even an S&C deal with either Conservative or Labour - could Douglas Carswell support a minority Labour administration on the basis there would be an immediate EU referendum (say Oct 2015 ?)
It's quite clear that Cameron is now desperate to cling to power and he will promise anything to anyone to achieve it - that's fair enough. Without power, the Conservative Party is as much use as a chocolate fireguard - they're hapless in Opposition as the long Labour years demonstrated.
As an active member of the SDP in those days I can confirm the majority view was that Labour were a bunch of loons who had betrayed their principles and lost all contact with reality (as perceived by the ex Labour supporters who were dominant). Supporting them would have been anathema to most SDP supporters even if, or possibly because, their platforms and backgrounds were similar.
I think we see the same dynamic now with UKIP. Leaving a party after a number of years is a wrench, not as bad as changing loyalty to a football team but close. Relatively small differences have become exaggerated and given wildly disproportionate importance. Sharp and bitter words will have been said.
There is more chance of most UKIP supporters wanting to support a minority Labour administration next time around than dealing with Cameron and his ilk. Its pure psychology.
Interesting. Why did you choose to leave the SDP and join the Tories rather than, say, becoming a Liberal Democrat?
- Re-invigorate the Lib Dems as the party of the centre
Do the LDs have an automatic leadership contest after a general election?
I don't think it is automatic but in practice I think there will be one after next May.
My best guess is a minority Labour government, supported in confidence votes by the LibDems, until the LibDems elect a new leadership and coalition negotiation team. Then, by say November next year, there will be a formal coalition between Labour and LibDems.
The new leadership team will include Fallon and Cable but not Clegg, Laws and Alexander.
I have recently rejoined the LibDems to ensure I have a vote on this.
Morning all,
Interesting to read you have rejoined the Libs to get a leadership vote. I wonder if many others are doing so?
Personally, I don't think there'll be a leadership election after May. Clegg will form a coalition with Cameron again and enjoy another couple of years of abuse.
Good luck in attracting investment to Scotland, because leaving the leftist fishwife in charge doesn't look too smart.
Is there any form of investment these days which produces large numbers of well-paid jobs (by well-paid I suppose one might say 1.5+ times the average wage)? It sounds like a pre-globalisation model to me.
Yes there is. In Dundee we have this: http://www.biodundee.co.uk/Life+Science+in+Dundee/ The investments by Welcome Trust and others has transformed the City, the housing market, the shops, restaurants and the general feel of the place.
The SNP anti business (seeking to out compete Scottish Labour on this involves taking fairly radical positions) model is relatively new, it is not really John Swinney's cup of iron bru, but became increasingly prominent during the referendum. I think it is highly likely that Sturgeon will continue down this path.
Thanks, David. I had forgotten about science parks. Of course, some of us regard them merely as part of a wider process of commercialisation of learning.
No doubt the jobs will be relocated offshore in a decade or two at most.
You make "commercialisation of learning" sound like a bad thing! I would like to see a lot more of it personally.
My wife's college, for example, teaches a course called "Event Management" which every year churns out about 20 people supposedly trained how to put on concerts etc. I wonder if any of them ever have. Most of them seem to end up working in retail.
There really has to be much more responsibility on the part of academic institutions like that not to miss sell fantasies to young, inexperienced and poorly educated kids. Their courses should be much more focussed on what is actually available and needed in the local market. Not as glamorous but a lot more useful.
No. Who is the customer of a college? Whoever pays the bill - these days, the student. You are describing how the previous system was supposed to work, except that the academics "managed upwards" in the name of "academic freedom". Neither gives the employer what they want, because the employer doesn't know! (Except in the short-term - this is just about the only point on which rcs1000 and I agree.)
The NEV depends on who calculates it. The Wikipedia page quotes the figures I gave but to be honest, they're all a bit finger-in-the-air with UKIP having made such a big breakthough in so short a time.
As for the polls, we need to be careful to distinguish between prediction and projection. Yes, UKIP is rising and the Lib Dems falling at present and that may continue. However, election campaigns have dynamics of their own, both nationally and within constituencies, and both types tend to favour established parties over newcomers e.g. media time, bar charts based on who 'can win here' etc.
The recording of Lord Freud reminds me so much of Mitt Romney's comments during the 2012 US Presidential campaign about the 47% of Americans who would never vote for him as they don't pay taxes.
Once the video was released, you had condemnation of the remarks from one side and after a little while a counter-attack (led by the likes of FOX News) which consisted of two strands - a) criticising whoever leaked the speech and b) asserting that Romney was right and had a valid argument. We're seeing the same thing here - the initial outrage was overdone - it was a classic case of "more in sorrow than anger" but given Freud's history I can see why Labour wanted to milk it for all they had.
Saying the unsayable (so to speak) isn't easy - it cost Sir Keith Joseph the Conservative leadership in 1974-5 (arguably) and has plagued the likes of Peter Lilley, Michael Portillo and others but if we've reached the point where the controversial can never be uttered, where does that leave political debate ?
I'm all for criticising the lazy speech, the assertion not supported by fact, the unwarranted generalisation (and it happens on here all the time) but a well-argued case for raising taxes or legalising drugs or restricting abortion time limits or abolishing the Monarchy (for examples) need and must be aired without a kneejerk response. There are those who cannot and will not be persuaded from established positions (and we see that on here a lot too) but there are many more who are genuinely open-minded.
Sometimes debate means putting forward an argument to which some will instinctively be repelled but if that argument is coherent and evidence-based, it surely has a right to be heard and considered.
Very well said. Some great posts from you this morning.
PaulinBeds The Progressive Tories in Canada were trounced in 1993 after 10 years in power, not 5, and with the latest yougov showing a 1 point Labour lead and the Tories leading Labour in Scotland the conditions are nothing like 1993 in Canada when the Liberals won a landslide
It's quite clear that Cameron is now desperate to cling to power and he will promise anything to anyone to achieve it - that's fair enough. Without power, the Conservative Party is as much use as a chocolate fireguard - they're hapless in Opposition as the long Labour years demonstrated.
As an active member of the SDP in those days I can confirm the majority view was that Labour were a bunch of loons who had betrayed their principles and lost all contact with reality (as perceived by the ex Labour supporters who were dominant). Supporting them would have been anathema to most SDP supporters even if, or possibly because, their platforms and backgrounds were similar.
I think we see the same dynamic now with UKIP. Leaving a party after a number of years is a wrench, not as bad as changing loyalty to a football team but close. Relatively small differences have become exaggerated and given wildly disproportionate importance. Sharp and bitter words will have been said.
There is more chance of most UKIP supporters wanting to support a minority Labour administration next time around than dealing with Cameron and his ilk. Its pure psychology.
Interesting. Why did you choose to leave the SDP and join the Tories rather than, say, becoming a Liberal Democrat?
I was in the Liberal Democrats for a while after the amalgamation but it was not a happy ship. As I have said below the Liberals of those days were (at least locally) a different sort of people.
But as is probably clear from my posts on here I remain a pretty wet, socially liberal, slightly libertarian kind of tory. A bit like that Cameron bloke actually. No wonder he drives UKIPers mad!
The Greens are on 7% in the latest yougov too, that is the level they could become influential under PR, indeed the German Greens got 8% in 2013 under PR, only 1 point higher and the present yougov was taken under FPTP, under PR the UK Greens would likely poll higher
Yes there is. In Dundee we have this: http://www.biodundee.co.uk/Life+Science+in+Dundee/ The investments by Welcome Trust and others has transformed the City, the housing market, the shops, restaurants and the general feel of the place.
The SNP anti business (seeking to out compete Scottish Labour on this involves taking fairly radical positions) model is relatively new, it is not really John Swinney's cup of iron bru, but became increasingly prominent during the referendum. I think it is highly likely that Sturgeon will continue down this path.
Thanks, David. I had forgotten about science parks. Of course, some of us regard them merely as part of a wider process of commercialisation of learning.
No doubt the jobs will be relocated offshore in a decade or two at most.
You make "commercialisation of learning" sound like a bad thing! I would like to see a lot more of it personally.
No. Who is the customer of a college? Whoever pays the bill - these days, the student. You are describing how the previous system was supposed to work, except that the academics "managed upwards" in the name of "academic freedom". Neither gives the employer what they want, because the employer doesn't know! (Except in the short-term - this is just about the only point on which rcs1000 and I agree.)
DavidL said: The customer is the one who pays the bill and that is not the students. It is the Scottish Government and they are increasingly exercising the traditional right to pick the tunes.
What is cutting edge is always changing. And people on the other side of the world are hungrier and poorer than us, and willing to work for less money.
It is inevitable that our share of the world's wealth is going decline.
We can - as has happened in the US - try hard to be top of the world in emerging technologies, and try and have the best education system, and remember that protecting jobs in the short-run, costs jobs in the long-run (see France).
The alternative is worse. We pull up the moat. We try and save jobs by first preventing people from coming here and taking our jobs. Then we try and keep factories open by preventing people from importing goods which compete with them. We restrict people's freedom to buy from who they want in some desperate attempt to stop times changing. We rage at the world, while we buy our cheap TVs or mobile phones from China.
And all the time, those poor people are getting smarter, and can do what we do for less. And even if we stop an Indian pharmaceutical company selling its drug here to protect our own drug companies, they will beat us in exports to America or Canada or wherever. And they will get richer, and they will compete with us to buy oil from the Middle East.
Our way of life is being destroyed every day because someone somewhere is prepared to do what we do, and will do it a little bit harder and for a little bit less money.
The alternatives are worse.
Hmm. Not sure about that. I agree our share of global wealth (over a very long time) will *tend* to approach our global share of population, but we're a long way off that yet. I'll skip over the uber-protectionist stuff. Personally, I think there's a world of difference between free movement of goods, services and money compared to people. It's the last one the electorate are concerned about.
China is suffering from labour shortages and wage inflation, as they can't get the staff. That will push up its costs over time. As countries industralise, develop and demand more they are likely to become more "western" and less prepared to do the nasty hard work for peanuts.
Also, there's a relationship with immigration there: as global wealth/development/democracy spreads, there's less of a pull for economic migrants to come to countries to the UK for the employment opportunities. Thus slowing immigration, absolutely.
I know it's far-fetched, but if the middle-east/north africa/minor asia was stable and peaceful, Africa was rapidly developing with less corruption, and India was far more equitably developed, with the infrastructure to match, I'm not sure all of that would necessarily hold.
Yes there is. In Dundee we have this: http://www.biodundee.co.uk/Life+Science+in+Dundee/ The investments by Welcome Trust and others has transformed the City, the housing market, the shops, restaurants and the general feel of the place.
The SNP anti business (seeking to out compete Scottish Labour on this involves taking fairly radical positions) model is relatively new, it is not really John Swinney's cup of iron bru, but became increasingly prominent during the referendum. I think it is highly likely that Sturgeon will continue down this path.
Thanks, David. I had forgotten about science parks. Of course, some of us regard them merely as part of a wider process of commercialisation of learning.
No doubt the jobs will be relocated offshore in a decade or two at most.
You make "commercialisation of learning" sound like a bad thing! I would like to see a lot more of it personally.
No. Who is the customer of a college? Whoever pays the bill - these days, the student. You are describing how the previous system was supposed to work, except that the academics "managed upwards" in the name of "academic freedom". Neither gives the employer what they want, because the employer doesn't know! (Except in the short-term - this is just about the only point on which rcs1000 and I agree.)
DavidL said: The customer is the one who pays the bill and that is not the students. It is the Scottish Government and they are increasingly exercising the traditional right to pick the tunes.
My apologies. I forgot Scotland lives in a timewarp!!
I quite agree with the thread. There shall be no electoral pact.
Mr. Royale, I'd perhaps make the font size a couple of points smaller but that's all I'd suggest.
As I've not been able to do a nighthawks for a while, did you know tomorrow is the 2,206th anniversary of the Battle of Zama.
For those lacking in a knowledge of Classical history, it was when Scipio Africanus exposed Hannibal as the overrated and inept military commander we all knew him to be.
The Greens are on 7% in the latest yougov too, that is the level they could become influential under PR, indeed the German Greens got 8% in 2013 under PR, only 1 point higher and the present yougov was taken under FPTP, under PR the UK Greens would likely poll higher
If the greens get anywhere near 7% of the vote then the Libdems will be massacred in 2015.
It's quite clear that Cameron is now desperate to cling to power and he will promise anything to anyone to achieve it - that's fair enough. Without power, the Conservative Party is as much use as a chocolate fireguard - they're hapless in Opposition as the long Labour years demonstrated.
As an active member of the SDP in those days I can confirm the majority view was that Labour were a bunch of loons who had betrayed their principles and lost all contact with reality (as perceived by the ex Labour supporters who were dominant). Supporting them would have been anathema to most SDP supporters even if, or possibly because, their platforms and backgrounds were similar.
I think we see the same dynamic now with UKIP. Leaving a party after a number of years is a wrench, not as bad as changing loyalty to a football team but close. Relatively small differences have become exaggerated and given wildly disproportionate importance. Sharp and bitter words will have been said.
There is more chance of most UKIP supporters wanting to support a minority Labour administration next time around than dealing with Cameron and his ilk. Its pure psychology.
Interesting. Why did you choose to leave the SDP and join the Tories rather than, say, becoming a Liberal Democrat?
I was in the Liberal Democrats for a while after the amalgamation but it was not a happy ship. As I have said below the Liberals of those days were (at least locally) a different sort of people.
But as is probably clear from my posts on here I remain a pretty wet, socially liberal, slightly libertarian kind of tory. A bit like that Cameron bloke actually. No wonder he drives UKIPers mad!
Thanks. Libertarian kinds of Tories are the best kind!
What will send the balloon up is if Tories and Labour both get about 290 seats, libs and UKIP get a handful each and the SNP get 30 or so seats holding the balance of power while expecting full devolution of Scottish affairs to their own parliament.
No one is discussing the SNP holding the balance of power, but with current Scottish opinion polls this dangerous scenario is quite probable.
If you are basing your betting on Scottish sub-samples then you will be a poor man.
My prediction is that Scotland specific polling will put Labour-SNP ithin 2 percentage points of each other which means no vast haul of seats for the SNP.
That would be a swing of getting on for 10% from Lab to SNP. If it happens on a UNS basis then yes, in most seats it would simply result in smaller Labour majorities. On the other hand, if there's a much wider range of individual swings then the SNP stand the chance of upping their representation markedly. And there are the Scottish Lib Dem seats that the SNP have their eye on too.
There is the suggestion (still to be proven) that as the SNP targets more Labour seats and move leftwards Tartan-Tory types in Perthshire and the NE may move back to the Tories or other unionist parties. So, above average swings to the SNP in the central belt and below average in most other places. This would then put more Labour seats in play.
In 2007 the SNP was 2% ahead of Labour and won about 2/3 of their seats.
Yes there is. In Dundee we have this: http://www.biodundee.co.uk/Life+Science+in+Dundee/ The investments by Welcome Trust and others has transformed the City, the housing market, the shops, restaurants and the general feel of the place.
The SNP anti business (seeking to out compete Scottish Labour on this involves taking fairly radical positions) model is relatively new, it is not really John Swinney's cup of iron bru, but became increasingly prominent during the referendum. I think it is highly likely that Sturgeon will continue down this path.
Thanks, David. I had forgotten about science parks. Of course, some of us regard them merely as part of a wider process of commercialisation of learning.
No doubt the jobs will be relocated offshore in a decade or two at most.
You make "commercialisation of learning" sound like a bad thing! I would like to see a lot more of it personally.
No. Who is the customer of a college? Whoever pays the bill - these days, the student. You are describing how the previous system was supposed to work, except that the academics "managed upwards" in the name of "academic freedom". Neither gives the employer what they want, because the employer doesn't know! (Except in the short-term - this is just about the only point on which rcs1000 and I agree.)
DavidL said: The customer is the one who pays the bill and that is not the students. It is the Scottish Government and they are increasingly exercising the traditional right to pick the tunes.
My apologies. I forgot Scotland lives in a timewarp!!
Innocent Abroad said: My apologies. I forgot Scotland lives in a timewarp!!
Well we are pretty good at the step to the left bit. After that it gets a bit dodgy.
Proportional representation is obviously an overdue change. However, it has to be done in a manner that maintains the constituency link, and with small enough constituencies that party favourites can actually be voted out. STV with 3-member constituencies would do the trick.
I quite agree with the thread. There shall be no electoral pact.
Mr. Royale, I'd perhaps make the font size a couple of points smaller but that's all I'd suggest.
As I've not been able to do a nighthawks for a while, did you know tomorrow is the 2,206th anniversary of the Battle of Zama.
For those lacking in a knowledge of Classical history, it was when Scipio Africanus exposed Hannibal as the overrated and inept military commander we all knew him to be.
As one of those who had not previously been in another party I found the hatred of the ex Labour people for Kinnock & co quite bizarre. The Liberals had a bit more of a sandal reputation in those days, well meaning dilatants.
If what became the Orange Bookers had been as organised as they subsequently became I may never have joined the SDP in the first place (although it was an exciting adventure to be in on the ground floor, so to speak).
Is Stephen Webb not going to be a candidate? He has been an excellent minister, one of the best in the whole government. Probably the best not at cabinet level actually.
The metamorphosis of the Liberal Party was a wonder to behold from the inside. I went to my first Liberal Assembly at Harrogate in 1985 (I think) and there were already signs that one or two people were trying to get more serious about politics (it was happening with Labour under the direction of Mandelson at the same time). The local election successes had turned annoying Opposition Councillors into serious-minded Council leaders and they wanted the party to be more business-like.
The SDP changed this as well - they brought a new business-like ethos which some of the traditionalist Liberals resented but after the successes of Eastbourne, Ryedale, Greenwich and the like we needed to get serious and fast. The policy programme for 1987 was shambolic and we were of course hopelessly split on defence but we were organising under the auspices of the ALDC and others.
The disappointment of the 1987 GE and the pain of the merger was acute - I was at the Blackpool meeting which formally endorsed the merger and the new Party and ended the Liberal Party as it had been but the new SLD, later LD, was a clear creation of the post-sandal Liberals and those elements of the SDP who wouldn't or couldn't go off with Owen.
The climb back was meteoric if you think about it - we were almost gone after Richmond but within four years we were winning by-elections like it was going out of fashion. I remember campaigning in the 1993 County elections in Cornwall and working for this lady who turned a Tory majority of 120 to an LD majority of 700 - her face at the count was one of complete and total bewilderment but I could tell even with a day's telling and knocking-up she was going to win and win big - the Tories had either switched or abstained and this was barely a year after winning the 1992 GE.
That so many Tories ignore the realities preventing a pact because they wish so much for it to be true,to end the ukip threat by joining get with it and surely, they hope, prevent Cameron and his clique 'change' the Tories from their true nature which they think ukip represents, is a big reason they will lose and possibly lose big. Too many still want ukip to do well rather than defeat them, which doesn't help their own party now UKIP are full of ex lab and others.
Mr. Eagles, delighted you rate Scipio so highly. He was one of the best commanders Rome ever had, far superior to Caesar. Indeed, it was Scipio's judgement that Hannibal's battle plan for Zama was better than his own. I'm sure we both agree with his assessment.
I don't see how Farage could advocate supporting a Labour administration at all.
UKIP are in the exact opposite space on almost all policy. They have more in common with just about every other party.
The next PM will most likely need to be able to draw from different minorities at different times to push through individual policy measures. Virtual PR.
All the time avoiding a no-confidence ambush.
Everyone gets a bit of what they want, but no one gets everything.
Thats all about spiking the labour claim that UKIP are uber Tories surely?, and I didn't take it seriously.
Obvious political tactics to me. However that said, as the Libdems discovered, it is actually the voters (and HM Queen) who dictate whether and who you go into coalition with.
I quite agree with the thread. There shall be no electoral pact.
Mr. Royale, I'd perhaps make the font size a couple of points smaller but that's all I'd suggest.
As I've not been able to do a nighthawks for a while, did you know tomorrow is the 2,206th anniversary of the Battle of Zama.
For those lacking in a knowledge of Classical history, it was when Scipio Africanus exposed Hannibal as the overrated and inept military commander we all knew him to be.
Reading some of the points below it occurred to me we are possibly discounting the power of the markets.
It seems part of the late swing to YES in Sindy were the gloom and doom predictions of economists and industrialists, runs on pound, fears about pensions, etc. Will these likely play out in April-May 2015? They were far too quiet in May 2010 but then Gordon had a story to tell about saving the world economy. It was boolox but at least it was a story.
REd has no such story to tell. If people vote with their wallets it could be a problem for Labour trying to counter these stories of doom. And runs on pound will be happening.
Mr. Eagles, delighted you rate Scipio so highly. He was one of the best commanders Rome ever had, far superior to Caesar. Indeed, it was Scipio's judgement that Hannibal's battle plan for Zama was better than his own. I'm sure we both agree with his assessment.
Of course he would say that to make himself look good. He couldn't be honest and say he opened a can of whoop ass on an inept commander
Mr. Eagles, the statement did not make Scipio look good, it emphasised that the victory was not due to his command but his soldiers, whereas Hannibal was the better leader but had far less in the way of experienced and competent soldiers.
I really should start charging you for these lessons.
I quite agree with the thread. There shall be no electoral pact.
Mr. Royale, I'd perhaps make the font size a couple of points smaller but that's all I'd suggest.
As I've not been able to do a nighthawks for a while, did you know tomorrow is the 2,206th anniversary of the Battle of Zama.
For those lacking in a knowledge of Classical history, it was when Scipio Africanus exposed Hannibal as the overrated and inept military commander we all knew him to be.
Mr. Eagles, the statement did not make Scipio look good, it emphasised that the victory was not due to his command but his soldiers, whereas Hannibal was the better leader but had far less in the way of experienced and competent soldiers.
I really should start charging you for these lessons.
Don't know if you guys are gamers, but you *might* be interested in Rome Total War II:
There was some discussion the other day about Soth Basildon and East Thurrock as a possible UKIP target. It's worth noting (via Guido) that the UKIP candidate there has been deselected - Apparently slightly mysteriously - internal party ructions of some sort.
Is Stephen Webb not going to be a candidate? He has been an excellent minister, one of the best in the whole government. Probably the best not at cabinet level actually.
The metamorphosis of the Liberal Party was a wonder to behold from the inside. I went to my first Liberal Assembly at Harrogate in 1985 (I think) and there were already signs that one or two people were trying to get more serious about politics (it was happening with Labour under the direction of Mandelson at the same time). The local election successes had turned annoying Opposition Councillors into serious-minded Council leaders and they wanted the party to be more business-like.
The SDP changed this as well - they brought a new business-like ethos which some of the traditionalist Liberals resented but after the successes of Eastbourne, Ryedale, Greenwich and the like we needed to get serious and fast. The policy programme for 1987 was shambolic and we were of course hopelessly split on defence but we were organising under the auspices of the ALDC and others.
The disappointment of the 1987 GE and the pain of the merger was acute - I was at the Blackpool meeting which formally endorsed the merger and the new Party and ended the Liberal Party as it had been but the new SLD, later LD, was a clear creation of the post-sandal Liberals and those elements of the SDP who wouldn't or couldn't go off with Owen.
The climb back was meteoric if you think about it - we were almost gone after Richmond but within four years we were winning by-elections like it was going out of fashion. I remember campaigning in the 1993 County elections in Cornwall and working for this lady who turned a Tory majority of 120 to an LD majority of 700 - her face at the count was one of complete and total bewilderment but I could tell even with a day's telling and knocking-up she was going to win and win big - the Tories had either switched or abstained and this was barely a year after winning the 1992 GE.
Really interesting. I was in Harrogate in the early 80s (maybe 82) too with the SDP. It seemed a popular venue then. I remember a debate group where an idea of Shirley Williams from her book "politics is for people" that companies should capitalise their training costs and put them on their balance sheet.
The idea was met with complete derision by anyone who had anything to do with business and was an interesting example of the tensions in the SDP itself. I always had a suspicion that those who rejected ideas like that were the seed bed of the Orange Bookers.
The Greens are on 7% in the latest yougov too, that is the level they could become influential under PR, indeed the German Greens got 8% in 2013 under PR, only 1 point higher and the present yougov was taken under FPTP, under PR the UK Greens would likely poll higher
They are, and I agree that they'd poll higher under any system of PR than FPTP (not least because everyone would be likely to have the chance to vote for them, which they can't at present), but that 7% was also at the top end of what they've been polling recently.
Mr. Eagles, the statement did not make Scipio look good, it emphasised that the victory was not due to his command but his soldiers, whereas Hannibal was the better leader but had far less in the way of experienced and competent soldiers.
I really should start charging you for these lessons.
Don't know if you guys are gamers, but you *might* be interested in Rome Total War II:
PaulMidBeds The LDs are still just ahead on 8%, but they have lost more than half their 2010 vote on present polling
The point about a large green vote is that it will disproportionately attract Libdem voters. The Greens are as poisonous to the Liberals in Libdem seats as UKIP are to tory marginals in Essex and Kent.
Many LD held seats did not have a Green candidate in the 2010 election. Eg Yeovil, where the Greens but picked up over four thousand votes in the 2014 Euros (only 5,500 behind the Libdems)
Mr. Eagles, the statement did not make Scipio look good, it emphasised that the victory was not due to his command but his soldiers, whereas Hannibal was the better leader but had far less in the way of experienced and competent soldiers.
I really should start charging you for these lessons.
Don't know if you guys are gamers, but you *might* be interested in Rome Total War II:
Thats all about spiking the labour claim that UKIP are uber Tories surely?, and I didn't take it seriously.
Obvious political tactics to me. However that said, as the Libdems discovered, it is actually the voters (and HM Queen) who dictate whether and who you go into coalition with.
I'm doubting we'll see a two party coalition getting 326.
Even if they do, it will be wafer thin.
I thought UKIP were a protest vote, but I can see them in a nationalist combination with SNP and Plaid getting 20-30 now.
Throw in a greatly diminished LD bloc plus NI.
A sub 300 seat government. Lowest vote share ever for a "winner".
Hmm. Not sure about that. I agree our share of global wealth (over a very long time) will *tend* to approach our global share of population, but we're a long way off that yet. I'll skip over the uber-protectionist stuff. Personally, I think there's a world of difference between free movement of goods, services and money compared to people. It's the last one the electorate are concerned about.
China is suffering from labour shortages and wage inflation, as they can't get the staff. That will push up its costs over time. As countries industralise, develop and demand more they are likely to become more "western" and less prepared to do the nasty hard work for peanuts. SNIP
What rcs1000 skips over is that the varying quality of migrants will make a huge difference long term. Immigration can either be used to skew our population to be more skilled professional families (with any money they bring with them), or we can carry on with the floodgates open and skew it to be more and more low income, low skilled people. Clearly the latter isn't going to help our competitiveness long term.
There's an extra factor here, if we're thinking many decades forward, on the impact of the immigrants on their descendants. There are several cultures around the world - for example, the Chinese - that, on the aggregate, make very effective parents. They value education, parent with both love and strict structure, and push their children to achieve. Immigrants from these countries will likely produce high skilled, hard-working children that do not produce social problems, even if the immigrants themselves are low income and without skills. On the other hand, some other groups do not have as effective a parenting culture, in the aggregate. Children might be excessively babied, education may not be as pushed (particularly for girls), discipline might be occasionally very harsh but not consistently applied, a narrative of victimisation and excuse-making can be passed down, or children might be brought up with highly conservative religious views. In theses situations, the next generation is likely to be less skilled and cause more social problems. Now obviously people must be judged as individuals, and there are great immigrants and poor immigrants from every nation. But we must design immigration policy in the aggregate, and we should design a system that encourages the former group of immigrants and less of the latter group.
Mr. Eagles, the statement did not make Scipio look good, it emphasised that the victory was not due to his command but his soldiers, whereas Hannibal was the better leader but had far less in the way of experienced and competent soldiers.
I really should start charging you for these lessons.
Don't know if you guys are gamers, but you *might* be interested in Rome Total War II:
I found it disappointing to be honest. Medieval total war 2 remains my favourite.
I'm a bit strange. I actually preferred Medieval total war 1.
I loved building the huge fortresses and citadels and seeing the AI smash into them, unsuccessfully, during sieges.
And it was less irritating reaching more remote regions as it was moving en masse from region to region, not a realistic, multiple turn journey to cross the larger ones with difficult terrain.the simpler map and movement had its charms. I enjoyed preparing for the invaion of the golden horde by massing rank after rank of cannon fodder in that region before they arrived.
David Herdson Indeed but still 6/7 times what the Greens polled in 2010. Under PR (or even AV) the Greens would be polling around the 10% the German, Swedish, French, Australian or New Zealand Greens regularly poll
Mr. Royale, I suspect I'd love it, but I just don't play games on my PC. Too many distractions as it is, and I like having gaming on a separate machine (not least because if my PC goes down I can still play games).
It's just a shame so few strategy titles make it onto consoles. Beyond Earth looks great, but the last Civ game I played was II.
PaulMidBeds The LDs are still just ahead on 8%, but they have lost more than half their 2010 vote on present polling
The point about a large green vote is that it will disproportionately attract Libdem voters. The Greens are as poisonous to the Liberals in Libdem seats as UKIP are to tory marginals in Essex and Kent.
Many LD held seats did not have a Green candidate in the 2010 election. Eg Yeovil, where the Greens but picked up over four thousand votes in the 2014 Euros (only 5,500 behind the Libdems)
It truly has been a year whee everything is go ing wrong for the LDs. A year ago it still looked plausible they might retain say three quarters of their seats. But now ukip haven't gone away and have risen further, probably reducing the chance they might help split the Tories to the ld benefit in a few cases, the LDs have de climned rather than recovered, and now for no reason I can see the greens are suddenly in the fray too. Perfect storm .
Hmm. Not sure about that. I agree our share of global wealth (over a very long time) will *tend* to approach our global share of population, but we're a long way off that yet. I'll skip over the uber-protectionist stuff. Personally, I think there's a world of difference between free movement of goods, services and money compared to people. It's the last one the electorate are concerned about.
China is suffering from labour shortages and wage inflation, as they can't get the staff. That will push up its costs over time. As countries industralise, develop and demand more they are likely to become more "western" and less prepared to do the nasty hard work for peanuts. SNIP
What rcs1000 skips over is that the varying quality of migrants will make a huge difference long term. Immigration can either be used to skew our population to be more skilled professional families (with any money they bring with them), or we can carry on with the floodgates open and skew it to be more and more low income, low skilled people. Clearly the latter isn't going to help our competitiveness long term.
There's an extra factor here, if we're thinking many decades forward, on the impact of the immigrants on their descendants. There are several cultures around the world - for example, the Chinese - that, on the aggregate, make very effective parents. They value education, parent with both love and strict structure, and push their children to achieve. Immigrants from these countries will likely produce high skilled, hard-working children that do not produce social problems, even if the immigrants themselves are low income and without skills. On the other hand, some other groups do not have as effective a parenting culture, in the aggregate. Children might be excessively babied, education may not be as pushed (particularly for girls), discipline might be occasionally very harsh but not consistently applied, a narrative of victimisation and excuse-making can be passed down, or children might be brought up with highly conservative religious views. In theses situations, the next generation is likely to be less skilled and cause more social problems. Now obviously people must be judged as individuals, and there are great immigrants and poor immigrants from every nation. But we must design immigration policy in the aggregate, and we should design a system that encourages the former group of immigrants and less of the latter group.
You could of course bring up Pakistani, Somali, Bengali and West Indian cultures but then the hounds of the anti-racists would be let loose.
Far better to do this than confront the real issues.
Proportional representation is obviously an overdue change. However, it has to be done in a manner that maintains the constituency link, and with small enough constituencies that party favourites can actually be voted out. STV with 3-member constituencies would do the trick.
STV is a long time Liberal / LibDem favourite. I believe that 3 or 5 member constituencies was the favourite. One consequence of this would be that most voters would have an MP who was elected for 'their' party, which should help voter engagement.
Proportional representation is obviously an overdue change. However, it has to be done in a manner that maintains the constituency link, and with small enough constituencies that party favourites can actually be voted out. STV with 3-member constituencies would do the trick.
STV is a long time Liberal / LibDem favourite. I believe that 3 or 5 member constituencies was the favourite. One consequence of this would be that most voters would have an MP who was elected for 'their' party, which should help voter engagement.
You do need people to be able to lose on a regular basis, to maintain the necessary electoral pressures in a democracy. Otherwise parties would not feel accountable to the voters. This is why I would prefer 3-members to 5-members.
What rcs1000 skips over is that the varying quality of migrants will make a huge difference long term. Immigration can either be used to skew our population to be more skilled professional families (with any money they bring with them), or we can carry on with the floodgates open and skew it to be more and more low income, low skilled people. Clearly the latter isn't going to help our competitiveness long term.
There's an extra factor here, if we're thinking many decades forward, on the impact of the immigrants on their descendants. There are several cultures around the world - for example, the Chinese - that, on the aggregate, make very effective parents. They value education, parent with both love and strict structure, and push their children to achieve. Immigrants from these countries will likely produce high skilled, hard-working children that do not produce social problems, even if the immigrants themselves are low income and without skills. On the other hand, some other groups do not have as effective a parenting culture, in the aggregate. Children might be excessively babied, education may not be as pushed (particularly for girls), discipline might be occasionally very harsh but not consistently applied, a narrative of victimisation and excuse-making can be passed down, or children might be brought up with highly conservative religious views. In theses situations, the next generation is likely to be less skilled and cause more social problems. Now obviously people must be judged as individuals, and there are great immigrants and poor immigrants from every nation. But we must design immigration policy in the aggregate, and we should design a system that encourages the former group of immigrants and less of the latter group.
You could of course bring up Pakistani, Somali, Bengali and West Indian cultures but then the hounds of the anti-racists would be let loose.
Far better to do this than confront the real issues.
I would like to think when I specifically attribute differences in outcomes to the practicalities of parenting rather than any genetic differences that people wouldn't be so stupid, but you never know in this place.
Mr. Royale, I suspect I'd love it, but I just don't play games on my PC. Too many distractions as it is, and I like having gaming on a separate machine (not least because if my PC goes down I can still play games).
It's just a shame so few strategy titles make it onto consoles. Beyond Earth looks great, but the last Civ game I played was II.
Civ II is still the best strategy game of all time, IMHO. I still play it (occasionally) but like you, I struggle to find the time.
Mr. Eagles, the statement did not make Scipio look good, it emphasised that the victory was not due to his command but his soldiers, whereas Hannibal was the better leader but had far less in the way of experienced and competent soldiers.
I really should start charging you for these lessons.
Don't know if you guys are gamers, but you *might* be interested in Rome Total War II:
I found it disappointing to be honest. Medieval total war 2 remains my favourite.
I'm a bit strange. I actually preferred Medieval total war 1.
I loved building the huge fortresses and citadels and seeing the AI smash into them, unsuccessfully, during sieges.
And it was less irritating reaching more remote regions as it was moving en masse from region to region, not a realistic, multiple turn journey to cross the larger ones with difficult terrain.the simpler map and movement had its charms. I enjoyed preparing for the invaion of the golden horde by massing rank after rank of cannon fodder in that region before they arrived.
Yup. It was more fun. I loved the build queue options, the game interface, the game balance, the medieval background music, the crusades, the scenery, and the simple "play mat" strategy board.
I loved re-enacting Agincourt with my longbowmen. Getting ex-communicated could also be fun, lots of battles to fight ;-)
Right, I must get on with my Saturday now. Enjoy your day.
Hmm. Not sure about that. I agree our share of global wealth (over a very long time) will *tend* to approach our global share of population, but we're a long way off that yet. I'll skip over the uber-protectionist stuff. Personally, I think there's a world of difference between free movement of goods, services and money compared to people. It's the last one the electorate are concerned about.
China is suffering from labour shortages and wage inflation, as they can't get the staff. That will push up its costs over time. As countries industralise, develop and demand more they are likely to become more "western" and less prepared to do the nasty hard work for peanuts. SNIP
What rcs1000 skips over is that the varying quality of migrants will make a huge difference long term. Immigration can either be used to skew our population to be more skilled professional families (with any money they bring with them), or we can carry on with the floodgates open and skew it to be more and more low income, low skilled people. Clearly the latter isn't going to help our competitiveness long term.
There's an extra factor here, if we're thinking many decades forward, on the impact of the immigrants on their descendants. There are several cultures around the world - for example, the Chinese - that, on the aggregate, make very effective parents. They value education, parent with both love and strict structure, and push their children to achieve. Immigrants from these countries will likely produce high skilled, hard-working children that do not produce social problems, even if the immigrants themselves are low income and without skills. On the other hand, some other groups do not have as effective a parenting culture, in the aggregate. Children might be excessively babied, education may not be as pushed (particularly for girls), discipline might be occasionally very harsh but not consistently applied, a narrative of victimisation and excuse-making can be passed down, or children might be brought up with highly conservative religious views. In theses situations, the next generation is likely to be less skilled and cause more social problems. Now obviously people must be judged as individuals, and there are great immigrants and poor immigrants from every nation. But we must design immigration policy in the aggregate, and we should design a system that encourages the former group of immigrants and less of the latter group.
Our immigration policy is a confused mix of attracting people with skills, letting in the relatives and spouses of people who come from dysfunctional societies because we feel sorry for them, and free migration from Europe.
- Re-invigorate the Lib Dems as the party of the centre
Do the LDs have an automatic leadership contest after a general election?
I don't think it is automatic but in practice I think there will be one after next May.
My best guess is a minority Labour government, supported in confidence votes by the LibDems, until the LibDems elect a new leadership and coalition negotiation team. Then, by say November next year, there will be a formal coalition between Labour and LibDems.
The new leadership team will include Fallon and Cable but not Clegg, Laws and Alexander.
I have recently rejoined the LibDems to ensure I have a vote on this.
Morning all,
Interesting to read you have rejoined the Libs to get a leadership vote. I wonder if many others are doing so?
Personally, I don't think there'll be a leadership election after May. Clegg will form a coalition with Cameron again and enjoy another couple of years of abuse.
Of course it depends on the electoral arithmetic and the attitude of all the minor parties.
But I am certain that LibDem MPs and members will not be as compliant as they were last time in accepting a coaltion with the Tories. (I and most others voted for the coalition).
If Tories and Labour each have a similar number of MPs, short of a majority then Cameron, as sitting PM, will have first crack and Clegg will attempt to persuade his party to support a coalition with them. I think it is quite likely that he will fail. In honour, he should then resign. If he doesn't then then MPs or local parties will force a leadership election.
In the meantime, Cameron will attempt to govern as a minority but his Queens Speech may well be voted down. In this case Labour will have a chance at a minority government and may well be supported by many LibDem MPs (not Clegg) and perhaps a few from other minor parties. Labour only needs to struggle on for a few months until the LibDems get their act together under new leadership and agree a formal coalition with Labour.
I've got 7/1 at Ladbrokes on a minority Labour Government. I don't know whether they would pay up under the above scenario.
Hmm. Not sure about that. I agree our share of global wealth (over a very long time) will *tend* to approach our global share of population, but we're a long way off that yet. I'll skip over the uber-protectionist stuff. Personally, I think there's a world of difference between free movement of goods, services and money compared to people. It's the last one the electorate are concerned about.
China is suffering from labour shortages and wage inflation, as they can't get the staff. That will push up its costs over time. As countries industralise, develop and demand more they are likely to become more "western" and less prepared to do the nasty hard work for peanuts.
Also, there's a relationship with immigration there: as global wealth/development/democracy spreads, there's less of a pull for economic migrants to come to countries to the UK for the employment opportunities. Thus slowing immigration, absolutely.
I know it's far-fetched, but if the middle-east/north africa/minor asia was stable and peaceful, Africa was rapidly developing with less corruption, and India was far more equitably developed, with the infrastructure to match, I'm not sure all of that would necessarily hold.
China is suffering from wage inflation. How terrible to for them to be getting richer, I wonder have you ever requested a pay cut so as to avoid the horror of wage inflation?
China is moving up the value chain and their workforce can justify the higher wages. Very strange idea that each individual's labour is equal. All men are created unequal and are endowed by their creator with differing abilities.
Hmm. Not sure about that. I agree our share of global wealth (over a very long time) will *tend* to approach our global share of population, but we're a long way off that yet. I'll skip over the uber-protectionist stuff. Personally, I think there's a world of difference between free movement of goods, services and money compared to people. It's the last one the electorate are concerned about.
China is suffering from labour shortages and wage inflation, as they can't get the staff. That will push up its costs over time. As countries industralise, develop and demand more they are likely to become more "western" and less prepared to do the nasty hard work for peanuts.
Also, there's a relationship with immigration there: as global wealth/development/democracy spreads, there's less of a pull for economic migrants to come to countries to the UK for the employment opportunities. Thus slowing immigration, absolutely.
I know it's far-fetched, but if the middle-east/north africa/minor asia was stable and peaceful, Africa was rapidly developing with less corruption, and India was far more equitably developed, with the infrastructure to match, I'm not sure all of that would necessarily hold.
China is suffering from wage inflation. How terrible to for them to be getting richer, I wonder have you ever requested a pay cut so as to avoid the horror of wage inflation?
China is moving up the value chain and their workforce can justify the higher wages. Very strange idea that each individual's labour is equal. All men are created unequal and are endowed by their creator with differing abilities.
The most important differences come in during one's upbringing and education, in my opinion.
What rcs1000 skips over is that the varying quality of migrants will make a huge difference long term. Immigration can either be used to skew our population to be more skilled professional families (with any money they bring with them), or we can carry on with the floodgates open and skew it to be more and more low income, low skilled people. Clearly the latter isn't going to help our competitiveness long term.
There's an extra factor here, if we're thinking many decades forward, on the impact of the immigrants on their descendants. There are several cultures around the world - for example, the Chinese - that, on the aggregate, make very effective parents. They value education, parent with both love and strict structure, and push their children to achieve. Immigrants from these countries will likely produce high skilled, hard-working children that do not produce social problems, even if the immigrants themselves are low income and without skills. On the other hand, some other groups do not have as effective a parenting culture, in the aggregate. Children might be excessively babied, education may not be as pushed (particularly for girls), discipline might be occasionally very harsh but not consistently applied, a narrative of victimisation and excuse-making can be passed down, or children might be brought up with highly conservative religious views. In theses situations, the next generation is likely to be less skilled and cause more social problems. Now obviously people must be judged as individuals, and there are great immigrants and poor immigrants from every nation. But we must design immigration policy in the aggregate, and we should design a system that encourages the former group of immigrants and less of the latter group.
You could of course bring up Pakistani, Somali, Bengali and West Indian cultures but then the hounds of the anti-racists would be let loose.
Far better to do this than confront the real issues.
I would like to think when I specifically attribute differences in outcomes to the practicalities of parenting rather than any genetic differences that people wouldn't be so stupid, but you never know in this place.
Apart from the fact that science has completely debunked your position, you might like to think so, but reality is that there is no such thing as the blank slate. A large number of the left's social policies have failed since there imposition in the 60s precisely because they fail to take this into account.
Hmm. Not sure about that. I agree our share of global wealth (over a very long time) will *tend* to approach our global share of population, but we're a long way off that yet. I'll skip over the uber-protectionist stuff. Personally, I think there's a world of difference between free movement of goods, services and money compared to people. It's the last one the electorate are concerned about.
China is suffering from labour shortages and wage inflation, as they can't get the staff. That will push up its costs over time. As countries industralise, develop and demand more they are likely to become more "western" and less prepared to do the nasty hard work for peanuts.
Also, there's a relationship with immigration there: as global wealth/development/democracy spreads, there's less of a pull for economic migrants to come to countries to the UK for the employment opportunities. Thus slowing immigration, absolutely.
I know it's far-fetched, but if the middle-east/north africa/minor asia was stable and peaceful, Africa was rapidly developing with less corruption, and India was far more equitably developed, with the infrastructure to match, I'm not sure all of that would necessarily hold.
China is suffering from wage inflation. How terrible to for them to be getting richer, I wonder have you ever requested a pay cut so as to avoid the horror of wage inflation?
China is moving up the value chain and their workforce can justify the higher wages. Very strange idea that each individual's labour is equal. All men are created unequal and are endowed by their creator with differing abilities.
The most important differences come in during one's upbringing and education, in my opinion.
You are aware that there has been substantial research into this and that your opinion is wrong.
From a Ukipper's point of view,if there is a Tory led government and an EU referendum,Ukip's raison d'etre, or deluded fantasy,will have gone.For Ukip to continue to progress, the party must continue the eternal benefits of the traveller who never arrives.An EU referendum would not only split the Tories into many pieces.it would mean the question "what is Ukip for now?" needs to be answered.Ukip needs an Ed Miliband led government if it is to have a long game.
Hmm. Not sure about that. I agree our share of global wealth (over a very long time) will *tend* to approach our global share of population, but we're a long way off that yet. I'll skip over the uber-protectionist stuff. Personally, I think there's a world of difference between free movement of goods, services and money compared to people. It's the last one the electorate are concerned about.
China is suffering from labour shortages and wage inflation, as they can't get the staff. That will push up its costs over time. As countries industralise, develop and demand more they are likely to become more "western" and less prepared to do the nasty hard work for peanuts.
Also, there's a relationship with immigration there: as global wealth/development/democracy spreads, there's less of a pull for economic migrants to come to countries to the UK for the employment opportunities. Thus slowing immigration, absolutely.
I know it's far-fetched, but if the middle-east/north africa/minor asia was stable and peaceful, Africa was rapidly developing with less corruption, and India was far more equitably developed, with the infrastructure to match, I'm not sure all of that would necessarily hold.
China is suffering from wage inflation. How terrible to for them to be getting richer, I wonder have you ever requested a pay cut so as to avoid the horror of wage inflation?
China is moving up the value chain and their workforce can justify the higher wages. Very strange idea that each individual's labour is equal. All men are created unequal and are endowed by their creator with differing abilities.
Chinese wages in the Pearl river delta now higher than Mexico. Add in tariffs and transport cost and what is the point of manufacturing stuff in Asia ? On shoring has already started.
What rcs1000 skips over is that the varying quality of migrants will make a huge difference long term. Immigration can either be used to skew our population to be more skilled professional families (with any money they bring with them), or we can carry on with the floodgates open and skew it to be more and more low income, low skilled people. Clearly the latter isn't going to help our competitiveness long term.
SNIP.
You could of course bring up Pakistani, Somali, Bengali and West Indian cultures but then the hounds of the anti-racists would be let loose.
Far better to do this than confront the real issues.
I would like to think when I specifically attribute differences in outcomes to the practicalities of parenting rather than any genetic differences that people wouldn't be so stupid, but you never know in this place.
Apart from the fact that science has completely debunked your position, you might like to think so, but reality is that there is no such thing as the blank slate. A large number of the left's social policies have failed since there imposition in the 60s precisely because they fail to take this into account.
"Science" has not completely debunked my position unless you only pick and choose the bits you want to believe. And I have never claimed such a thing as a blank slate. My argument was that upbringing is more important than genetics. You could be the child of rocket scientists: if you grew up as a street orphan, you're almost certainly not going to be very successful.
Hmm. Not sure about that. I agree our share of global wealth (over a very long time) will *tend* to approach our global share of population, but we're a long way off that yet. I'll skip over the uber-protectionist stuff. Personally, I think there's a world of difference between free movement of goods, services and money compared to people. It's the last one the electorate are concerned about.
China is suffering from labour shortages and wage inflation, as they can't get the staff. That will push up its costs over time. As countries industralise, develop and demand more they are likely to become more "western" and less prepared to do the nasty hard work for peanuts.
Also, there's a relationship with immigration there: as global wealth/development/democracy spreads, there's less of a pull for economic migrants to come to countries to the UK for the employment opportunities. Thus slowing immigration, absolutely.
I know it's far-fetched, but if the middle-east/north africa/minor asia was stable and peaceful, Africa was rapidly developing with less corruption, and India was far more equitably developed, with the infrastructure to match, I'm not sure all of that would necessarily hold.
China is suffering from wage inflation. How terrible to for them to be getting richer, I wonder have you ever requested a pay cut so as to avoid the horror of wage inflation?
China is moving up the value chain and their workforce can justify the higher wages. Very strange idea that each individual's labour is equal. All men are created unequal and are endowed by their creator with differing abilities.
Chinese wages in the Pearl river delta now higher than Mexico. Add in tariffs and transport cost and what is the point of manufacturing stuff in Asia ? On shoring has already started.
Chinese are both smarter and harder working than Mexicans. An hour of their labour is worth much more.
Hmm. Not sure about that. I agree our share of global wealth (over a very long time) will *tend* to approach our global share of population, but we're a long way off that yet. I'll skip over the uber-protectionist stuff. Personally, I think there's a world of difference between free movement of goods, services and money compared to people. It's the last one the electorate are concerned about.
China is suffering from labour shortages and wage inflation, as they can't get the staff. That will push up its costs over time. As countries industralise, develop and demand more they are likely to become more "western" and less prepared to do the nasty hard work for peanuts.
Also, there's a relationship with immigration there: as global wealth/development/democracy spreads, there's less of a pull for economic migrants to come to countries to the UK for the employment opportunities. Thus slowing immigration, absolutely.
I know it's far-fetched, but if the middle-east/north africa/minor asia was stable and peaceful, Africa was rapidly developing with less corruption, and India was far more equitably developed, with the infrastructure to match, I'm not sure all of that would necessarily hold.
China is suffering from wage inflation. How terrible to for them to be getting richer, I wonder have you ever requested a pay cut so as to avoid the horror of wage inflation?
China is moving up the value chain and their workforce can justify the higher wages. Very strange idea that each individual's labour is equal. All men are created unequal and are endowed by their creator with differing abilities.
Chinese wages in the Pearl river delta now higher than Mexico. Add in tariffs and transport cost and what is the point of manufacturing stuff in Asia ? On shoring has already started.
Chinese are both smarter and harder working than Mexicans. An hour of their labour is worth much more.
Proportional representation is obviously an overdue change. However, it has to be done in a manner that maintains the constituency link, and with small enough constituencies that party favourites can actually be voted out. STV with 3-member constituencies would do the trick.
STV is a long time Liberal / LibDem favourite. I believe that 3 or 5 member constituencies was the favourite. One consequence of this would be that most voters would have an MP who was elected for 'their' party, which should help voter engagement.
You do need people to be able to lose on a regular basis, to maintain the necessary electoral pressures in a democracy. Otherwise parties would not feel accountable to the voters. This is why I would prefer 3-members to 5-members.
3 rather than 5 has the benefit of a higher quota in order to be elected, also the multi-member constituencies can be smaller, so more local.
"Last week a UKIP insider told me that if they win tonight's by election in West Thurrock it will be a very positive signal for their GE chances in the constituency... apparently its a very strong area for Labour".
Ukip went backwards on Thursday so now you say
It is a ward Ukip had very little expectation of winning, and makes little or no difference to the chances next year.
I would be interested whether you think Thursdays Thurrock result was good/bad
Yes I said exactly that, and I stand by both
It was/is a very strong labour area, and if Ukip had won it, that would have been a very strong indication that they would walk next years GE in the constituency
As it was there was no change from May, so I would say it was neither good or bad, it was probably the expected result
I don't see how you can confuse what I said pre Thursday as a prediction of Ukip expecting to do well? I said if they won it would more or less be all over
Chinese are both smarter and harder working than Mexicans. An hour of their labour is worth much more.
This is a meaningless debate unless you specify what you're talking about manufacturing. If you're talking about automotives for the US market, of course it's better to do it in Mexico. If you're talking about cutting edge electronics, then China makes a lot more sense.
You 're correct. There are new findings with respect to nature vs nurture. And to complicate matters, nurture now involves epigenetic factors (basically most DNA is not transcribed/translated on a regular basis and the genotype is only a beginning - but a very strong one).
For those interested, googling 'epigentics' will keep you fascinated for hours (but I'm that way inclined anyway).
Hmm. Not sure about that. I agree our share of global wealth (over a very long time) will *tend* to approach our global share of population, but we're a long way off that yet. I'll skip over the uber-protectionist stuff. Personally, I think there's a world of difference between free movement of goods, services and money compared to people. It's the last one the electorate are concerned about.
China is suffering from labour shortages and wage inflation, as they can't get the staff. That will push up its costs over time. As countries industralise, develop and demand more they are likely to become more "western" and less prepared to do the nasty hard work for peanuts.
Also, there's a relationship with immigration there: as global wealth/development/democracy spreads, there's less of a pull for economic migrants to come to countries to the UK for the employment opportunities. Thus slowing immigration, absolutely.
I know it's far-fetched, but if the middle-east/north africa/minor asia was stable and peaceful, Africa was rapidly developing with less corruption, and India was far more equitably developed, with the infrastructure to match, I'm not sure all of that would necessarily hold.
China is suffering from wage inflation. How terrible to for them to be getting richer, I wonder have you ever requested a pay cut so as to avoid the horror of wage inflation?
China is moving up the value chain and their workforce can justify the higher wages. Very strange idea that each individual's labour is equal. All men are created unequal and are endowed by their creator with differing abilities.
The most important differences come in during one's upbringing and education, in my opinion.
Of course its dangerous ideas like yours that led to the left stealing aboriginal children, an idea seemingly being resurrected in the US by the awful Bill De Blasio and his universal pre K to steal black children away from their parents.
From a Ukipper's point of view,if there is a Tory led government and an EU referendum,Ukip's raison d'etre, or deluded fantasy,will have gone.For Ukip to continue to progress, the party must continue the eternal benefits of the traveller who never arrives.An EU referendum would not only split the Tories into many pieces.it would mean the question "what is Ukip for now?" needs to be answered.Ukip needs an Ed Miliband led government if it is to have a long game.
You mean you think the SNP will now vanish. No - A fire-eater has to eat fire even if they have to kindle it themselves. UKIP will continue to exist until their primary goal is acheived (exit from the EU). After that they will become like any other political party with a set of core beliefs.
You 're correct. There are new findings with respect to nature vs nurture. And to complicate matters, nurture now involves epigenetic factors (basically most DNA is not transcribed/translated on a regular basis and the genotype is only a beginning - but a very strong one).
For those interested, googling 'epigentics' will keep you fascinated for hours (but I'm that way inclined anyway).
Of course its dangerous ideas like yours that led to the left stealing aboriginal children, an idea seemingly being resurrected in the US by the awful Bill De Blasio and his universal pre K to steal black children away from their parents.
Now your arguments are descending into farce. Darwin's theory of natural selection was used to justify the Holocaust. That says nothing about the merits of Darwin's theory.
A question for @NickPalmer - if you had been at the Tory conference meeting during which Freud made his faux pas (which any sane person without an agenda must surely concede is all it was), would you have taken the reasonable point that he was making and used it to concoct two untruths to spread around your gullible voters (ie that Freud (and the Tory party) think disabled people are worth less than the able bodied, and that all disabled people should be paid less than the minimum wage), and in so doing make it harder to discuss an important issue and put at risk the chances to work for the severely disabled, and baselessly damage Freud's reputation, all because it damages the Tories and so improves your electoral chances?
Or would you think such action contemptible and reprehensible?
Of course its dangerous ideas like yours that led to the left stealing aboriginal children, an idea seemingly being resurrected in the US by the awful Bill De Blasio and his universal pre K to steal black children away from their parents.
Now your arguments are descending into farce. Darwin's theory of natural selection was used to justify the Holocaust. That says nothing about the merits of Darwin's theory.
The blank slate is a necessary fact for Communism and Lysenkoism was used to justify mass murder (was also inadvertently responsible for a number of crop failures too).
The point is universal pre K won't work as it is based on a false premise. A lot like Labour's Sure Start, an expensive failure that won't be ended because the left will do a Freud smear on anyone who points this out.
You 're correct. There are new findings with respect to nature vs nurture. And to complicate matters, nurture now involves epigenetic factors (basically most DNA is not transcribed/translated on a regular basis and the genotype is only a beginning - but a very strong one).
For those interested, googling 'epigentics' will keep you fascinated for hours (but I'm that way inclined anyway).
Your genes create your environment, even more so as you get older.
The blog post you cite actually argues the reverse: your genes create your environment before you are born, because it means you are more likely to have parents with good genes that read to you. There's an element of circularity to this, of course.
The other huge fallacy in this whole debate is that IQ is the personal attribute that matters most for life success. This was what I naturally assumed as an overly arrogant teenager. My actual experiences confounded this. Intelligence was a bar you need to meet, but once you reach a certain level of brightness, incremental improvements don't count for much outside some very niche professions. Perseverance, discipline, social skills, organisational ability and openness to feedback count for far more.
Of course its dangerous ideas like yours that led to the left stealing aboriginal children, an idea seemingly being resurrected in the US by the awful Bill De Blasio and his universal pre K to steal black children away from their parents.
Now your arguments are descending into farce. Darwin's theory of natural selection was used to justify the Holocaust. That says nothing about the merits of Darwin's theory.
The blank slate is a necessary fact for Communism and Lysenkoism was used to justify mass murder (was also inadvertently responsible for a number of crop failures too).
The point is universal pre K won't work as it is based on a false premise. A lot like Labour's Sure Start, an expensive failure that won't be ended because the left will do a Freud smear on anyone who points this out.
The Left smears anyone who doesn´t sign up to their world view. It must be in their genes.
You 're correct. There are new findings with respect to nature vs nurture. And to complicate matters, nurture now involves epigenetic factors (basically most DNA is not transcribed/translated on a regular basis and the genotype is only a beginning - but a very strong one).
For those interested, googling 'epigentics' will keep you fascinated for hours (but I'm that way inclined anyway).
Your genes create your environment, even more so as you get older.
The blog post you cite actually argues the reverse: your genes create your environment before you are born, because it means you are more likely to have parents with good genes that read to you. There's an element of circularity to this, of course.
The other huge fallacy in this whole debate is that IQ is the personal attribute that matters most for life success. This was what I naturally assumed as an overly arrogant teenager. My actual experiences confounded this. Intelligence was a bar you need to meet, but once you reach a certain level of brightness, incremental improvements don't count for much outside some very niche professions. Perseverance, discipline, social skills, organisational ability and openness to feedback count for far more.
It says the 50% environment is also effected by your genes and that this effect increases with age therefore environmental approaches will have limited impact.
A question for @NickPalmer - if you had been at the Tory conference meeting during which Freud made his faux pas (which any sane person without an agenda must surely concede is all it was), would you have taken the reasonable point that he was making and used it to concoct two untruths to spread around your gullible voters (ie that Freud (and the Tory party).......Or would you think such action contemptible and reprehensible? Or did Ed do it differently from this?
One day our main parties politicians may wake up and realise the damage that negative smearing like this does to the brand image of all politicians. Just as the Conservatives appear to be reduced to a less than 40% vote share so Labour maybe reduced to a 25% to 36% range and the Lib Dems to something under 15%. All three have been moved down to lower ranges. All three smeared and all three parties images look permanently damaged for the short and medium term. Maybe the Leaders need to call a halt to it?
A question for @NickPalmer - if you had been at the Tory conference meeting during which Freud made his faux pas (which any sane person without an agenda must surely concede is all it was), would you have taken the reasonable point that he was making and used it to concoct two untruths to spread around your gullible voters (ie that Freud (and the Tory party).......Or would you think such action contemptible and reprehensible? Or did Ed do it differently from this?
One day our main parties politicians may wake up and realise the damage that negative smearing like this does to the brand image of all politicians. Just as the Conservatives appear to be reduced to a less than 40% vote share so Labour maybe reduced to a 25% to 36% range and the Lib Dems to something under 15%. All three have been moved down to lower ranges. All three smeared and all three parties images look permanently damaged for the short and medium term. Maybe the Leaders need to call a halt to it?
Negative campaigning can be very successful where you only have two parties (as effectively the US does).
once you move to a multi-party system, the Conservatives and Labour drive their combined support down by going negative on each other. Many voters conclude they're both right.
R4 Today 8.10 slot - Freud - the backlash.....mother of disabled daughter agreeing with Freud....
Dan hodges, earlier this week...
@DPJHodges: By the weekend the narrative surrounding Lord Freud will be "you know what, he had a point".
This is very worrying for Ed. We were told initially that he played a blinder, but now it is he and the Labour Party that are being assailed from all sides. I'm reminded of the dog days of IDS - a leader so hapless that even his rare 'wins' somehow always seemed to find a way of turning themselves around and biting him on the backside. Not good.
I think incumbency under STV is being understood wrong. A safe seat in FPTP is much safer than in STV. Intuitively, it would be easier for a Conservative than a Lib Dem to topple a Conservative in Surrey. In fact, it's more likely in large-magnitude constituencies, because in those ones, percentages of the vote give more quotas of first preference votes, and quotas largely determine seats. So a smaller percentage swing means a larger quota swing, so more competitive elections.
District magnitude doesn't matter much for localism in STV. Once you have, say, 4 Conservatives contesting 5 seats, the main logical split is by local differentiation, because policy differences are easily addressed by forming a new party, like Ukip.
So, where does district magnitude matter? There is a small impact on the mechanics of turning votes into seats: 5 is a bit more proportional than 3, and transfers are more important in 3 than 5. Think about it this way: 1-seat STV equals AV, where elections aren't proportional and transfers are really important. The more you increase 1, towards 3 or 5, the more votes translate to seats, so there are fewer transfers. It depends whether you prefer a model favouring larger parties or one that's a little more neutral.
Not much talk on the big news of the day that Danny Alexander not Vince Cable will be the Lib Dems economic spokesman at the election. There was a poll of grassroots Lib Dems that showed that they favoured Vince by 3:1. It's worth bearing in mind that the Lib Dems pride themselves on their democratic party structure. Their manifesto is being looked after by that well known party centrist David Laws. In a way I should feel sorry for them but the membership are clearly wimps and there's only so much sympathy you have have for a wilful doormat.
Labour also has cause for concern, the LDs are already polling low, but that 7% Green poll also coincided with a Labour poll rating of just 32%
Is there a list of where the Greens ar going to have a candidate at GE2015? Also what number of candidates are they likely to have?
They ran 310 last time, if memory serves. With their membership nearly double what it was in 2010 I'd imagine they can afford and will go for a pretty much full slate.
Our immigration policy is a confused mix of attracting people with skills, letting in the relatives and spouses of people who come from dysfunctional societies because we feel sorry for them, and free migration from Europe.
That's rather unfair - there are plenty of legitimate students and spouses/children of British citizens who have to pay the extortionate visa fees to use the system. Most people aren't aware of just how expensive it is.
Comments
If you're interested, please check it out at: http://royaleleseaux.wordpress.com/
It will focus on political betting, but might also cover my thoughts on policy and parties in future too - haven't decided yet.
First post: http://royaleleseaux.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/is-it-worth-betting-on-an-eu-referendum-during-the-lifetime-of-the-next-government/
Honest feedback welcome.
What is cutting edge is always changing. And people on the other side of the world are hungrier and poorer than us, and willing to work for less money.
It is inevitable that our share of the world's wealth is going decline.
We can - as has happened in the US - try hard to be top of the world in emerging technologies, and try and have the best education system, and remember that protecting jobs in the short-run, costs jobs in the long-run (see France).
The alternative is worse. We pull up the moat. We try and save jobs by first preventing people from coming here and taking our jobs. Then we try and keep factories open by preventing people from importing goods which compete with them. We restrict people's freedom to buy from who they want in some desperate attempt to stop times changing. We rage at the world, while we buy our cheap TVs or mobile phones from China.
And all the time, those poor people are getting smarter, and can do what we do for less. And even if we stop an Indian pharmaceutical company selling its drug here to protect our own drug companies, they will beat us in exports to America or Canada or wherever. And they will get richer, and they will compete with us to buy oil from the Middle East.
Our way of life is being destroyed every day because someone somewhere is prepared to do what we do, and will do it a little bit harder and for a little bit less money.
The alternatives are worse.
My wife's college, for example, teaches a course called "Event Management" which every year churns out about 20 people supposedly trained how to put on concerts etc. I wonder if any of them ever have. Most of them seem to end up working in retail.
There really has to be much more responsibility on the part of academic institutions like that not to miss sell fantasies to young, inexperienced and poorly educated kids. Their courses should be much more focussed on what is actually available and needed in the local market. Not as glamorous but a lot more useful.
The Liberal party in Canada was in power for 13 years after 1993. 13 years of Milipedism!! What a thought.
Unlike in 1993 it is unlikely the Tories will be reduced to 2 seats or that UKIP will become the official opposition (weren´t Reform pipped by the BQ by one seat in 1993?).
Open door free migration is mandatory in the EU. I don't blame migrants from coming here one little bit, just as I don't blame British migrants going the other way. But what migrant labour does is suppress wages, and add to that globalisation where you can outsource jobs and and services to cheaper populaces (migration without actually needing migrants). Which is why wages have stagnated and CEOs now earn 129x average wages.
But where we don't help ourselves is that we price people out of the labour market. I remember one vivid example a few years ago where a government minister visited Merthyr Tydfil to bemoan local unemployment, pointing to jobs in Cardiff. That the jobs were shift based on minimum wage with no public transport available early or late, and that many of the unemployed had children where even if the childcare was available for shifts it would completely swallow the wages didn't seem to be understood. Want to combat tax credits, economic inactivity, migration all in one go? Massively subsidise childcare as they do in most civilised countries. Then you get less migrant labour, wages rise, you can cut tax credits.
Or, you can insist no one needs "government handouts", cut them up front, and wonder why your economy just crashed.
The problem with your analysis [and most others both left and right] is the failure to accept that people in most western countries want a much better standard of living than their economies can afford. Unfortunately the markets will win one way or another - we in the west will have to accept economic reality one way or another. We simply cannot tax/spend/borrow our way out of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary
At 25% (latest Survation poll) UKIP's regional strength produces >100 MPs from Southern England.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2789512/record-poll-surge-gives-ukip-25-survey-hand-farage-astonishing-128-mps-puts-ed-miliband-new-low.html
NB
2014 NEV was: UKIP 18%, LD 11%.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP14-33/local-elections-2014
My best guess is a minority Labour government, supported in confidence votes by the LibDems, until the LibDems elect a new leadership and coalition negotiation team. Then, by say November next year, there will be a formal coalition between Labour and LibDems.
The new leadership team will include Fallon and Cable but not Clegg, Laws and Alexander.
I have recently rejoined the LibDems to ensure I have a vote on this.
If what became the Orange Bookers had been as organised as they subsequently became I may never have joined the SDP in the first place (although it was an exciting adventure to be in on the ground floor, so to speak).
Is Stephen Webb not going to be a candidate? He has been an excellent minister, one of the best in the whole government. Probably the best not at cabinet level actually.
Interesting to read you have rejoined the Libs to get a leadership vote. I wonder if many others are doing so?
Personally, I don't think there'll be a leadership election after May. Clegg will form a coalition with Cameron again and enjoy another couple of years of abuse.
As for the polls, we need to be careful to distinguish between prediction and projection. Yes, UKIP is rising and the Lib Dems falling at present and that may continue. However, election campaigns have dynamics of their own, both nationally and within constituencies, and both types tend to favour established parties over newcomers e.g. media time, bar charts based on who 'can win here' etc.
I quite agree with the thread. There shall be no electoral pact.
Mr. Royale, I'd perhaps make the font size a couple of points smaller but that's all I'd suggest.
But as is probably clear from my posts on here I remain a pretty wet, socially liberal, slightly libertarian kind of tory. A bit like that Cameron bloke actually. No wonder he drives UKIPers mad!
If the tories oust Dave, Farage becomes by far the most well known and charismatic figure on the right, except perhaps for Boris.
Farage's aim is to dominate the tories. He isn't as far from succeeding as some might think.
China is suffering from labour shortages and wage inflation, as they can't get the staff. That will push up its costs over time. As countries industralise, develop and demand more they are likely to become more "western" and less prepared to do the nasty hard work for peanuts.
Also, there's a relationship with immigration there: as global wealth/development/democracy spreads, there's less of a pull for economic migrants to come to countries to the UK for the employment opportunities. Thus slowing immigration, absolutely.
I know it's far-fetched, but if the middle-east/north africa/minor asia was stable and peaceful, Africa was rapidly developing with less corruption, and India was far more equitably developed, with the infrastructure to match, I'm not sure all of that would necessarily hold.
Not used Wordpress, but I would guess you can alter that without too much difficulty.
For those lacking in a knowledge of Classical history, it was when Scipio Africanus exposed Hannibal as the overrated and inept military commander we all knew him to be.
There is the suggestion (still to be proven) that as the SNP targets more Labour seats and move leftwards Tartan-Tory types in Perthshire and the NE may move back to the Tories or other unionist parties. So, above average swings to the SNP in the central belt and below average in most other places. This would then put more Labour seats in play.
In 2007 the SNP was 2% ahead of Labour and won about 2/3 of their seats.
I believe our esteemed chancellor even threw a chunk of our wonga toward it.
The SDP changed this as well - they brought a new business-like ethos which some of the traditionalist Liberals resented but after the successes of Eastbourne, Ryedale, Greenwich and the like we needed to get serious and fast. The policy programme for 1987 was shambolic and we were of course hopelessly split on defence but we were organising under the auspices of the ALDC and others.
The disappointment of the 1987 GE and the pain of the merger was acute - I was at the Blackpool meeting which formally endorsed the merger and the new Party and ended the Liberal Party as it had been but the new SLD, later LD, was a clear creation of the post-sandal Liberals and those elements of the SDP who wouldn't or couldn't go off with Owen.
The climb back was meteoric if you think about it - we were almost gone after Richmond but within four years we were winning by-elections like it was going out of fashion. I remember campaigning in the 1993 County elections in Cornwall and working for this lady who turned a Tory majority of 120 to an LD majority of 700 - her face at the count was one of complete and total bewilderment but I could tell even with a day's telling and knocking-up she was going to win and win big - the Tories had either switched or abstained and this was barely a year after winning the 1992 GE.
Obvious political tactics to me. However that said, as the Libdems discovered, it is actually the voters (and HM Queen) who dictate whether and who you go into coalition with.
It may take me a bit of time to get familiar.
For those who lack a knowledge about Waterloo please watch this short video to improve your knowledge about it.
http://youtu.be/Sj_9CiNkkn4
It seems part of the late swing to YES in Sindy were the gloom and doom predictions of economists and industrialists, runs on pound, fears about pensions, etc. Will these likely play out in April-May 2015? They were far too quiet in May 2010 but then Gordon had a story to tell about saving the world economy. It was boolox but at least it was a story.
REd has no such story to tell. If people vote with their wallets it could be a problem for Labour trying to counter these stories of doom. And runs on pound will be happening.
I really should start charging you for these lessons.
http://www.totalwar.com/games/total-war-rome-ii
Epic.
The idea was met with complete derision by anyone who had anything to do with business and was an interesting example of the tensions in the SDP itself. I always had a suspicion that those who rejected ideas like that were the seed bed of the Orange Bookers.
Many LD held seats did not have a Green candidate in the 2010 election. Eg Yeovil, where the Greens but picked up over four thousand votes in the 2014 Euros (only 5,500 behind the Libdems)
I loved building the huge fortresses and citadels and seeing the AI smash into them, unsuccessfully, during sieges.
Even if they do, it will be wafer thin.
I thought UKIP were a protest vote, but I can see them in a nationalist combination with SNP and Plaid getting 20-30 now.
Throw in a greatly diminished LD bloc plus NI.
A sub 300 seat government. Lowest vote share ever for a "winner".
There's an extra factor here, if we're thinking many decades forward, on the impact of the immigrants on their descendants. There are several cultures around the world - for example, the Chinese - that, on the aggregate, make very effective parents. They value education, parent with both love and strict structure, and push their children to achieve. Immigrants from these countries will likely produce high skilled, hard-working children that do not produce social problems, even if the immigrants themselves are low income and without skills. On the other hand, some other groups do not have as effective a parenting culture, in the aggregate. Children might be excessively babied, education may not be as pushed (particularly for girls), discipline might be occasionally very harsh but not consistently applied, a narrative of victimisation and excuse-making can be passed down, or children might be brought up with highly conservative religious views. In theses situations, the next generation is likely to be less skilled and cause more social problems. Now obviously people must be judged as individuals, and there are great immigrants and poor immigrants from every nation. But we must design immigration policy in the aggregate, and we should design a system that encourages the former group of immigrants and less of the latter group.
It's just a shame so few strategy titles make it onto consoles. Beyond Earth looks great, but the last Civ game I played was II.
You could of course bring up Pakistani, Somali, Bengali and West Indian cultures but then the hounds of the anti-racists would be let loose.
Far better to do this than confront the real issues.
I loved re-enacting Agincourt with my longbowmen. Getting ex-communicated could also be fun, lots of battles to fight ;-)
Right, I must get on with my Saturday now. Enjoy your day.
Have you ever played any of the Paradox Interactive games? They seem right up your street.
But I am certain that LibDem MPs and members will not be as compliant as they were last time in accepting a coaltion with the Tories. (I and most others voted for the coalition).
If Tories and Labour each have a similar number of MPs, short of a majority then Cameron, as sitting PM, will have first crack and Clegg will attempt to persuade his party to support a coalition with them. I think it is quite likely that he will fail. In honour, he should then resign. If he doesn't then then MPs or local parties will force a leadership election.
In the meantime, Cameron will attempt to govern as a minority but his Queens Speech may well be voted down. In this case Labour will have a chance at a minority government and may well be supported by many LibDem MPs (not Clegg) and perhaps a few from other minor parties. Labour only needs to struggle on for a few months until the LibDems get their act together under new leadership and agree a formal coalition with Labour.
I've got 7/1 at Ladbrokes on a minority Labour Government. I don't know whether they would pay up under the above scenario.
China is moving up the value chain and their workforce can justify the higher wages. Very strange idea that each individual's labour is equal. All men are created unequal and are endowed by their creator with differing abilities.
When the facts change, change your opinion.
It was/is a very strong labour area, and if Ukip had won it, that would have been a very strong indication that they would walk next years GE in the constituency
As it was there was no change from May, so I would say it was neither good or bad, it was probably the expected result
I don't see how you can confuse what I said pre Thursday as a prediction of Ukip expecting to do well? I said if they won it would more or less be all over
You 're correct. There are new findings with respect to nature vs nurture. And to complicate matters, nurture now involves epigenetic factors (basically most DNA is not transcribed/translated on a regular basis and the genotype is only a beginning - but a very strong one).
For those interested, googling 'epigentics' will keep you fascinated for hours (but I'm that way inclined anyway).
Your genes create your environment, even more so as you get older.
Or would you think such action contemptible and reprehensible?
Or did Ed do it differently from this?
The point is universal pre K won't work as it is based on a false premise. A lot like Labour's Sure Start, an expensive failure that won't be ended because the left will do a Freud smear on anyone who points this out.
The other huge fallacy in this whole debate is that IQ is the personal attribute that matters most for life success. This was what I naturally assumed as an overly arrogant teenager. My actual experiences confounded this. Intelligence was a bar you need to meet, but once you reach a certain level of brightness, incremental improvements don't count for much outside some very niche professions. Perseverance, discipline, social skills, organisational ability and openness to feedback count for far more.
The Left smears anyone who doesn´t sign up to their world view. It must be in their genes.
Yes it is the dominant, but not the only factor.
once you move to a multi-party system, the Conservatives and Labour drive their combined support down by going negative on each other. Many voters conclude they're both right.
http://i.imgur.com/68ihdOp.png
District magnitude doesn't matter much for localism in STV. Once you have, say, 4 Conservatives contesting 5 seats, the main logical split is by local differentiation, because policy differences are easily addressed by forming a new party, like Ukip.
So, where does district magnitude matter? There is a small impact on the mechanics of turning votes into seats: 5 is a bit more proportional than 3, and transfers are more important in 3 than 5. Think about it this way: 1-seat STV equals AV, where elections aren't proportional and transfers are really important. The more you increase 1, towards 3 or 5, the more votes translate to seats, so there are fewer transfers. It depends whether you prefer a model favouring larger parties or one that's a little more neutral.