The Med Migrant problem should not be Italy,s alone.
Agreed. I don't know how Schengen addresses asylum seekers, but IIRC the general principal is that it is only the first country that an asylum seeker makes it to that has the obligation to assess the claim. While that claim is pending, any third country is within rights to refuse entry or even return the claimant to first country of asylum.
Economic migrants without visas are in the EU illegally. They have any rights to freedom of movement within the Schengen area, and hence France and Germany would be within their rights to refuse entry.
Schengen allows them to walk all the way from the heel of Italy to Calais.
The Med Migrant problem should not be Italy,s alone.
Agreed. I don't know how Schengen addresses asylum seekers, but IIRC the general principal is that it is only the first country that an asylum seeker makes it to that has the obligation to assess the claim. While that claim is pending, any third country is within rights to refuse entry or even return the claimant to first country of asylum.
Economic migrants without visas are in the EU illegally. They have any rights to freedom of movement within the Schengen area, and hence France and Germany would be within their rights to refuse entry.
Schengen allows them to walk all the way from the heel of Italy to Calais.
Does Schengen apply to people in the EU illegally, or those in the process of claiming asylum?
The Med Migrant problem should not be Italy,s alone.
Agreed. I don't know how Schengen addresses asylum seekers, but IIRC the general principal is that it is only the first country that an asylum seeker makes it to that has the obligation to assess the claim. While that claim is pending, any third country is within rights to refuse entry or even return the claimant to first country of asylum.
Economic migrants without visas are in the EU illegally. They have any rights to freedom of movement within the Schengen area, and hence France and Germany would be within their rights to refuse entry.
Schengen allows them to walk all the way from the heel of Italy to Calais.
Does Schengen apply to people in the EU illegally, or those in the process of claiming asylum?
There are no border checks between Schengen countries. Once you're arrived there, you can travel between those countries unchallenged.
I walked a short distance across the Franco-Swiss border near CERN in Geneva (I had been to the visitor centre!) back in September. The border posts are still in situ, but completely unmanned.
The Med Migrant problem should not be Italy,s alone.
Agreed. I don't know how Schengen addresses asylum seekers, but IIRC the general principal is that it is only the first country that an asylum seeker makes it to that has the obligation to assess the claim. While that claim is pending, any third country is within rights to refuse entry or even return the claimant to first country of asylum.
Economic migrants without visas are in the EU illegally. They have any rights to freedom of movement within the Schengen area, and hence France and Germany would be within their rights to refuse entry.
Schengen allows them to walk all the way from the heel of Italy to Calais.
Does Schengen apply to people in the EU illegally, or those in the process of claiming asylum?
Schengen means there are no border checks: so you can go from the heel of Italy to Calais.. or to Stockholm... or to Zurich... or to Reykjavik... or to Oslo...
Schengen says nothing about your right to be in any of these countries, merely about your relative ease at crossing borders. An asylum seeker who pitches up in Calibri has no right to reside in Berne, however Schengen means that said asylum seeker is not going to be asked for his passport as he crosses the border.
The Med Migrant problem should not be Italy,s alone.
Agreed. I don't know how Schengen addresses asylum seekers, but IIRC the general principal is that it is only the first country that an asylum seeker makes it to that has the obligation to assess the claim. While that claim is pending, any third country is within rights to refuse entry or even return the claimant to first country of asylum.
Economic migrants without visas are in the EU illegally. They have any rights to freedom of movement within the Schengen area, and hence France and Germany would be within their rights to refuse entry.
Schengen allows them to walk all the way from the heel of Italy to Calais.
Does Schengen apply to people in the EU illegally, or those in the process of claiming asylum?
Schengen means there are no border checks: so you can go from the heel of Italy to Calais.. or to Stockholm... or to Zurich... or to Reykjavik... or to Oslo...
Schengen says nothing about your right to be in any of these countries, merely about your relative ease at crossing borders. An asylum seeker who pitches up in Calibri has no right to reside in Berne, however Schengen means that said asylum seeker is not going to be asked for his passport as he crosses the border.
According to the BBC it is legal under Schengen to have temporary border controls in certain circumstances. The European Commission permitted France to do this in 2011:
The Med Migrant problem should not be Italy,s alone.
Agreed. I don't know how Schengen addresses asylum seekers, but IIRC the general principal is that it is only the first country that an asylum seeker makes it to that has the obligation to assess the claim. While that claim is pending, any third country is within rights to refuse entry or even return the claimant to first country of asylum.
Economic migrants without visas are in the EU illegally. They have any rights to freedom of movement within the Schengen area, and hence France and Germany would be within their rights to refuse entry.
The reason Schengen exists, and why even non EU members such as Switzerland, Iceland and Norway are members, is because Europe has a lot of people in quite close proximity, and there are economic costs associated with having everyone go through passport checks if they're going 30 miles down the road.
There are, of course, costs associated with reducing government checks on people going here-and-there, but the Schengen members have decided that the benefits of saving millions of people hours of time each day is worth it.
The Med Migrant problem should not be Italy,s alone.
Agreed. I don't know how Schengen addresses asylum seekers, but IIRC the general principal is that it is only the first country that an asylum seeker makes it to that has the obligation to assess the claim. While that claim is pending, any third country is within rights to refuse entry or even return the claimant to first country of asylum.
Economic migrants without visas are in the EU illegally. They have any rights to freedom of movement within the Schengen area, and hence France and Germany would be within their rights to refuse entry.
Schengen allows them to walk all the way from the heel of Italy to Calais.
Does Schengen apply to people in the EU illegally, or those in the process of claiming asylum?
Schengen means there are no border checks: so you can go from the heel of Italy to Calais.. or to Stockholm... or to Zurich... or to Reykjavik... or to Oslo...
Schengen says nothing about your right to be in any of these countries, merely about your relative ease at crossing borders. An asylum seeker who pitches up in Calibri has no right to reside in Berne, however Schengen means that said asylum seeker is not going to be asked for his passport as he crosses the border.
According to the BBC it is legal under Schengen to have temporary border controls in certain circumstances. The European Commission permitted France to do this in 2011:
The Med Migrant problem should not be Italy,s alone.
Agreed. I don't know how Schengen addresses asylum seekers, but IIRC the general principal is that it is only the first country that an asylum seeker makes it to that has the obligation to assess the claim. While that claim is pending, any third country is within rights to refuse entry or even return the claimant to first country of asylum.
Economic migrants without visas are in the EU illegally. They have any rights to freedom of movement within the Schengen area, and hence France and Germany would be within their rights to refuse entry.
Schengen allows them to walk all the way from the heel of Italy to Calais.
The radical wing of Greece's Syriza party is to table plans over coming days for an Icelandic-style default and a nationalisation of the Greek banking system, deeming it pointless to continue talks with Europe's creditor powers. Syriza sources say measures being drafted include capital controls and the establishment of a sovereign central bank able to stand behind a new financial system. While some form of dual currency might be possible in theory, such a structure would be incompatible with euro membership and would imply a rapid return to the drachma.
Isn't this kind of a given at this point? I assume the process is "greece defaults on debts, ecb withdraws liquidity, greek banks collapse, greek government nationalises banks, imposes credit controls". Because the greeks have no stones they keep futzing around instead of just going ahead and doing it, but at his point it's about, what, three weeks away? Possibly this week?
As to a forced conversion to non-euro, I hold the minority view that they cannot be forced and may continue on with the Euro, even tho they should convert out. I look forward to discovering what methodology the ECB will use to make them give it up, even though the Greeks have to date disobeyed everything.
"Gabriel said "a couple of game theorists in the Greek government believe that in the end the fear in Europe that Greece might leave (the euro) is so great that we'll agree to anything. That's not the case.""
Ouch!! 'a couple of game theorists'. Now that's a (well-dserved) put down.
I am now 99% convinced that default is going to happen. The only way it does not is if Tsipras caves completely.
Look at the bright side: we don't have long to wait...
On the migrant crisis I feel sorry for Italy - if I was Italian I'd be demanding that my Government insisted on other countries taking their fair share before allowing their boats to dock.
On the Euros, I hope England, Wales and Northern Ireland qualify and the Scots watch it on TV.
TBF It's hardly the toughest group. A Ljubljana taxi driver who happened to be a QPR fan was most insistent that the Slovenian side was actually the Bosnia B team when I was in his cab last year. I'll be gobsmacked if England make it past the 1/4 finals next year.
With anyone arriving in Italy / Greece Med Islands etc under the convention asylum has to be claimed in the first safe country arrived at. I would say that pretty much includes all of Europe so why they end up at Calais is well questionable. Ships rescuing people from the Med for the example are duty bound to assist if a distress signal is given and then return them to a safe port. That's a bit of a tricky one as sometimes you are refused entry or for political or other reasons you cannot enter the territorial waters or the port.
Secondly and the main problem is ( having experienced this first hand with stowaways) they always destroy all their documentation so you cannot identify place of birth / origin / or state. Makes it pretty much impossible to send them back because you have to clearly demonstrate where you send them back too was where they came from originally. You get a lot of resistance to this particularly African States unless they are deserters. Even then tough to get complete acceptance which results in it being much more difficult to return people than you would have thought.
If they make it to the UK they have won as good as. The alternative is at a huge cost and bogged down in paperwork and legal teams for years.
The solution is stop them getting in the boats in the first place because if they do manage to make it offshore then the law of the sea takes over for an passing ship and the rest follows on ad infinitum.
Those Med Migrants don't want to walk up to Sweden ..they want to walk to the land of milk and honey..and massive benefits..The UK.
I think it would be a generally excellent idea if there was a proper, non-partisan, look at different benefits systems around the world.
In particular, we need to start asking what systems incentivise the right behaviour - and I'm not just talking about immigrants, but also our own people.
With anyone arriving in Italy / Greece Med Islands etc under the convention asylum has to be claimed in the first safe country arrived at. I would say that pretty much includes all of Europe so why they end up at Calais is well questionable. Ships rescuing people from the Med for the example are duty bound to assist if a distress signal is given and then return them to a safe port. That's a bit of a tricky one as sometimes you are refused entry or for political or other reasons you cannot enter the territorial waters or the port.
Secondly and the main problem is ( having experienced this first hand with stowaways) they always destroy all their documentation so you cannot identify place of birth / origin / or state. Makes it pretty much impossible to send them back because you have to clearly demonstrate where you send them back too was where they came from originally. You get a lot of resistance to this particularly African States unless they are deserters. Even then tough to get complete acceptance which results in it being much more difficult to return people than you would have thought.
If they make it to the UK they have won as good as. The alternative is at a huge cost and bogged down in paperwork and legal teams for years.
The solution is stop them getting in the boats in the first place because if they do manage to make it offshore then the law of the sea takes over for an passing ship and the rest follows on ad infinitum.
IMHO, we should act like the Australians and turn them back.
On the migrant crisis I feel sorry for Italy - if I was Italian I'd be demanding that my Government insisted on other countries taking their fair share before allowing their boats to dock.
On the Euros, I hope England, Wales and Northern Ireland qualify and the Scots watch it on TV.
There no "fair share". There are lawful methods of immigration to Western countries, and they're trying to breach the system.
On the migrant crisis I feel sorry for Italy - if I was Italian I'd be demanding that my Government insisted on other countries taking their fair share before allowing their boats to dock.
On the Euros, I hope England, Wales and Northern Ireland qualify and the Scots watch it on TV.
There no "fair share". There are lawful methods of immigration to Western countries, and they're trying to breach the system.
I don't disagree with what you say. What I'm pointing out is that our Government is acting out of shame without actually having to deal with the consequences of rescuing these people. I think the Italians have a right to be miffed.
With anyone arriving in Italy / Greece Med Islands etc under the convention asylum has to be claimed in the first safe country arrived at. I would say that pretty much includes all of Europe so why they end up at Calais is well questionable. Ships rescuing people from the Med for the example are duty bound to assist if a distress signal is given and then return them to a safe port. That's a bit of a tricky one as sometimes you are refused entry or for political or other reasons you cannot enter the territorial waters or the port.
Secondly and the main problem is ( having experienced this first hand with stowaways) they always destroy all their documentation so you cannot identify place of birth / origin / or state. Makes it pretty much impossible to send them back because you have to clearly demonstrate where you send them back too was where they came from originally. You get a lot of resistance to this particularly African States unless they are deserters. Even then tough to get complete acceptance which results in it being much more difficult to return people than you would have thought.
If they make it to the UK they have won as good as. The alternative is at a huge cost and bogged down in paperwork and legal teams for years.
The solution is stop them getting in the boats in the first place because if they do manage to make it offshore then the law of the sea takes over for an passing ship and the rest follows on ad infinitum.
That's perfectly reasonable, however there is no one left in North Africa or Turkey to stop them getting on those boats.
Gaddafi was the only one who struck a deal with Italy to stop the boats, but he's no longer alive. And Turkey will refuse, as they think the migrants help destabilize Greece.
Going for the Nuclear option .. This will soon become commonplace..The French are stopping the med boat migrants from Italy at Ventimiglia and the Germans are stopping them at the Brenner Pass...This seems to be breaking all of the EU rules re freedom of movement.
Surely, "freedom of movement" applies only to EU citizens.
MTimT..I agree ...but right now Italy is really being hit hard and I personally feel that the rest of the EU is reluctant to get in there and help out..This is not a good thing for the EU in general and it needs to be resolved rather quickly..This situation bolsters the claims of the BOO campaign
Amazing how the EU gets subsidiarity wrong on pretty much every issue. If there one thing where the burden should be shared evenly across the entire Union, then it is refugees and migrants.
The Med Migrant problem should not be Italy,s alone.
Agreed. I don't know how Schengen addresses asylum seekers, but IIRC the general principal is that it is only the first country that an asylum seeker makes it to that has the obligation to assess the claim. While that claim is pending, any third country is within rights to refuse entry or even return the claimant to first country of asylum.
Economic migrants without visas are in the EU illegally. They have any rights to freedom of movement within the Schengen area, and hence France and Germany would be within their rights to refuse entry.
The reason Schengen exists, and why even non EU members such as Switzerland, Iceland and Norway are members, is because Europe has a lot of people in quite close proximity, and there are economic costs associated with having everyone go through passport checks if they're going 30 miles down the road.
There are, of course, costs associated with reducing government checks on people going here-and-there, but the Schengen members have decided that the benefits of saving millions of people hours of time each day is worth it.
Robert, I get that. What I am talking about is not the practicalities of having no border controls, but the legal rights of countries to refuse entry to or return asylum seekers and illegal migrants.
Those Med Migrants don't want to walk up to Sweden ..they want to walk to the land of milk and honey..and massive benefits..The UK.
I think it would be a generally excellent idea if there was a proper, non-partisan, look at different benefits systems around the world.
In particular, we need to start asking what systems incentivise the right behaviour - and I'm not just talking about immigrants, but also our own people.
Going for the Nuclear option .. This will soon become commonplace..The French are stopping the med boat migrants from Italy at Ventimiglia and the Germans are stopping them at the Brenner Pass...This seems to be breaking all of the EU rules re freedom of movement.
Surely, "freedom of movement" applies only to EU citizens.
There is no freedom of movement for non EU citizens (or specifically, for people who are citizens of countries who do not have arrangements with the EU). Schengen has nothing to say about eligibility to reside in a country, all it does is remove the border checks between countries.
The Med Migrant problem should not be Italy,s alone.
Agreed. I don't know how Schengen addresses asylum seekers, but IIRC the general principal is that it is only the first country that an asylum seeker makes it to that has the obligation to assess the claim. While that claim is pending, any third country is within rights to refuse entry or even return the claimant to first country of asylum.
Economic migrants without visas are in the EU illegally. They have any rights to freedom of movement within the Schengen area, and hence France and Germany would be within their rights to refuse entry.
The reason Schengen exists, and why even non EU members such as Switzerland, Iceland and Norway are members, is because Europe has a lot of people in quite close proximity, and there are economic costs associated with having everyone go through passport checks if they're going 30 miles down the road.
There are, of course, costs associated with reducing government checks on people going here-and-there, but the Schengen members have decided that the benefits of saving millions of people hours of time each day is worth it.
Robert, I get that. What I am talking about is not the practicalities of having no border controls, but the legal rights of countries to refuse entry to or return asylum seekers and illegal migrants.
You have full rights to deport someone.
But you have to be able to say to where. If someone is discovered in France without appropriate papers, to where should they be deported?
Those Med Migrants don't want to walk up to Sweden ..they want to walk to the land of milk and honey..and massive benefits..The UK.
I think it would be a generally excellent idea if there was a proper, non-partisan, look at different benefits systems around the world.
In particular, we need to start asking what systems incentivise the right behaviour - and I'm not just talking about immigrants, but also our own people.
Sounds like you have just read 'Nudge'
The first lines of The Armchair Economist are something like: "People respond to incentives. That is the essence of economics, and the rest is filler."
I'm trying to remember the last Chancellor who went on to become a successful Prime Minister. John Major I suppose though he was only Chancellor for a year and presented just one Budget and his parallel from the 1950s, Harold Macmillan.
Before that you'd be looking at Chamberlain and Baldwin from the inter-war years.
Being a long-serving Chancellor hasn't been a ticket to a long or even short period next door in recent times and if we're going to follow the "Caesar" analogy, perhaps he'll find all the party behind him one day (and there's another parallel with Macmillan).
1. Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) 2. Alan Johnson (Hull West and Hessle) 3. Andrew Smith (Oxford East) 4. Angela Eagle 5. Barry Gardiner 6. Ben Bradshaw 7. Caroline Flint (Don Valley) 8. Clive Efford (Eltham) 9. David Lammy (Tottenham) 10. David Winnick (Walsall North) 11. Ed Miliband (Doncaster North) 12. Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) 13. Gerald Kaufman 14. Gordon Marsden 15. Graham Allen 16. Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) 17. Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) 18. Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) 19. Ian Lucas (Wrexham) 20. Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) 21. Imran Hussain (Bradford East) 22. John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) 23. Jon Cruddas 24. Keith Vaz (Leicester East) 25. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) 26. Madeleine Moon 27. Margaret Beckett (Derby South) 28. Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) 29. Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) 30. Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) 31. Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) 32. Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) 33. Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) 34. Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) 35. Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Hall Green) 36. Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) 37. Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) 38. Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) 39. Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) 40. Sadiq Khan (Tooting) 41. Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) 42. Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) 43. Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) 44. Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) 45. Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) 46. Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn)
I'm trying to remember the last Chancellor who went on to become a successful Prime Minister. John Major I suppose though he was only Chancellor for a year and presented just one Budget and his parallel from the 1950s, Harold Macmillan.
Before that you'd be looking at Chamberlain and Baldwin from the inter-war years.
Being a long-serving Chancellor hasn't been a ticket to a long or even short period next door in recent times and if we're going to follow the "Caesar" analogy, perhaps he'll find all the party behind him one day (and there's another parallel with Macmillan).
I've always thought fate, history and the trade unions conspired badly against James Callaghan.
I know he didn't go directly from being Chancellor to PM but he was an ex Chancellor who became PM
IMO the next Tory leader ought to be either Sajid Javid, Theresa May or Philip Hammond. Instead the frontrunners are Boris Johnson, George Osborne and Zac Goldsmith.
With anyone arriving in Italy / Greece Med Islands etc under the convention asylum has to be claimed in the first safe country arrived at. I would say that pretty much includes all of Europe so why they end up at Calais is well questionable. Ships rescuing people from the Med for the example are duty bound to assist if a distress signal is given and then return them to a safe port. That's a bit of a tricky one as sometimes you are refused entry or for political or other reasons you cannot enter the territorial waters or the port.
Secondly and the main problem is ( having experienced this first hand with stowaways) they always destroy all their documentation so you cannot identify place of birth / origin / or state. Makes it pretty much impossible to send them back because you have to clearly demonstrate where you send them back too was where they came from originally. You get a lot of resistance to this particularly African States unless they are deserters. Even then tough to get complete acceptance which results in it being much more difficult to return people than you would have thought.
If they make it to the UK they have won as good as. The alternative is at a huge cost and bogged down in paperwork and legal teams for years.
The solution is stop them getting in the boats in the first place because if they do manage to make it offshore then the law of the sea takes over for an passing ship and the rest follows on ad infinitum.
That's perfectly reasonable, however there is no one left in North Africa or Turkey to stop them getting on those boats.
Gaddafi was the only one who struck a deal with Italy to stop the boats, but he's no longer alive. And Turkey will refuse, as they think the migrants help destabilize Greece.
Indeed. This may well have to be done covertly however distasteful because if nothing is done whatsoever then this trickle is just the start. The coming exodus will just become overwhelming and fall on those countries least able to afford or even deal with such an influx.
1. Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) 2. Alan Johnson (Hull West and Hessle) 3. Andrew Smith (Oxford East) 4. Angela Eagle 5. Barry Gardiner 6. Ben Bradshaw 7. Caroline Flint (Don Valley) 8. Clive Efford (Eltham) 9. David Lammy (Tottenham) 10. David Winnick (Walsall North) 11. Ed Miliband (Doncaster North) 12. Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) 13. Gerald Kaufman 14. Gordon Marsden 15. Graham Allen 16. Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) 17. Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) 18. Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) 19. Ian Lucas (Wrexham) 20. Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) 21. Imran Hussain (Bradford East) 22. John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) 23. Jon Cruddas 24. Keith Vaz (Leicester East) 25. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) 26. Madeleine Moon 27. Margaret Beckett (Derby South) 28. Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) 29. Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) 30. Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) 31. Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) 32. Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) 33. Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) 34. Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) 35. Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Hall Green) 36. Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) 37. Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) 38. Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) 39. Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) 40. Sadiq Khan (Tooting) 41. Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) 42. Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) 43. Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) 44. Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) 45. Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) 46. Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn)
Maybe less than 46
Not sure about this but Would the deputy contenders express a preference for the leader? Be a bit tricky if as voted in as deputy the leader was not one you as the deputy supported? It may even be viewed as a split before they even got started I would have thought.
The Med Migrant problem should not be Italy,s alone.
Agreed. I don't know how Schengen addresses asylum seekers, but IIRC the general principal is that it is only the first country that an asylum seeker makes it to that has the obligation to assess the claim. While that claim is pending, any third country is within rights to refuse entry or even return the claimant to first country of asylum.
Economic migrants without visas are in the EU illegally. They have any rights to freedom of movement within the Schengen area, and hence France and Germany would be within their rights to refuse entry.
The reason Schengen exists, and why even non EU members such as Switzerland, Iceland and Norway are members, is because Europe has a lot of people in quite close proximity, and there are economic costs associated with having everyone go through passport checks if they're going 30 miles down the road.
There are, of course, costs associated with reducing government checks on people going here-and-there, but the Schengen members have decided that the benefits of saving millions of people hours of time each day is worth it.
Is that really the point of Schengen? Saving passport checks? It strikes me as more of a political treaty to back up and create wider economic political area. There may be gains to be had in this to wider businesses and economies of Europe's countries- thats for people to argue and discuss, but I do not see any savings as being merely border checks. The point of Schengen is that once a person makes a legal entry into the Schengen area they can move freely thereafter. This does not apply to illegal immigrants.
How George Osborne would win a leadership contest if it was held under AV?
Technically speaking the Tory leadership election is conducted under a form of AV.
It's NOT AV - you only get one vote per round...
That's why I said a form of AV.
Remember, not only am PB's foremost expert on Pop Music & Classical History, I'm also PB's foremost expert on AV and electoral reform.
It's Exhaustive Ballot, NOT AV, dear TSE!
You don't rank the Tory candidates in preference "1, 2 ,3"...
That's why I said a form of AV.
From the FOAK: Instant-runoff voting In some respects the exhaustive ballot closely resembles instant-runoff voting (also known as the 'Alternative Vote').
But you have to be able to say to where. If someone is discovered in France without appropriate papers, to where should they be deported?
There is an important distinction, in this jurisdiction at least, between deportation and removal. The idea behind the Dublin II Regulation is that it gives effect to principle of non-refoulement, rather than an obligation to accept refugees. The former is a core principle of international law. The latter is not. The first country which is a signatory to the Convention in which asylum seekers are found is supposed to record their details and take their fingerprints, as well as determine their application for asylum. If they are found in another country which is a signatory to the convention, the idea is that the second country has a right to remove them to the first country. If the system worked*, it would be an excellent one. Indeed, several non-EU member states are signatories to the Convention.
*Notably, some countries in southern Europe do not really bother to enforce it, knowing that if they turn a blind eye to someone who ought to be on their radar, it will be another country's problem. There is also the difficulty that removing asylum seekers to some countries in southern Europe has been held to constitute inhuman and degrading treatment due to the poor conditions in which they are kept, and the endless delays in processing applications.
How George Osborne would win a leadership contest if it was held under AV?
Technically speaking the Tory leadership election is conducted under a form of AV.
It's NOT AV - you only get one vote per round...
That's why I said a form of AV.
Remember, not only am PB's foremost expert on Pop Music & Classical History, I'm also PB's foremost expert on AV and electoral reform.
It's Exhaustive Ballot, NOT AV, dear TSE!
You don't rank the Tory candidates in preference "1, 2 ,3"...
That's why I said a form of AV.
From the FOAK: Instant-runoff voting In some respects the exhaustive ballot closely resembles instant-runoff voting (also known as the 'Alternative Vote').
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
How George Osborne would win a leadership contest if it was held under AV?
Technically speaking the Tory leadership election is conducted under a form of AV.
It's NOT AV - you only get one vote per round...
That's why I said a form of AV.
Remember, not only am PB's foremost expert on Pop Music & Classical History, I'm also PB's foremost expert on AV and electoral reform.
It's Exhaustive Ballot, NOT AV, dear TSE!
You don't rank the Tory candidates in preference "1, 2 ,3"...
That's why I said a form of AV.
From the FOAK: Instant-runoff voting In some respects the exhaustive ballot closely resembles instant-runoff voting (also known as the 'Alternative Vote').
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
OK? Got it?
od!
I get it, we need more threads on electoral voting systems on PB.
The Med Migrant problem should not be Italy,s alone.
Agreed. I don't know how Schengen addresses asylum seekers, but IIRC the general principal is that it is only the first country that an asylum seeker makes it to that has the obligation to assess the claim. While that claim is pending, any third country is within rights to refuse entry or even return the claimant to first country of asylum.
Economic migrants without visas are in the EU illegally. They have any rights to freedom of movement within the Schengen area, and hence France and Germany would be within their rights to refuse entry.
The reason Schengen exists, and why even non EU members such as Switzerland, Iceland and Norway are members, is because Europe has a lot of people in quite close proximity, and there are economic costs associated with having everyone go through passport checks if they're going 30 miles down the road.
There are, of course, costs associated with reducing government checks on people going here-and-there, but the Schengen members have decided that the benefits of saving millions of people hours of time each day is worth it.
Is that really the point of Schengen? Saving passport checks? It strikes me as more of a political treaty to back up and create wider economic political area. There may be gains to be had in this to wider businesses and economies of Europe's countries- thats for people to argue and discuss, but I do not see any savings as being merely border checks. The point of Schengen is that once a person makes a legal entry into the Schengen area they can move freely thereafter. This does not apply to illegal immigrants.
They can MOVE freely, as the border posts are no longer manned. I illustrated my example of the Franco-Swiss border near CERN upthread.
The Med Migrant problem should not be Italy,s alone.
Agreed. I don't know how Schengen addresses asylum seekers, but IIRC the general principal is that it is only the first country that an asylum seeker makes it to that has the obligation to assess the claim. While that claim is pending, any third country is within rights to refuse entry or even return the claimant to first country of asylum.
Economic migrants without visas are in the EU illegally. They have any rights to freedom of movement within the Schengen area, and hence France and Germany would be within their rights to refuse entry.
The reason Schengen exists, and why even non EU members such as Switzerland, Iceland and Norway are members, is because Europe has a lot of people in quite close proximity, and there are economic costs associated with having everyone go through passport checks if they're going 30 miles down the road.
There are, of course, costs associated with reducing government checks on people going here-and-there, but the Schengen members have decided that the benefits of saving millions of people hours of time each day is worth it.
Is that really the point of Schengen? Saving passport checks? It strikes me as more of a political treaty to back up and create wider economic political area. There may be gains to be had in this to wider businesses and economies of Europe's countries- thats for people to argue and discuss, but I do not see any savings as being merely border checks. The point of Schengen is that once a person makes a legal entry into the Schengen area they can move freely thereafter. This does not apply to illegal immigrants.
No, that's a consequence of Schengen. The point of it is exactly as rcs1000 has stated. It's not there for the convenience of tourists but for the convenience of the existing residents of the countries which are part of it, and that is so compelling that countries which are outside the EU political project have seen fit to join it.
Unlike you, Sunil, I was paying attention in class when this was last discussed on PB *grin*
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
How George Osborne would win a leadership contest if it was held under AV?
Technically speaking the Tory leadership election is conducted under a form of AV.
It's NOT AV - you only get one vote per round...
That's why I said a form of AV.
Remember, not only am PB's foremost expert on Pop Music & Classical History, I'm also PB's foremost expert on AV and electoral reform.
It's Exhaustive Ballot, NOT AV, dear TSE!
You don't rank the Tory candidates in preference "1, 2 ,3"...
That's why I said a form of AV.
From the FOAK: Instant-runoff voting In some respects the exhaustive ballot closely resembles instant-runoff voting (also known as the 'Alternative Vote').
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
OK? Got it?
od!
I get it, we need more threads on electoral voting systems on PB.
I shall do my best
I'd be grateful if you would assign blame where blame is due and indicate clearly on each thread that Sunil is the guilty party responsible.
All multi-round runoff voting systems allow voters to change their preferences in each round, incorporating the results of the prior round to influence their decision. This is not possible in IRV (aka. AV), as participants vote only once, and this prohibits certain forms of tactical voting that can be prevalent in 'standard' runoff voting.
But you have to be able to say to where. If someone is discovered in France without appropriate papers, to where should they be deported?
There is an important distinction, in this jurisdiction at least, between deportation and removal. The idea behind the Dublin II Regulation is that it gives effect to principle of non-refoulement, rather than an obligation to accept refugees. The former is a core principle of international law. The latter is not. The first country which is a signatory to the Convention in which asylum seekers are found is supposed to record their details and take their fingerprints, as well as determine their application for asylum. If they are found in another country which is a signatory to the convention, the idea is that the second country has a right to remove them to the first country. If the system worked*, it would be an excellent one. Indeed, several non-EU member states are signatories to the Convention.
*Notably, some countries in southern Europe do not really bother to enforce it, knowing that if they turn a blind eye to someone who ought to be on their radar, it will be another country's problem. There is also the difficulty that removing asylum seekers to some countries in southern Europe has been held to constitute inhuman and degrading treatment due to the poor conditions in which they are kept, and the endless delays in processing applications.
Just the other day the The lady Mayor of Calais was demanding the the UK open the borders to relieve the pressure on the town of Calais. That's for all the immigrants that have travelled across the EU to get to the UK. It was a rather perverse and reverse interpretation of the Removal system.
How George Osborne would win a leadership contest if it was held under AV?
Technically speaking the Tory leadership election is conducted under a form of AV.
It's NOT AV - you only get one vote per round...
That's why I said a form of AV.
Remember, not only am PB's foremost expert on Pop Music & Classical History, I'm also PB's foremost expert on AV and electoral reform.
It's Exhaustive Ballot, NOT AV, dear TSE!
You don't rank the Tory candidates in preference "1, 2 ,3"...
That's why I said a form of AV.
From the FOAK: Instant-runoff voting In some respects the exhaustive ballot closely resembles instant-runoff voting (also known as the 'Alternative Vote').
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
OK? Got it?
od!
I get it, we need more threads on electoral voting systems on PB.
I shall do my best
I'd be grateful if you would assign blame where blame is due and indicate clearly on each thread that Sunil is the guilty party responsible.
I'll credit Sunil like I did with Danny 565 on this thread.
How George Osborne would win a leadership contest if it was held under AV?
Technically speaking the Tory leadership election is conducted under a form of AV.
It's NOT AV - you only get one vote per round...
That's why I said a form of AV.
Remember, not only am PB's foremost expert on Pop Music & Classical History, I'm also PB's foremost expert on AV and electoral reform.
It's Exhaustive Ballot, NOT AV, dear TSE!
You don't rank the Tory candidates in preference "1, 2 ,3"...
That's why I said a form of AV.
From the FOAK: Instant-runoff voting In some respects the exhaustive ballot closely resembles instant-runoff voting (also known as the 'Alternative Vote').
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
OK? Got it?
od!
I get it, we need more threads on electoral voting systems on PB.
I shall do my best
I'd be grateful if you would assign blame where blame is due and indicate clearly on each thread that Sunil is the guilty party responsible.
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
How George Osborne would win a leadership contest if it was held under AV?
Technically speaking the Tory leadership election is conducted under a form of AV.
It's NOT AV - you only get one vote per round...
That's why I said a form of AV.
Remember, not only am PB's foremost expert on Pop Music & Classical History, I'm also PB's foremost expert on AV and electoral reform.
It's Exhaustive Ballot, NOT AV, dear TSE!
You don't rank the Tory candidates in preference "1, 2 ,3"...
That's why I said a form of AV.
From the FOAK: Instant-runoff voting In some respects the exhaustive ballot closely resembles instant-runoff voting (also known as the 'Alternative Vote').
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
OK? Got it?
od!
I get it, we need more threads on electoral voting systems on PB.
I shall do my best
I'd be grateful if you would assign blame where blame is due and indicate clearly on each thread that Sunil is the guilty party responsible.
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
OK? Got it?
Good!
Would you be happier with saying that AV is a form of exhaustive ballot in which every round is cast at once?
How George Osborne would win a leadership contest if it was held under AV?
Technically speaking the Tory leadership election is conducted under a form of AV.
It's NOT AV - you only get one vote per round...
That's why I said a form of AV.
Remember, not only am PB's foremost expert on Pop Music & Classical History, I'm also PB's foremost expert on AV and electoral reform.
It's Exhaustive Ballot, NOT AV, dear TSE!
You don't rank the Tory candidates in preference "1, 2 ,3"...
That's why I said a form of AV.
From the FOAK: Instant-runoff voting In some respects the exhaustive ballot closely resembles instant-runoff voting (also known as the 'Alternative Vote').
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
OK? Got it?
od!
I get it, we need more threads on electoral voting systems on PB.
I shall do my best
I'd be grateful if you would assign blame where blame is due and indicate clearly on each thread that Sunil is the guilty party responsible.
I'll credit Sunil like I did with Danny 565 on this thread.
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
ALTERNATIVE vote means you can vote for more than one candidate per round. You can't do that in each round of the EXHAUSTIVE BALLOT that is the Tory election.
Unlike you, Sunil, I was paying attention in class when this was last discussed on PB *grin*
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
OK? Got it?
Good!
Could anyone explain the merits of the various types of voting systems?
1. Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) 2. Alan Johnson (Hull West and Hessle) 3. Andrew Smith (Oxford East) 4. Angela Eagle 5. Barry Gardiner 6. Ben Bradshaw 7. Caroline Flint (Don Valley) 8. Clive Efford (Eltham) 9. David Lammy (Tottenham) 10. David Winnick (Walsall North) 11. Ed Miliband (Doncaster North) 12. Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) 13. Gerald Kaufman 14. Gordon Marsden 15. Graham Allen 16. Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) 17. Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) 18. Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) 19. Ian Lucas (Wrexham) 20. Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) 21. Imran Hussain (Bradford East) 22. John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) 23. Jon Cruddas 24. Keith Vaz (Leicester East) 25. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) 26. Madeleine Moon 27. Margaret Beckett (Derby South) 28. Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) 29. Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) 30. Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) 31. Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) 32. Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) 33. Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) 34. Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) 35. Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Hall Green) 36. Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) 37. Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) 38. Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) 39. Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) 40. Sadiq Khan (Tooting) 41. Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) 42. Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) 43. Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) 44. Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) 45. Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) 46. Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn)
Maybe less than 46
Not sure about this but Would the deputy contenders express a preference for the leader? Be a bit tricky if as voted in as deputy the leader was not one you as the deputy supported? It may even be viewed as a split before they even got started I would have thought.
Reading this list I was surprised to see Gerald Kaufman is still an MP. Apparently he is the new Father of the House.
How George Osborne would win a leadership contest if it was held under AV?
Technically speaking the Tory leadership election is conducted under a form of AV.
It's NOT AV - you only get one vote per round...
That's why I said a form of AV.
Remember, not only am PB's foremost expert on Pop Music & Classical History, I'm also PB's foremost expert on AV and electoral reform.
It's Exhaustive Ballot, NOT AV, dear TSE!
You don't rank the Tory candidates in preference "1, 2 ,3"...
That's why I said a form of AV.
From the FOAK: Instant-runoff voting In some respects the exhaustive ballot closely resembles instant-runoff voting (also known as the 'Alternative Vote').
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
OK? Got it?
od!
I get it, we need more threads on electoral voting systems on PB.
I shall do my best
I'd be grateful if you would assign blame where blame is due and indicate clearly on each thread that Sunil is the guilty party responsible.
I'll credit Sunil like I did with Danny 565 on this thread.
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
ALTERNATIVE vote means you can vote for more than one candidate per round. You can't do that in each round of the EXHAUSTIVE BALLOT that is the Tory election.
OK? Got it?
Good!
We should save this discussion for the thread on AV which should be published this week.
The Med Migrant problem should not be Italy,s alone.
Agreed. I don't know how Schengen addresses asylum seekers, but IIRC the general principal is that it is only the first country that an asylum seeker makes it to that has the obligation to assess the claim. While that claim is pending, any third country is within rights to refuse entry or even return the claimant to first country of asylum.
Economic migrants without visas are in the EU illegally. They have any rights to freedom of movement within the Schengen area, and hence France and Germany would be within their rights to refuse entry.
The reason Schengen exists, and why even non EU members such as Switzerland, Iceland and Norway are members, is because Europe has a lot of people in quite close proximity, and there are economic costs associated with having everyone go through passport checks if they're going 30 miles down the road.
There are, of course, costs associated with reducing government checks on people going here-and-there, but the Schengen members have decided that the benefits of saving millions of people hours of time each day is worth it.
Is that really the point of Schengen? Saving passport checks? It strikes me as more of a political treaty to back up and create wider economic political area. There may be gains to be had in this to wider businesses and economies of Europe's countries- thats for people to argue and discuss, but I do not see any savings as being merely border checks. The point of Schengen is that once a person makes a legal entry into the Schengen area they can move freely thereafter. This does not apply to illegal immigrants.
Ummm... if it was seen as largely a political treaty, you wouldn't have Switzerland and the EFTA members as signatories.
I think, as an island nation, we have a bit of a different perspective on this to the average continental. If you are entering or leaving the UK, you are almost certainly doing it via one of a small number of airports or ports. And this means the cost of enforecement is low, and the cost of compliance is low.
By contrast, in Belgium or Luxembourg or France or Germany, there will be thousands upon thousands of roads, each of which needed a man in a cabinet to check passports. It was expensive to maintain, it caused problems when someone left their passport in a bar, and it meant that people would sometimes be late for work or shipments would be delayed. The decision to pursue Schengen, which was initially outside the EU, was predominantly an economic one.
How George Osborne would win a leadership contest if it was held under AV?
Technically speaking the Tory leadership election is conducted under a form of AV.
It's NOT AV - you only get one vote per round...
That's why I said a form of AV.
Remember, not only am PB's foremost expert on Pop Music & Classical History, I'm also PB's foremost expert on AV and electoral reform.
It's Exhaustive Ballot, NOT AV, dear TSE!
You don't rank the Tory candidates in preference "1, 2 ,3"...
That's why I said a form of AV.
From the FOAK: Instant-runoff voting In some respects the exhaustive ballot closely resembles instant-runoff voting (also known as the 'Alternative Vote').
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
OK? Got it?
od!
I get it, we need more threads on electoral voting systems on PB.
I shall do my best
I'd be grateful if you would assign blame where blame is due and indicate clearly on each thread that Sunil is the guilty party responsible.
I'll credit Sunil like I did with Danny 565 on this thread.
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
ALTERNATIVE vote means you can vote for more than one candidate per round. You can't do that in each round of the EXHAUSTIVE BALLOT that is the Tory election.
OK? Got it?
Good!
Thank the Gods TSE did his PhD on the glorious "Alternative Vote"... we here on PB await his magnum opus on the subject with great anticipation.
The NatWest t20 Blast game between Sussex and Surrey has been abandoned after Rory Burns and Moises Henriques collided going for a catch. Three ambulances were brought on to the pitch to treat the Surrey duo after they clashed heads. Both players were conscious as they left the field and departed for further treatment at hospital.
Sussex CCC posted on Twitter: 'A nasty collision in the deep as two Surrey players converge to try and take the same catch. Physios rush on. Let's hope they're okay.
How George Osborne would win a leadership contest if it was held under AV?
Technically speaking the Tory leadership election is conducted under a form of AV.
It's NOT AV - you only get one vote per round...
That's why I said a form of AV.
Remember, not only am PB's foremost expert on Pop Music & Classical History, I'm also PB's foremost expert on AV and electoral reform.
It's Exhaustive Ballot, NOT AV, dear TSE!
You don't rank the Tory candidates in preference "1, 2 ,3"...
That's why I said a form of AV.
From the FOAK: Instant-runoff voting In some respects the exhaustive ballot closely resembles instant-runoff voting (also known as the 'Alternative Vote').
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
OK? Got it?
od!
I get it, we need more threads on electoral voting systems on PB.
I shall do my best
I'd be grateful if you would assign blame where blame is due and indicate clearly on each thread that Sunil is the guilty party responsible.
I'll credit Sunil like I did with Danny 565 on this thread.
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
ALTERNATIVE vote means you can vote for more than one candidate per round. You can't do that in each round of the EXHAUSTIVE BALLOT that is the Tory election.
OK? Got it?
Good!
We should save this discussion for the thread on AV which should be published this week.
PB Tories should at least be familiar with the nature of their own Leadership election system
How George Osborne would win a leadership contest if it was held under AV?
Technically speaking the Tory leadership election is conducted under a form of AV.
It's NOT AV - you only get one vote per round...
That's why I said a form of AV.
Remember, not only am PB's foremost expert on Pop Music & Classical History, I'm also PB's foremost expert on AV and electoral reform.
It's Exhaustive Ballot, NOT AV, dear TSE!
You don't rank the Tory candidates in preference "1, 2 ,3"...
That's why I said a form of AV.
From the FOAK: Instant-runoff voting In some respects the exhaustive ballot closely resembles instant-runoff voting (also known as the 'Alternative Vote').
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
OK? Got it?
od!
I get it, we need more threads on electoral voting systems on PB.
I shall do my best
I'd be grateful if you would assign blame where blame is due and indicate clearly on each thread that Sunil is the guilty party responsible.
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
OK? Got it?
Good!
Would you be happier with saying that AV is a form of exhaustive ballot in which every round is cast at once?
How George Osborne would win a leadership contest if it was held under AV?
Technically speaking the Tory leadership election is conducted under a form of AV.
It's NOT AV - you only get one vote per round...
That's why I said a form of AV.
Remember, not only am PB's foremost expert on Pop Music & Classical History, I'm also PB's foremost expert on AV and electoral reform.
It's Exhaustive Ballot, NOT AV, dear TSE!
You don't rank the Tory candidates in preference "1, 2 ,3"...
That's why I said a form of AV.
From the FOAK: Instant-runoff voting In some respects the exhaustive ballot closely resembles instant-runoff voting (also known as the 'Alternative Vote').
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
OK? Got it?
od!
I get it, we need more threads on electoral voting systems on PB.
I shall do my best
I'd be grateful if you would assign blame where blame is due and indicate clearly on each thread that Sunil is the guilty party responsible.
I'll credit Sunil like I did with Danny 565 on this thread.
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
ALTERNATIVE vote means you can vote for more than one candidate per round. You can't do that in each round of the EXHAUSTIVE BALLOT that is the Tory election.
OK? Got it?
Good!
Thank the Gods TSE did his PhD on the glorious "Alternative Vote"... we here on PB await his magnum opus on the subject with great anticipation.
I thought only you and I had Doctorates among the PB Tories
The word on Twitter is that Jeremy Corbyn is likely to get through to the ballot.
However, it looks likely the deputy contenders are going to be limited to Caroline Flint and Tom Watson--about as uninspiring a choice as could possibly be.
A curious thing is that after much criticism of the unions for over-influencing the last leadership election, they seem completely laid back about this one so far.
Of course, because the choice is down to three candidates, two of whom they are quite happy with (and in any case the favourite is their preferred candidate), and the third is a no-hoper. Why wouldn't they be laid back this time round?
How George Osborne would win a leadership contest if it was held under AV?
Technically speaking the Tory leadership election is conducted under a form of AV.
It's NOT AV - you only get one vote per round...
That's why I said a form of AV.
Remember, not only am PB's foremost expert on Pop Music & Classical History, I'm also PB's foremost expert on AV and electoral reform.
It's Exhaustive Ballot, NOT AV, dear TSE!
You don't rank the Tory candidates in preference "1, 2 ,3"...
That's why I said a form of AV.
From the FOAK: Instant-runoff voting In some respects the exhaustive ballot closely resembles instant-runoff voting (also known as the 'Alternative Vote').
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
OK? Got it?
od!
I get it, we need more threads on electoral voting systems on PB.
I shall do my best
I'd be grateful if you would assign blame where blame is due and indicate clearly on each thread that Sunil is the guilty party responsible.
I'll credit Sunil like I did with Danny 565 on this thread.
It's NOT a form of AV, as you can only cast one vote per round, UNLIKE AV when you can rank as many candidates as possible in order of preference "1, 2, 3, etc.".
ALTERNATIVE vote means you can vote for more than one candidate per round. You can't do that in each round of the EXHAUSTIVE BALLOT that is the Tory election.
OK? Got it?
Good!
Thank the Gods TSE did his PhD on the glorious "Alternative Vote"... we here on PB await his magnum opus on the subject with great anticipation.
I thought only you and I had Doctorates among the PB Tories
The Med Migrant problem should not be Italy,s alone.
Agreed. I don't know how Schengen addresses asylum seekers, but IIRC the general principal is that it is only the first country that an asylum seeker makes it to that has the obligation to assess the claim. While that claim is pending, any third country is within rights to refuse entry or even return the claimant to first country of asylum.
Economic migrants without visas are in the EU illegally. They have any rights to freedom of movement within the Schengen area, and hence France and Germany would be within their rights to refuse entry.
Schengen allows them to walk all the way from the heel of Italy to Calais.
Does Schengen apply to people in the EU illegally, or those in the process of claiming asylum?
There are no border checks between Schengen countries. Once you're arrived there, you can travel between those countries unchallenged.
I walked a short distance across the Franco-Swiss border near CERN in Geneva (I had been to the visitor centre!) back in September. The border posts are still in situ, but completely unmanned.
Parts of the French-Swiss border have been largely unmanned for at least 20 years. I was charmed by a very Swiss notice at one of the Jura crossings: "If you wish to make a declaration of goods to customs, please turn around and cross at the next border point at ... (about 20 miles away), where you will find an official ready to help you." I've no doubt that many Swiss would have dutifully done exactly that. They did have mobile police doing occasional spot checks on cars near the border.
Clearly, if you are seeking asylum, you actually do need to seek out an official, and the problem is that under EU rules you will probably be sent back to Italy.
Someone (Disraeli?) was asking about Khan's policy on Heathrow. I still don't know, but I see one of the candidates, Gareth Thomas, wants new runways allowed at both Heathrow and Gatwick:
The word on Twitter is that Jeremy Corbyn is likely to get through to the ballot.
However, it looks likely the deputy contenders are going to be limited to Caroline Flint and Tom Watson--about as uninspiring a choice as could possibly be.
Corbyn's on 22... it was the Morning Star hyping him. Plus a favourable Mirror poll of unknown veracity.
Someone (Disraeli?) was asking about Khan's policy on Heathrow. I still don't know, but I see one of the candidates, Gareth Thomas, wants new runways allowed at both Heathrow and Gatwick:
Thank You, Mr Palmer. Yes, I was the one who asked.
I shall be voting for the person, not the party, in the election for London Mayor. Facing up to the difficult decision about runways at London's airports is one of the important factors which will help me decide how I cast my vote.
1. Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) 2. Alan Johnson (Hull West and Hessle) 3. Andrew Smith (Oxford East) 4. Angela Eagle 5. Barry Gardiner 6. Ben Bradshaw 7. Caroline Flint (Don Valley) 8. Clive Efford (Eltham) 9. David Lammy (Tottenham) 10. David Winnick (Walsall North) 11. Ed Miliband (Doncaster North) 12. Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) 13. Gerald Kaufman 14. Gordon Marsden 15. Graham Allen 16. Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) 17. Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) 18. Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) 19. Ian Lucas (Wrexham) 20. Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) 21. Imran Hussain (Bradford East) 22. John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) 23. Jon Cruddas 24. Keith Vaz (Leicester East) 25. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) 26. Madeleine Moon 27. Margaret Beckett (Derby South) 28. Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) 29. Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) 30. Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) 31. Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) 32. Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) 33. Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) 34. Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) 35. Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Hall Green) 36. Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) 37. Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) 38. Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) 39. Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) 40. Sadiq Khan (Tooting) 41. Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) 42. Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) 43. Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) 44. Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) 45. Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) 46. Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn)
Maybe less than 46
Not sure about this but Would the deputy contenders express a preference for the leader? Be a bit tricky if as voted in as deputy the leader was not one you as the deputy supported? It may even be viewed as a split before they even got started I would have thought.
Reading this list I was surprised to see Gerald Kaufman is still an MP. Apparently he is the new Father of the House.
"Surprised"? "Apparently"? Haha! The rest of us were watching when he presided over the re-election of Speaker Bercow.
Labour blew its best chance of winning a general election for 20 years, Jim Murphy will say on Monday as he urges the party not to forget the lessons of Tony Blair's victories.
Giving a farewell speech after stepping down as Scottish Labour leader, Mr Murphy will say Ed Miliband lost the party its "easiest election to win" until the 2030s.
Those Med Migrants don't want to walk up to Sweden ..they want to walk to the land of milk and honey..and massive benefits..The UK.
I think it would be a generally excellent idea if there was a proper, non-partisan, look at different benefits systems around the world.
In particular, we need to start asking what systems incentivise the right behaviour - and I'm not just talking about immigrants, but also our own people.
Sounds like you have just read 'Nudge'
The first lines of The Armchair Economist are something like: "People respond to incentives. That is the essence of economics, and the rest is filler."
It's why I like Game Theory so much. But of course the problem is guessing the pay offs, and guessing the other parties' estimation of the pay offs, because they are never as clear as in the text books, as our dear Greek friends are finding out the hard way.
To get people to do things, like my current field of safety and security, you have to get them to truly accept and believe it is in their best interests to do what you are suggesting. That means fixing the incentives appropriately, or setting the Game so the equilibrium behaviours are the ones you seek.
Comments
I walked a short distance across the Franco-Swiss border near CERN in Geneva (I had been to the visitor centre!) back in September. The border posts are still in situ, but completely unmanned.
Schengen says nothing about your right to be in any of these countries, merely about your relative ease at crossing borders. An asylum seeker who pitches up in Calibri has no right to reside in Berne, however Schengen means that said asylum seeker is not going to be asked for his passport as he crosses the border.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13194723
There are, of course, costs associated with reducing government checks on people going here-and-there, but the Schengen members have decided that the benefits of saving millions of people hours of time each day is worth it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/tables
On the Euros, I hope England, Wales and Northern Ireland qualify and the Scots watch it on TV.
A Ljubljana taxi driver who happened to be a QPR fan was most insistent that the Slovenian side was actually the Bosnia B team when I was in his cab last year.
I'll be gobsmacked if England make it past the 1/4 finals next year.
With anyone arriving in Italy / Greece Med Islands etc under the convention asylum has to be claimed in the first safe country arrived at. I would say that pretty much includes all of Europe so why they end up at Calais is well questionable. Ships rescuing people from the Med for the example are duty bound to assist if a distress signal is given and then return them to a safe port. That's a bit of a tricky one as sometimes you are refused entry or for political or other reasons you cannot enter the territorial waters or the port.
Secondly and the main problem is ( having experienced this first hand with stowaways) they always destroy all their documentation so you cannot identify place of birth / origin / or state. Makes it pretty much impossible to send them back because you have to clearly demonstrate where you send them back too was where they came from originally. You get a lot of resistance to this particularly African States unless they are deserters. Even then tough to get complete acceptance which results in it being much more difficult to return people than you would have thought.
If they make it to the UK they have won as good as. The alternative is at a huge cost and bogged down in paperwork and legal teams for years.
The solution is stop them getting in the boats in the first place because if they do manage to make it offshore then the law of the sea takes over for an passing ship and the rest follows on ad infinitum.
In particular, we need to start asking what systems incentivise the right behaviour - and I'm not just talking about immigrants, but also our own people.
The lady at 11:20-11:34 shows just how well that went down.
Gaddafi was the only one who struck a deal with Italy to stop the boats, but he's no longer alive.
And Turkey will refuse, as they think the migrants help destabilize Greece.
Tory MPs swing behind George ‘Caesar’ Osborne for next leader
http://bit.ly/1L8Ur8l
Will fall short I expect
But you have to be able to say to where. If someone is discovered in France without appropriate papers, to where should they be deported?
Before that you'd be looking at Chamberlain and Baldwin from the inter-war years.
Being a long-serving Chancellor hasn't been a ticket to a long or even short period next door in recent times and if we're going to follow the "Caesar" analogy, perhaps he'll find all the party behind him one day (and there's another parallel with Macmillan).
1. Alan Campbell (Tynemouth)
2. Alan Johnson (Hull West and Hessle)
3. Andrew Smith (Oxford East)
4. Angela Eagle
5. Barry Gardiner
6. Ben Bradshaw
7. Caroline Flint (Don Valley)
8. Clive Efford (Eltham)
9. David Lammy (Tottenham)
10. David Winnick (Walsall North)
11. Ed Miliband (Doncaster North)
12. Gareth Thomas (Harrow West)
13. Gerald Kaufman
14. Gordon Marsden
15. Graham Allen
16. Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton)
17. Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood)
18. Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore)
19. Ian Lucas (Wrexham)
20. Ian Murray (Edinburgh South)
21. Imran Hussain (Bradford East)
22. John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead)
23. Jon Cruddas
24. Keith Vaz (Leicester East)
25. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley)
26. Madeleine Moon
27. Margaret Beckett (Derby South)
28. Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside)
29. Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch)
30. Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East)
31. Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire)
32. Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
33. Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central)
34. Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West)
35. Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Hall Green)
36. Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire)
37. Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central)
38. Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton)
39. Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow)
40. Sadiq Khan (Tooting)
41. Stella Creasy (Walthamstow)
42. Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon)
43. Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South)
44. Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West)
45. Tom Watson (West Bromwich East)
46. Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn)
I know he didn't go directly from being Chancellor to PM but he was an ex Chancellor who became PM
Edit: TSE beat me to it, sorry
It's NOT AV - you only get one vote per round...
It's actually Exhaustive Ballot, at least up until you are down to two Tories, when the membership takes part.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustive_ballot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2005
Remember, not only am PB's foremost expert on Pop Music & Classical History, I'm also PB's foremost expert on AV and electoral reform.
And the blame lies utterly with Sunil.
They won't be just coming from Libya either.
Not sure about this but Would the deputy contenders express a preference for the leader? Be a bit tricky if as voted in as deputy the leader was not one you as the deputy supported? It may even be viewed as a split before they even got started I would have thought.
You don't mark the Tory candidates "1,2,3" in order of preference.
You don't rank the Tory candidates in preference "1, 2 ,3"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustive_ballot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2005
From the FOAK: Instant-runoff voting In some respects the exhaustive ballot closely resembles instant-runoff voting (also known as the 'Alternative Vote').
http://bit.ly/1IDUU2a
JezWeCan
*Notably, some countries in southern Europe do not really bother to enforce it, knowing that if they turn a blind eye to someone who ought to be on their radar, it will be another country's problem. There is also the difficulty that removing asylum seekers to some countries in southern Europe has been held to constitute inhuman and degrading treatment due to the poor conditions in which they are kept, and the endless delays in processing applications.
OK? Got it?
Good!
I shall do my best
Looks touch and go for 35
OK? Got it?
Good!
OK? Got it?
Good!
http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2015/06/14/sepp-blatter-resignation-reconsidering-fifa-president
Aaaarrrggggghhhhh!
ALTERNATIVE vote means you can vote for more than one candidate per round. You can't do that in each round of the EXHAUSTIVE BALLOT that is the Tory election.
OK? Got it?
Good!
(Slips slowly out the door...)
I think, as an island nation, we have a bit of a different perspective on this to the average continental. If you are entering or leaving the UK, you are almost certainly doing it via one of a small number of airports or ports. And this means the cost of enforecement is low, and the cost of compliance is low.
By contrast, in Belgium or Luxembourg or France or Germany, there will be thousands upon thousands of roads, each of which needed a man in a cabinet to check passports. It was expensive to maintain, it caused problems when someone left their passport in a bar, and it meant that people would sometimes be late for work or shipments would be delayed. The decision to pursue Schengen, which was initially outside the EU, was predominantly an economic one.
Sussex CCC posted on Twitter: 'A nasty collision in the deep as two Surrey players converge to try and take the same catch. Physios rush on. Let's hope they're okay.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-3123608/Rory-Burns-Moises-Henriques-rushed-hospital-Surrey-pair-suffer-nasty-field-collision-going-catch.html
However, it looks likely the deputy contenders are going to be limited to Caroline Flint and Tom Watson--about as uninspiring a choice as could possibly be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement
(I'm sure that Sunil will appreciate the significance :-) )
Clearly, if you are seeking asylum, you actually do need to seek out an official, and the problem is that under EU rules you will probably be sent back to Italy.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2015/jun/14/labours-six-london-mayor-candidates-commence-the-battle-of-idea
I shall be voting for the person, not the party, in the election for London Mayor. Facing up to the difficult decision about runways at London's airports is one of the important factors which will help me decide how I cast my vote.
Would the party split? How could most of the Shadow Cabinet go along with his economic policies?
Labour would win a landslide at the next election.
Elect Corbyn for victory!
pretty please
The television would have been in danger from flying objects.
To get people to do things, like my current field of safety and security, you have to get them to truly accept and believe it is in their best interests to do what you are suggesting. That means fixing the incentives appropriately, or setting the Game so the equilibrium behaviours are the ones you seek.