politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The biggest challenge for UKIP at #GE2015 will be the waste

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The biggest challenge for UKIP at #GE2015 will be the wasted vote syndrome

One of the great general election challenges for parties other than LAB and CON is to persuade people that in their constituency their vote won’t be wasted.

Read the full story here

Ishmael_X

When will we see the first UKIP bar chart?

SouthamObserver

Re-post ...

Very interesting study about immigrant inventors:

http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/econ_stat/en/economics/pdf/Working_Paper_9-WEB.pdf

Between 1990 and 2010 the UK saw a sharp rise in these, compared to falls or no significant rises in most other European countries, especially from the mid-90s onwards (see page 15). Given the comparatively lower numbers of patents we file it's probably true to say that a very large proportion (maybe even a majority) of UK inventions considered to be worth protecting internationally have been invented by people born outside the UK.

No wonder immigraiton reform is such an issue in the US. You have to hope that at some stage over here we can start to have a sensible debate on whether absolute targets are a good idea or whether they are, in fact, doing more harm than good.

Sean_F

The SDP's problem was too many chiefs and too few Indians. Amazingly, they left the 1981 local elections almost uncontested. They thought that having lots of well-known figures at the top mattered far more than having an organisation on the ground. UKIP seem to have learned from this, and are working hard at building up their local government base. Next year should see big gains for the UKIP in local elections, on the coat-tails of the EU elections. But, their vote will still be squeezed come 2015.

SouthamObserver

Further to my previous post, I should also add that over the same time period a large number of inventors (much higher than the immigrant amount) left the country. It could well be the old cost/benefit scenario in play again - it's much cheaper for, say, a company or university to bring in a very promising immigrant inventor than to retain an established local one. Retaining talent seems to be an issue across much of the developed world (the US apart), but we were much better at replacing our emigrant inventors than most other countries. Let's hope we still are.

SouthamObserver

The top 5 inventor corridors:

China to the United States 44,452
India to the United States 35,621
Canada to the United States 18,734
UK to the United States 14,893
Germany to the United States 10,297

OblitusSumMe

It isn't 1983 Mike. At the previous election in 1979, Labour and the Conservatives won 82.6% of the vote between them. At the last general election in 2010, the combined share of the vote between Labour and Conservative was just 65.1%. The share of the vote voting for parties other than the big two has doubled in the intervening years.

The big two parties are losing the argument that there is no alternative but to choose between one of them.

I would guess that, even with some 2010 Lib Dems deciding to vote Labour, the combined share of the vote for Labour and Conservative will decline a bit further in 2015.

MrJones

SouthamObserver said:

Re-post ...

Very interesting study about immigrant inventors:

http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/econ_stat/en/economics/pdf/Working_Paper_9-WEB.pdf

Between 1990 and 2010 the UK saw a sharp rise in these, compared to falls or no significant rises in most other European countries, especially from the mid-90s onwards (see page 15). Given the comparatively lower numbers of patents we file it's probably true to say that a very large proportion (maybe even a majority) of UK inventions considered to be worth protecting internationally have been invented by people born outside the UK.

No wonder immigraiton reform is such an issue in the US. You have to hope that at some stage over here we can start to have a sensible debate on whether absolute targets are a good idea or whether they are, in fact, doing more harm than good.

"Given the comparatively lower numbers of patents we file"

Compared to where? Country size by patent numbers:

http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/167.png

MrJones

tim said:

SouthamObserver said:

Re-post ...

Very interesting study about immigrant inventors:

http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/econ_stat/en/economics/pdf/Working_Paper_9-WEB.pdf

Between 1990 and 2010 the UK saw a sharp rise in these, compared to falls or no significant rises in most other European countries, especially from the mid-90s onwards (see page 15). Given the comparatively lower numbers of patents we file it's probably true to say that a very large proportion (maybe even a majority) of UK inventions considered to be worth protecting internationally have been invented by people born outside the UK.

No wonder immigraiton reform is such an issue in the US. You have to hope that at some stage over here we can start to have a sensible debate on whether absolute targets are a good idea or whether they are, in fact, doing more harm than good.

Obama is heading in the opposite direction to the UK which of course will inflict major damage on itself thanks to Daves idiot pledge on net migration.

While at the forefront of technological innovation, Germany and France have consistently
seen lower inventor immigration rates. Of special interest is the UK, which has experienced
a substantial increase in its share of immigrant inventors. Japan, in turn, remains the only
high income economy with an inventor immigration rate of less than 2%.

Japan chooses to commit national suicide over immigration in tandem with low birth rates, luckily for the UK pre 2010 we were going in the opposite direction, this govt is determined to reverse that.

"Japan chooses to commit national suicide over immigration"

I think Japan is the purple one on the patent map

http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/167.png

rcs1000

MrJones said:

SouthamObserver said:

Re-post ...

Very interesting study about immigrant inventors:

http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/econ_stat/en/economics/pdf/Working_Paper_9-WEB.pdf

Between 1990 and 2010 the UK saw a sharp rise in these, compared to falls or no significant rises in most other European countries, especially from the mid-90s onwards (see page 15). Given the comparatively lower numbers of patents we file it's probably true to say that a very large proportion (maybe even a majority) of UK inventions considered to be worth protecting internationally have been invented by people born outside the UK.

No wonder immigraiton reform is such an issue in the US. You have to hope that at some stage over here we can start to have a sensible debate on whether absolute targets are a good idea or whether they are, in fact, doing more harm than good.

"Given the comparatively lower numbers of patents we file"

Compared to where? Country size by patent numbers:

http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/167.png

The way I read that chart is that we're behind France and Germany, and marginally ahead of the Netherlands. On the positive side, we're clearly ahead of Spain, Italy and North Korea.

That said: Japan has almost as many patents as the US, and that doesn't seem to have worked out too well for them. So I'd be cautious about reading too much into this.

MikeSmithson

OblitusSumMe said:

It isn't 1983 Mike. At the previous election in 1979, Labour and the Conservatives won 82.6% of the vote between them. At the last general election in 2010, the combined share of the vote between Labour and Conservative was just 65.1%. The share of the vote voting for parties other than the big two has doubled in the intervening years.

The big two parties are losing the argument that there is no alternative but to choose between one of them.

I would guess that, even with some 2010 Lib Dems deciding to vote Labour, the combined share of the vote for Labour and Conservative will decline a bit further in 2015.

The voting system remains first past the post. Labour can win an overall majority on 34%

rcs1000

Ha! Can't believe I just posted with exactly the same point as MrJones :-)

SouthamObserver

MrJones said:

SouthamObserver said:

Re-post ...

Very interesting study about immigrant inventors:

http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/econ_stat/en/economics/pdf/Working_Paper_9-WEB.pdf

Between 1990 and 2010 the UK saw a sharp rise in these, compared to falls or no significant rises in most other European countries, especially from the mid-90s onwards (see page 15). Given the comparatively lower numbers of patents we file it's probably true to say that a very large proportion (maybe even a majority) of UK inventions considered to be worth protecting internationally have been invented by people born outside the UK.

No wonder immigraiton reform is such an issue in the US. You have to hope that at some stage over here we can start to have a sensible debate on whether absolute targets are a good idea or whether they are, in fact, doing more harm than good.

"Given the comparatively lower numbers of patents we file"

Compared to where? Country size by patent numbers:

http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/167.png

Compared to most of our rivals. This is especially the case when you look at patents filed internationally directly at the big patent offices or via the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

SouthamObserver

MrJones said:

tim said:

SouthamObserver said:

Re-post ...

Very interesting study about immigrant inventors:

http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/econ_stat/en/economics/pdf/Working_Paper_9-WEB.pdf

Between 1990 and 2010 the UK saw a sharp rise in these, compared to falls or no significant rises in most other European countries, especially from the mid-90s onwards (see page 15). Given the comparatively lower numbers of patents we file it's probably true to say that a very large proportion (maybe even a majority) of UK inventions considered to be worth protecting internationally have been invented by people born outside the UK.

No wonder immigraiton reform is such an issue in the US. You have to hope that at some stage over here we can start to have a sensible debate on whether absolute targets are a good idea or whether they are, in fact, doing more harm than good.

Obama is heading in the opposite direction to the UK which of course will inflict major damage on itself thanks to Daves idiot pledge on net migration.

While at the forefront of technological innovation, Germany and France have consistently
seen lower inventor immigration rates. Of special interest is the UK, which has experienced
a substantial increase in its share of immigrant inventors. Japan, in turn, remains the only
high income economy with an inventor immigration rate of less than 2%.

Japan chooses to commit national suicide over immigration in tandem with low birth rates, luckily for the UK pre 2010 we were going in the opposite direction, this govt is determined to reverse that.

"Japan chooses to commit national suicide over immigration"

I think Japan is the purple one on the patent map

http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/167.png

Japanese patent applications, both at home and internationally, are in decline.

MrJones

SouthamObserver said:

MrJones said:

SouthamObserver said:

Re-post ...

Very interesting study about immigrant inventors:

http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/econ_stat/en/economics/pdf/Working_Paper_9-WEB.pdf

Between 1990 and 2010 the UK saw a sharp rise in these, compared to falls or no significant rises in most other European countries, especially from the mid-90s onwards (see page 15). Given the comparatively lower numbers of patents we file it's probably true to say that a very large proportion (maybe even a majority) of UK inventions considered to be worth protecting internationally have been invented by people born outside the UK.

No wonder immigraiton reform is such an issue in the US. You have to hope that at some stage over here we can start to have a sensible debate on whether absolute targets are a good idea or whether they are, in fact, doing more harm than good.

"Given the comparatively lower numbers of patents we file"

Compared to where? Country size by patent numbers:

http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/167.png

Compared to most of our rivals. This is especially the case when you look at patents filed internationally directly at the big patent offices or via the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

From that map looks to me like compared to most of our rivals in this global race we're told about this country is in the top ten-ish and could be a fair bit better (imo) if the education system was shifted a little to be more geared to science than arts.

MrJones

SouthamObserver said:

MrJones said:

tim said:

SouthamObserver said:

Re-post ...

Very interesting study about immigrant inventors:

http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/econ_stat/en/economics/pdf/Working_Paper_9-WEB.pdf

Between 1990 and 2010 the UK saw a sharp rise in these, compared to falls or no significant rises in most other European countries, especially from the mid-90s onwards (see page 15). Given the comparatively lower numbers of patents we file it's probably true to say that a very large proportion (maybe even a majority) of UK inventions considered to be worth protecting internationally have been invented by people born outside the UK.

No wonder immigraiton reform is such an issue in the US. You have to hope that at some stage over here we can start to have a sensible debate on whether absolute targets are a good idea or whether they are, in fact, doing more harm than good.

Obama is heading in the opposite direction to the UK which of course will inflict major damage on itself thanks to Daves idiot pledge on net migration.

While at the forefront of technological innovation, Germany and France have consistently
seen lower inventor immigration rates. Of special interest is the UK, which has experienced
a substantial increase in its share of immigrant inventors. Japan, in turn, remains the only
high income economy with an inventor immigration rate of less than 2%.

Japan chooses to commit national suicide over immigration in tandem with low birth rates, luckily for the UK pre 2010 we were going in the opposite direction, this govt is determined to reverse that.

"Japan chooses to commit national suicide over immigration"

I think Japan is the purple one on the patent map

http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/167.png

Japanese patent applications, both at home and internationally, are in decline.

As a percentage as China's increase or in absolute terms?

Either way they still look like number one at the mo so hardly desperate.

stodge

Sean_F said:

The SDP's problem was too many chiefs and too few Indians. Amazingly, they left the 1981 local elections almost uncontested. They thought that having lots of well-known figures at the top mattered far more than having an organisation on the ground. UKIP seem to have learned from this, and are working hard at building up their local government base. Next year should see big gains for the UKIP in local elections, on the coat-tails of the EU elections. But, their vote will still be squeezed come 2015.

To be fair, Sean, the SDP was only formally launched after the Limehouse Declaration so there was very little time for the party to get organised before the 1981 local contests. The party's first formal contest was Warrington in the summer of 1981.

The big advance could have been the 1982 local elections. As I've recounted on here, I was standing in a solid Tory Ward in south-east London and my running-mate was a very pleasant SDP man. We went out canvassing in February 1982 and found a huge swing from the Conservatives. We probably wouldn't have won our seat but I'm convinced that had the Falklands conflict not taken place, the SDP would have made significant gains in the 1982 locals

Looking back at those (according to Wikipedia) the Alliance parties polled 27%, Labour 29% and the Conservatives 40%. I genuinely think the Conservatives would have polled 25-30% without the Falklands with the Alliance parties topping the poll and gaining not 395 seats but many many more.

Those who argue that the Conservatives would have been re-elected without the Falklands forget what a traumatic loss that would have been (and it's likely on that basis that Bruce Douglas-Mann would have held Mitcham & Morden and Paul Tyler might have got close to an upset in Beaconsfield) for the Tories and how it might have encouraged some others in that party to defect.

SouthamObserver

rcs1000 said:

MrJones said:

SouthamObserver said:

Re-post ...

Very interesting study about immigrant inventors:

http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/econ_stat/en/economics/pdf/Working_Paper_9-WEB.pdf

Between 1990 and 2010 the UK saw a sharp rise in these, compared to falls or no significant rises in most other European countries, especially from the mid-90s onwards (see page 15). Given the comparatively lower numbers of patents we file it's probably true to say that a very large proportion (maybe even a majority) of UK inventions considered to be worth protecting internationally have been invented by people born outside the UK.

No wonder immigraiton reform is such an issue in the US. You have to hope that at some stage over here we can start to have a sensible debate on whether absolute targets are a good idea or whether they are, in fact, doing more harm than good.

"Given the comparatively lower numbers of patents we file"

Compared to where? Country size by patent numbers:

http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/167.png

The way I read that chart is that we're behind France and Germany, and marginally ahead of the Netherlands. On the positive side, we're clearly ahead of Spain, Italy and North Korea.

That said: Japan has almost as many patents as the US, and that doesn't seem to have worked out too well for them. So I'd be cautious about reading too much into this.

Yes, patents in and of themselves tell us almost nothing. But what we do know is that the most valuable ones tend to be filed in more than one country as inventors (or those who employ them) seek to ensure they are protected in markets where they think they may bring a product based on the patent(s). That's what makes the inventor immigration/emigration figures so interesting - they are all based on patents filed via the PCT (the international patent application system). The UK lags the US, Korea, China, Germany and France, among others, in absolute terms when it comes to PCT applicaiotns, and a number of other countries on relative terms (applications per head). The fact that we lag so much, but that immigrant inventors are so prominent in UK applications indicates a very significant contribution.

Sean_F

MikeSmithson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

It isn't 1983 Mike. At the previous election in 1979, Labour and the Conservatives won 82.6% of the vote between them. At the last general election in 2010, the combined share of the vote between Labour and Conservative was just 65.1%. The share of the vote voting for parties other than the big two has doubled in the intervening years.

The big two parties are losing the argument that there is no alternative but to choose between one of them.

I would guess that, even with some 2010 Lib Dems deciding to vote Labour, the combined share of the vote for Labour and Conservative will decline a bit further in 2015.

The voting system remains first past the post. Labour can win an overall majority on 34%

There's likely to be a tipping point, as Conservative and Labour support goes below 30% for each party.

OblitusSumMe

MikeSmithson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

It isn't 1983 Mike. At the previous election in 1979, Labour and the Conservatives won 82.6% of the vote between them. At the last general election in 2010, the combined share of the vote between Labour and Conservative was just 65.1%. The share of the vote voting for parties other than the big two has doubled in the intervening years.

The big two parties are losing the argument that there is no alternative but to choose between one of them.

I would guess that, even with some 2010 Lib Dems deciding to vote Labour, the combined share of the vote for Labour and Conservative will decline a bit further in 2015.

The voting system remains first past the post. Labour can win an overall majority on 34%

There are two separate arguments here.

1. Can UKIP convince a much larger number of people to vote for them in 2015 than in 2010?

2. Will UKIP win any Westminster MPs even if they achieve #1?

Right now my guess would be that UKIP will succeed in convincing a very large number of people to vote for them in 2015. Maybe as many as 15% of those who vote. Because of FPTP, the vast majority of these votes will be said to be "wasted", because they will elect very few, or no, MPs.

Unless you are suggesting that - in the scenario I outline above - UKIP will have successfully hoodwinked several million people into thinking that they had a chance of victory in their local seat, many millions of people will vote UKIP despite knowing that it is very probably a wasted vote.

In 2010, almost a million people voted UKIP despite doing so being a "waste" as their chances of electing an MP were pretty much zero. I don't believe that the wasted vote argument is the biggest challenge for UKIP.

The biggest challenge for UKIP is ensuring that they accurately identify the optimal number and location of constituencies to concentrate sparse national resources in for the campaign, to maximise their chances of electing the maximum number of MPs. The local election results appear to give them some good pointers for that.

Edit: Labour can win a majority on less than 33% of the vote, if the combined Labour and Conservative vote share declines in 2015.

That isn't just UKIPs problem. That is everyone's problem.

Sean_F

I think most Conservative seats, and some Lib Dem seats, are winnable for UKIP if a by-election should arise.

MrJones

tim said:

@MrJones

http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/GlobalDebt2011wm.jpg


Japan's debt as its population ages and dwindles is more relevant.

Dunno about that. Their debt problems are partly due to letting their population decline rather than replacing themselves with immigration but the population overhang caused by this is by definition is a temporary problem.

All they need to do is survive past that overhang and they're laughing.

SouthamObserver

MrJones said:

SouthamObserver said:

MrJones said:

tim said:

SouthamObserver said:

Re-post ...

Very interesting study about immigrant inventors:

http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/econ_stat/en/economics/pdf/Working_Paper_9-WEB.pdf

Between 1990 and 2010 the UK saw a sharp rise in these, compared to falls or no significant rises in most other European countries, especially from the mid-90s onwards (see page 15). Given the comparatively lower numbers of patents we file it's probably true to say that a very large proportion (maybe even a majority) of UK inventions considered to be worth protecting internationally have been invented by people born outside the UK.

No wonder immigraiton reform is such an issue in the US. You have to hope that at some stage over here we can start to have a sensible debate on whether absolute targets are a good idea or whether they are, in fact, doing more harm than good.

Obama is heading in the opposite direction to the UK which of course will inflict major damage on itself thanks to Daves idiot pledge on net migration.

While at the forefront of technological innovation, Germany and France have consistently
seen lower inventor immigration rates. Of special interest is the UK, which has experienced
a substantial increase in its share of immigrant inventors. Japan, in turn, remains the only
high income economy with an inventor immigration rate of less than 2%.

Japan chooses to commit national suicide over immigration in tandem with low birth rates, luckily for the UK pre 2010 we were going in the opposite direction, this govt is determined to reverse that.

"Japan chooses to commit national suicide over immigration"

I think Japan is the purple one on the patent map

http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/167.png

Japanese patent applications, both at home and internationally, are in decline.

As a percentage as China's increase or in absolute terms?

Either way they still look like number one at the mo so hardly desperate.

Much of the growth in China can be attributed to non-examined utility and design patent applications. If you fill in the form correctly you get the certificate. Invention patenst are also on the rise, but that has a lot to do with tax incentives and grants. The actual quality of Chinese patents is very low.

I actually would not worry too much about Japan, as language issues mean that it is hard to be an immigrant inventor, or for Japanese inventors to emigrate. The bigger problem for Japan is what they are inventing and how they are monetising it.

Charles

I was wondering what that was - assumed Japan was the green 'egg' next to the purple splodge

MrJones

SouthamObserver said:

rcs1000 said:

MrJones said:

SouthamObserver said:

Re-post ...

Very interesting study about immigrant inventors:

http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/econ_stat/en/economics/pdf/Working_Paper_9-WEB.pdf

Between 1990 and 2010 the UK saw a sharp rise in these, compared to falls or no significant rises in most other European countries, especially from the mid-90s onwards (see page 15). Given the comparatively lower numbers of patents we file it's probably true to say that a very large proportion (maybe even a majority) of UK inventions considered to be worth protecting internationally have been invented by people born outside the UK.

No wonder immigraiton reform is such an issue in the US. You have to hope that at some stage over here we can start to have a sensible debate on whether absolute targets are a good idea or whether they are, in fact, doing more harm than good.

"Given the comparatively lower numbers of patents we file"

Compared to where? Country size by patent numbers:

http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/167.png

The way I read that chart is that we're behind France and Germany, and marginally ahead of the Netherlands. On the positive side, we're clearly ahead of Spain, Italy and North Korea.

That said: Japan has almost as many patents as the US, and that doesn't seem to have worked out too well for them. So I'd be cautious about reading too much into this.

Yes, patents in and of themselves tell us almost nothing. But what we do know is that the most valuable ones tend to be filed in more than one country as inventors (or those who employ them) seek to ensure they are protected in markets where they think they may bring a product based on the patent(s). That's what makes the inventor immigration/emigration figures so interesting - they are all based on patents filed via the PCT (the international patent application system). The UK lags the US, Korea, China, Germany and France, among others, in absolute terms when it comes to PCT applicaiotns, and a number of other countries on relative terms (applications per head). The fact that we lag so much, but that immigrant inventors are so prominent in UK applications indicates a very significant contribution.

You sure the UK lagging in these multiple patents is not just because the industrial ability necessary to produce the item no longer exists in this country? Do these patents get register ed in Greenland for example?

Charles

@James Kelly FPT

James: you made a point that pensions were more affordable in Scotland.

When people pointed out that it was due to life expectancy being lower in Scotland you made a trite remark (several times - it wasn't funny the first time) about it being a dividend from the union.

It's completely unconnected to the unioon - probably diet, lifestyle, possibly genetics, possibly weather.

But either way it's pointless to debate with you if that's your approach to a discussion.

Sean_F

stodge said:

Sean_F said:

The SDP's problem was too many chiefs and too few Indians. Amazingly, they left the 1981 local elections almost uncontested. They thought that having lots of well-known figures at the top mattered far more than having an organisation on the ground. UKIP seem to have learned from this, and are working hard at building up their local government base. Next year should see big gains for the UKIP in local elections, on the coat-tails of the EU elections. But, their vote will still be squeezed come 2015.

To be fair, Sean, the SDP was only formally launched after the Limehouse Declaration so there was very little time for the party to get organised before the 1981 local contests. The party's first formal contest was Warrington in the summer of 1981.

The big advance could have been the 1982 local elections. As I've recounted on here, I was standing in a solid Tory Ward in south-east London and my running-mate was a very pleasant SDP man. We went out canvassing in February 1982 and found a huge swing from the Conservatives. We probably wouldn't have won our seat but I'm convinced that had the Falklands conflict not taken place, the SDP would have made significant gains in the 1982 locals

Looking back at those (according to Wikipedia) the Alliance parties polled 27%, Labour 29% and the Conservatives 40%. I genuinely think the Conservatives would have polled 25-30% without the Falklands with the Alliance parties topping the poll and gaining not 395 seats but many many more.

Those who argue that the Conservatives would have been re-elected without the Falklands forget what a traumatic loss that would have been (and it's likely on that basis that Bruce Douglas-Mann would have held Mitcham & Morden and Paul Tyler might have got close to an upset in Beaconsfield) for the Tories and how it might have encouraged some others in that party to defect.

The SDP were massively unlucky that the Falklands War occurred when it did.

One friend who was in the know at the time, told me that the one occasion that the Conservative leadership came close to panicking about the SDP was after the Greenwich by-election, in 1987. They feared that the Labour vote would collapse in favour of the Alliance in the subsequent general election.

Morris_Dancer

Interesting that Darcis has managed to take Nadal to a set 1 tie-break.

SouthamObserver

MrJones said:

SouthamObserver said:

rcs1000 said:

MrJones said:

SouthamObserver said:

Re-post ...

Very interesting study about immigrant inventors:

http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/econ_stat/en/economics/pdf/Working_Paper_9-WEB.pdf

Between 1990 and 2010 the UK saw a sharp rise in these, compared to falls or no significant rises in most other European countries, especially from the mid-90s onwards (see page 15). Given the comparatively lower numbers of patents we file it's probably true to say that a very large proportion (maybe even a majority) of UK inventions considered to be worth protecting internationally have been invented by people born outside the UK.

No wonder immigraiton reform is such an issue in the US. You have to hope that at some stage over here we can start to have a sensible debate on whether absolute targets are a good idea or whether they are, in fact, doing more harm than good.

"Given the comparatively lower numbers of patents we file"

Compared to where? Country size by patent numbers:

http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/167.png

The way I read that chart is that we're behind France and Germany, and marginally ahead of the Netherlands. On the positive side, we're clearly ahead of Spain, Italy and North Korea.

That said: Japan has almost as many patents as the US, and that doesn't seem to have worked out too well for them. So I'd be cautious about reading too much into this.

Yes, patents in and of themselves tell us almost nothing. But what we do know is that the most valuable ones tend to be filed in more than one country as inventors (or those who employ them) seek to ensure they are protected in markets where they think they may bring a product based on the patent(s). That's what makes the inventor immigration/emigration figures so interesting - they are all based on patents filed via the PCT (the international patent application system). The UK lags the US, Korea, China, Germany and France, among others, in absolute terms when it comes to PCT applicaiotns, and a number of other countries on relative terms (applications per head). The fact that we lag so much, but that immigrant inventors are so prominent in UK applications indicates a very significant contribution.

You sure the UK lagging in these multiple patents is not just because the industrial ability necessary to produce the item no longer exists in this country? Do these patents get register ed in Greenland for example?

It's because we do not invest enough in R&D and short-sighted managements see IP as an expense rather than as a hugely important, and enabling, asset. It's the perennial British disease. Patents are granted way before any manufacturing or production takes place. A UK company with a decent patent strategy would tend to file via here, in Germany, maybe France, the US and China, with other countries thrown in depending on the specifics of the sector.

SouthamObserver

@MrJones

if you are interested I have written about it in a little more depth here:

http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=90a09dab-4432-4c64-bde9-cd1d0bd2e626&q

taffys

But either way it's pointless to debate with you if that's your approach to a discussion.


Its worth remembering that:

1. Anything good in Scotland is due to the SNP government...

2. Anything bad in Scotland is due to rule from Westminster...

MrJones

SouthamObserver said:

@MrJones

if you are interested I have written about it in a little more depth here:

http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=90a09dab-4432-4c64-bde9-cd1d0bd2e626&q

ta

Cityunslicker

What really matters to UKIP is that it can define itself away from the main 3 parties. This weekend has been great for it. With Ed M making a duff choice to copy the Tory/LD budgets after the next election, all UKIP has to do is offer something different. Personally I see a big bust coming int he not too distant future as the total sum of our debts and rising interest rates catches us out. If UKIp are the only ones offering a real change, then they will gain disproportionately. it will be hard though as the press have even forced Ed M to take the dishonest and ineffective austerity-in-investment only route.

david_herdson

Generally, I agree with Mike's post and believe that UKIP could well face a significant squeeze. However, on the other hand:

- The pool of non-voters - or those disillusioned with the three main parties - is significantly higher than in was in 1979 or 1983. These are good grounds to go protest-vote fishing in and the 'wasted vote' argument counts far less to them, if at all.
- If, and it's a big if, Farage can appear in the TV debates, that will cut through a lot of the wasted vote syndrome, as it did for Clegg in 2010. That said, nearly all the votes gained will be 'wasted', as they were for Clegg.
- There *may* be traction for UKIP following on from the Euroelections, if they can finish first.
- There are a small number of seats where UKIP have made a breakthrough at a local level and finished first across the constituency in this year's elections, proving their ability to win seats locally. It's the Lib Dem / Green route to victory and offers UKIP a chance too.

Even so, I'm far from convinced that these positives will overcome not just the 'wasted vote' syndrome but also a lack of determined activists and an underpowered media presence (as most of the media runs on momentum and that means Con/Lab/LD+SNP&Plaid.

Charles

tim said:

@electionista: #Italy - Silvio Berlusconi guilty and sentenced to 7 years in Ruby trial.

@electionista: #Italy - in addition to 7-year sentence, Silvio Berlusconi banned from holding public office.

Banned from holding public office? Seems a very strange sentence for something that (AFAIK) wasn't connected to his public duties. Positively undemocratic.

Neil

Charles said:

Banned from holding public office? Seems a very strange sentence for something that (AFAIK) wasn't connected to his public duties. Positively undemocratic.

We have similar rules regarding MPs having to quit Parliament after convictions for serious crimes in the UK.

stodge

Sean_F said:

stodge said:

Sean_F said:

The SDP's problem was too many chiefs and too few Indians. Amazingly, they left the 1981 local elections almost uncontested. They thought that having lots of well-known figures at the top mattered far more than having an organisation on the ground. UKIP seem to have learned from this, and are working hard at building up their local government base. Next year should see big gains for the UKIP in local elections, on the coat-tails of the EU elections. But, their vote will still be squeezed come 2015.

To be fair, Sean, the SDP was only formally launched after the Limehouse Declaration so there was very little time for the party to get organised before the 1981 local contests. The party's first formal contest was Warrington in the summer of 1981.

The big advance could have been the 1982 local elections. As I've recounted on here, I was standing in a solid Tory Ward in south-east London and my running-mate was a very pleasant SDP man. We went out canvassing in February 1982 and found a huge swing from the Conservatives. We probably wouldn't have won our seat but I'm convinced that had the Falklands conflict not taken place, the SDP would have made significant gains in the 1982 locals

Looking back at those (according to Wikipedia) the Alliance parties polled 27%, Labour 29% and the Conservatives 40%. I genuinely think the Conservatives would have polled 25-30% without the Falklands with the Alliance parties topping the poll and gaining not 395 seats but many many more.

Those who argue that the Conservatives would have been re-elected without the Falklands forget what a traumatic loss that would have been (and it's likely on that basis that Bruce Douglas-Mann would have held Mitcham & Morden and Paul Tyler might have got close to an upset in Beaconsfield) for the Tories and how it might have encouraged some others in that party to defect.

The SDP were massively unlucky that the Falklands War occurred when it did.

One friend who was in the know at the time, told me that the one occasion that the Conservative leadership came close to panicking about the SDP was after the Greenwich by-election, in 1987. They feared that the Labour vote would collapse in favour of the Alliance in the subsequent general election.

I well remember the then Conservative Chairman (Norman Tebbit if memory serves) spending a whole day lambasting the Alliance and pointing out all the policy differences and it actually put the Alliance up in the polls because of all the publicity.

In truth, the Alliance had wrecked its own chances with the defence debacle the previous autumn (I was in the audience at Eastbourne that fateful afternoon). The other problem was that at the start of the campaign, the Telegraph published a poll showing the Alliance on 30%. Once that figure proved unsustainable, the campaign lost momentum and drifted away.

MrJones

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/inside-anglo-the-secret-recordings-29366837.html

bankstas

Theuniondivvie

Charles said:

@James Kelly FPT
It's completely unconnected to the unioon - probably diet, lifestyle, possibly genetics, possibly weather.
But either way it's pointless to debate with you if that's your approach to a discussion.

If your starting point is that it's completely unconnected to the Union (no 'probably' there), I'm not sure you've entirely grasped the meaning of the words 'debate' or 'discussion'.

Charles

Neil said:

Charles said:

Banned from holding public office? Seems a very strange sentence for something that (AFAIK) wasn't connected to his public duties. Positively undemocratic.

We have similar rules regarding MPs having to quit Parliament after convictions for serious crimes in the UK.

Firstly, I believe it is a convention vs a rule

Secondly, a ban on holding public office is forward looking. If one of our MPs served their sentence and then was relected (say an expenses cheat, for instance) then they could hold public office

stodge

Sean_F said:

MikeSmithson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

It isn't 1983 Mike. At the previous election in 1979, Labour and the Conservatives won 82.6% of the vote between them. At the last general election in 2010, the combined share of the vote between Labour and Conservative was just 65.1%. The share of the vote voting for parties other than the big two has doubled in the intervening years.

The big two parties are losing the argument that there is no alternative but to choose between one of them.

I would guess that, even with some 2010 Lib Dems deciding to vote Labour, the combined share of the vote for Labour and Conservative will decline a bit further in 2015.

The voting system remains first past the post. Labour can win an overall majority on 34%

There's likely to be a tipping point, as Conservative and Labour support goes below 30% for each party.

Sorry to come back to you again, Sean, but you raise the issue which I well remember as an Alliance activist. The fact is the lowest Conservative vote share since the war is 30.7% and the lowest Labour share 27.9% so that's 59% and unless either party significantly schisms or fragments further, that's the bedrock.

I was always told that the tipping point of Alliance support was 35% - above that, the number of seats won went straight up with a majority on 39% or thereabouts.

I suspect the same is true for UKIP now as it was for the Alliance then. For UKIP to win significant numbers of seats, BOTH the Conservative and Labour parties need to be down to 30% or ideally below. Try using Baxter and note the difference in UKIP seats between 30-30-30 and UKIP winning 34% and the Tory and Labour parties 28% each.

The duopoly hasn't been broken in terms of HoC seats - the Conservative and Labour parties won over 80% last time despite winning less than 2/3 of the vote. It's an enormous task for any insurgent party to do it.

MrJones

I think UKIP can bubble along getting 20-25% in a lot of places and 5% in others as long as their spokesmen are always distinctively non-PC but not too much. For big elections they need to have some money saved up to have their own polls done as a good or bad poll will be partially self-fulfilling so they want whichever is highest.

Charles

Theuniondivvie said:

Charles said:

@James Kelly FPT
It's completely unconnected to the unioon - probably diet, lifestyle, possibly genetics, possibly weather.
But either way it's pointless to debate with you if that's your approach to a discussion.

If your starting point is that it's completely unconnected to the Union (no 'probably' there), I'm not sure you've entirely grasped the meaning of the words 'debate' or 'discussion'.

Ok, pedant.

Happy to go with 'highly sceptical that the life expectancy of someone living in Scotland is affected by whether Scotland is part of the United Kingdom or not'.

If, of course, someone was to provide compelling evidence that political structure is more important than, say, diet and exercise I would change my mind.

Philip_Thompson

UKIP remain more comparable to the Green Party of the 80s/90s than even the SDP. The idea UKIP are going to "break the mould" is nothing more than wishful thinking.

If UKIP were serious about wanting their long-cherished EU referendum then they should think "mission nearly accomplished". They should hint they'd back the Tories at the General Election if the other parties don't commit to also having an In/Out referendum.

If UKIP want to be an alternative party, they should continue as they are but are in cloud cuckoo land and will harm the chances of actually getting an In/Out referendum.

TGOHF

Wasted Vote Syndrome ?

Is that the risk that their core vote - high on Exelon - tick the wrong box ?

SouthamObserver

tim said:

@electionista: #Italy - Silvio Berlusconi guilty and sentenced to 7 years in Ruby trial.

@electionista: #Italy - in addition to 7-year sentence, Silvio Berlusconi banned from holding public office.

The chances of him actually doing any time are surely less than zero.

rcs1000

MrJones said:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/inside-anglo-the-secret-recordings-29366837.html

bankstas

For the second time in a day, I find myself in complete agreement with you. There's a lot still to come out about the behaviour of the Irish banks.

(The antics of 'Fred the Shred' seem positively benign by comparison.)

Neil

Charles said:

Firstly, I believe it is a convention vs a rule

Not so, it's the law of the land.

JamesKelly

"If, of course, someone was to provide compelling evidence that political structure is more important than, say, diet and exercise I would change my mind."

Has it never crossed your mind that political structures affect things like diet and exercise, Charles? Was it pure coincidence that male life expectancy plummeted in Russia in the decade following the collapse of communism?

Neil

rcs1000 said:

There's a lot still to come out about the behaviour of the Irish banks.

I think people have a very good idea of what the upper echelons of management at these institutions (some of the worst offenders were building societies) were up to. That there have been so few criminal charges to date is depressing.

OldKingCole

stodge said:

Sean_F said:

The SDP's problem was too many chiefs and too few Indians. Amazingly, they left the 1981 local elections almost uncontested. They thought that having lots of well-known figures at the top mattered far more than having an organisation on the ground. UKIP seem to have learned from this, and are working hard at building up their local government base. Next year should see big gains for the UKIP in local elections, on the coat-tails of the EU elections. But, their vote will still be squeezed come 2015.

To be fair, Sean, the SDP was only formally launched after the Limehouse Declaration so there was very little time for the party to get organised before the 1981 local contests. The party's first formal contest was Warrington in the summer of 1981.

The big advance could have been the 1982 local elections. As I've recounted on here, I was standing in a solid Tory Ward in south-east London and my running-mate was a very pleasant SDP man. We went out canvassing in February 1982 and found a huge swing from the Conservatives. We probably wouldn't have won our seat but I'm convinced that had the Falklands conflict not taken place, the SDP would have made significant gains in the 1982 locals

Looking back at those (according to Wikipedia) the Alliance parties polled 27%, Labour 29% and the Conservatives 40%. I genuinely think the Conservatives would have polled 25-30% without the Falklands with the Alliance parties topping the poll and gaining not 395 seats but many many more.

Those who argue that the Conservatives would have been re-elected without the Falklands forget what a traumatic loss that would have been (and it's likely on that basis that Bruce Douglas-Mann would have held Mitcham & Morden and Paul Tyler might have got close to an upset in Beaconsfield) for the Tories and how it might have encouraged some others in that party to defect.

The Tory party in 1981-2 was very worried indeed. By early 1982, just before the Falklands, there was a LOT of hope in Alliance circles, and it really looked as though that hope was justified.
In April even with the invasion it was still touch and go. It wasn't until things started to go very well in late May and June that Tory fortunes really picked up.
It's fair to recall too, that had the Falklands been lost, the business about the Tories being prepared for joint sovereignty would have come out, and the MP's who caused all the fuss about it, and got the proposal stopped, would have been vilified.

TGOHF

Charles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Charles said:

@James Kelly FPT
It's completely unconnected to the unioon - probably diet, lifestyle, possibly genetics, possibly weather.
But either way it's pointless to debate with you if that's your approach to a discussion.

If your starting point is that it's completely unconnected to the Union (no 'probably' there), I'm not sure you've entirely grasped the meaning of the words 'debate' or 'discussion'.

Ok, pedant.

Happy to go with 'highly sceptical that the life expectancy of someone living in Scotland is affected by whether Scotland is part of the United Kingdom or not'.

If, of course, someone was to provide compelling evidence that political structure is more important than, say, diet and exercise I would change my mind.

Charles - surely you can understand that someone might be too depressed due to the Westminster jackboot being on their throat to put down their fags, special brew and head for a tofu salad at the gym ?

Theuniondivvie

Charles said:

Ok, pedant.

Happy to go with 'highly sceptical that the life expectancy of someone living in Scotland is affected by whether Scotland is part of the United Kingdom or not'.

If, of course, someone was to provide compelling evidence that political structure is more important than, say, diet and exercise I would change my mind.

So life expectancy, diet, lifestyle and socio-economics in general are nothing to do with political structures?
Right-oh.

JamesKelly

"When people pointed out that it was due to life expectancy being lower in Scotland you made a trite remark (several times - it wasn't funny the first time) about it being a dividend from the union."

It wasn't intended to be 'funny" - it was an entirely serious point. The fact that Fluffy even flagged my comments as "trolling" just demonstrate the extent to which you PB Tories inhabit a different planet. I'm afraid the record of the union will be on trial in this referendum, whether you like it or not. I can hardly think of a better reason to abandon London rule than the appalling effect it has had on Scottish life expectancy.

carl

A significant, but thinly spread and ultimately powerless Rightwing alternative to the Tories, with a particular appeal amongst more motivated traditional Tories at the older end of the spectrum.

It's all Labour's Christmases come at once. Ed's laughing all the way to No 10.

NickPalmer

UKIP voters are probably more immune to the "wasted vote" argument since many UKIP voters essentially feel that "they're all the same" and the current major parties are incapable of producing a good government. If you are essentially indifferent to whether Labour or Tories are in power and mainly want to shout "YOU'RE ALL RUBBISH!" then it's pretty irrelevant whether UKIP is close to winning your seat or not. But a defection or by=-election win would give them loads more airtime, and that's what they need to keep getting.

Charles - the 12-month rule isn't just a convention. You are automatically disqualified if you're sentenced to over 12 months. A convention wouldn't be enough, since that could only be enforced by a majority of MPs voting to expel, and really MPs should not have the power to expel other MPs because of the obvious potential for abusive use. There is IMO a good case for saying that people should be free to elect whomever they like - a brilliant child, a criminal in prison, a foreigner, whatever - but it's not how the system, works here (or, evidently, in Italy).

Scott_P

Liam Byrne will have his own place in history

@phil_reilly
A stark reminder that Labour can’t be trusted with the economy. The infamous letter. http://pic.twitter.com/cKl0jeJq2p

Sean_F

stodge said:

Sean_F said:

MikeSmithson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

It isn't 1983 Mike. At the previous election in 1979, Labour and the Conservatives won 82.6% of the vote between them. At the last general election in 2010, the combined share of the vote between Labour and Conservative was just 65.1%. The share of the vote voting for parties other than the big two has doubled in the intervening years.

The big two parties are losing the argument that there is no alternative but to choose between one of them.

I would guess that, even with some 2010 Lib Dems deciding to vote Labour, the combined share of the vote for Labour and Conservative will decline a bit further in 2015.

The voting system remains first past the post. Labour can win an overall majority on 34%

There's likely to be a tipping point, as Conservative and Labour support goes below 30% for each party.

Sorry to come back to you again, Sean, but you raise the issue which I well remember as an Alliance activist. The fact is the lowest Conservative vote share since the war is 30.7% and the lowest Labour share 27.9% so that's 59% and unless either party significantly schisms or fragments further, that's the bedrock.

I was always told that the tipping point of Alliance support was 35% - above that, the number of seats won went straight up with a majority on 39% or thereabouts.

I suspect the same is true for UKIP now as it was for the Alliance then. For UKIP to win significant numbers of seats, BOTH the Conservative and Labour parties need to be down to 30% or ideally below. Try using Baxter and note the difference in UKIP seats between 30-30-30 and UKIP winning 34% and the Tory and Labour parties 28% each.

The duopoly hasn't been broken in terms of HoC seats - the Conservative and Labour parties won over 80% last time despite winning less than 2/3 of the vote. It's an enormous task for any insurgent party to do it.

I don't see that changing in 2015 but afterwards? The fact is that support for the Conservative and Labour parties is being eroded year by year and decade by decade.

Sean_F

carl said:

A significant, but thinly spread and ultimately powerless Rightwing alternative to the Tories, with a particular appeal amongst more motivated traditional Tories at the older end of the spectrum.

It's all Labour's Christmases come at once. Ed's laughing all the way to No 10.

They also appeal to some Labour voters, and crucially, the "anybody but Labour" vote that exists in a number of seats that are, on paper, safe for Labour.

Neil

Scott_P said:

Liam Byrne will have his own place in history

"Only the Lib Dems can be trusted". Ha! What ever happened to that pleasant chap who received the letter? They dont say whether he was particularly trustworthy. Did he last long in the post?

MrJones

Neil said:

rcs1000 said:

There's a lot still to come out about the behaviour of the Irish banks.

I think people have a very good idea of what the upper echelons of management at these institutions (some of the worst offenders were building societies) were up to. That there have been so few criminal charges to date is depressing.

Not often you get it on tape though.

Anorak

Scott_P said:

Liam Byrne will have his own place in history

@phil_reilly
A stark reminder that Labour can’t be trusted with the economy. The infamous letter. http://pic.twitter.com/cKl0jeJq2p

I feel rather sorry for Byrne. A rare display of humour from a politician and it will hound him to his grave. Can't even accuse him of being mistaken...

Neil

tim said:

David Laws,who can't be trusted on any level by anyone

Well, Nick Clegg seems willing to overlook his failings.

Scott_P

@MSmithsonPB: A punter at a Hills shop in Glasgow has bet £200,000 that the outcome of the 2014 #IndyRef will be a vote AGAINST Independence

Let's hope he lives long enough to collect, eh?

carl

There's no money left!

Unless you're a millionaire, in which case Dave and George will find plenty for your big juicy tax cut.

SouthamObserver

JamesKelly said:

"When people pointed out that it was due to life expectancy being lower in Scotland you made a trite remark (several times - it wasn't funny the first time) about it being a dividend from the union."

It wasn't intended to be 'funny" - it was an entirely serious point. The fact that Fluffy even flagged my comments as "trolling" just demonstrate the extent to which you PB Tories inhabit a different planet. I'm afraid the record of the union will be on trial in this referendum, whether you like it or not. I can hardly think of a better reason to abandon London rule than the appalling effect it has had on Scottish life expectancy.

But what effect has it had?

JamesKelly

"But what effect has it had?"

Scottish life expectancy is several years shorter than the UK average, and it also compares appallingly to other countries in western Europe.

Scott_P

JamesKelly said:

Scottish life expectancy is several years shorter than the UK average, and it also compares appallingly to other countries in western Europe.

Scottish prison cancer survival rates are way above International average...

Sunil_Prasannan

4-4 in the first set. Murray was leading Benjamin Becker 4-2 a few minutes ago...

EDIT: OK 5-4 to Murray now.

JamesKelly

"Scottish prison cancer survival rates are way above International average..."

Source?

Sean_F

JamesKelly said:

"But what effect has it had?"

Scottish life expectancy is several years shorter than the UK average, and it also compares appallingly to other countries in western Europe.

And, is that caused by Scotland's current constitutional position?

Anorak

JamesKelly said:

"But what effect has it had?"

Scottish life expectancy is several years shorter than the UK average, and it also compares appallingly to other countries in western Europe.

On a financial level, does the saving in pension costs outweigh the additional healthcare costs, or vice versa? Silver linings and all that...

MrJones

http://www.zerohedge.com/

The financial crisis appears to be back again - who'd a thunk it.

And the Russkis and Chinese seem to be enjoying themselves playing ping pong with Snowden to annoy the US. I'd guess that bodes badly.

Neil

Scott_P said:

@MSmithsonPB: A punter at a Hills shop in Glasgow has bet £200,000

Pocket money to financier!

Presumably Hills will be offering the best value on 'yes' for the next while until they balance that out.

Marches

Neil said:

rcs1000 said:

There's a lot still to come out about the behaviour of the Irish banks.

I think people have a very good idea of what the upper echelons of management at these institutions (some of the worst offenders were building societies) were up to. That there have been so few criminal charges to date is depressing.

The issue is one of the links between senior management of the banks (particularly the genuinely domestic banks) and FF/FG. There's enthusasism for the odd scapegoat (and Anglo-Irish should provide it) but I haven't seen any desire for a SA style truth and reconciliation system let alone a full stable cleansing.

TGOHF

Surely nobody is offering odds on "no" on better than 1/5 ?

Max_Edinburgh

So come independence day we can all look forward to being as svelte as Alex Salmond?

I'd politely suggest he's not exactly a stranger to a deep fried pizza or two!

Sunil_Prasannan

Andy Murray takes first set 6-4 against Benjamin Becker*

(* no relation of the legendary Boris)

Anorak

Murray a set up

Sunil, it seems I'm Henman to your Federer in terms of tennis reporting.

Anorak

tim said:

Nadal two sets down.
Quick, call for the Spanish chemist.

And a break down in the third!! Upset of all upsets if he goes down here.

JamesKelly

"And, is that caused by Scotland's current constitutional position?"

Are you suggesting it isn't? On what basis?

SouthamObserver

JamesKelly said:

"But what effect has it had?"

Scottish life expectancy is several years shorter than the UK average, and it also compares appallingly to other countries in western Europe.

But why is that the fault of the Union? Can lifestyle choices really be blamed on a country's constitutional settlement? It's not just a case of the English living longer than everyone else in the UK, the Northern Irish and the Welsh also outlive the Scots; while in England there are significant differences between various regions and classes.

smithersjones2013

Compared with the 1983 SDP Farage’s party is miles behind – no MPs, no Westminster by-election victories and no defections from other parties

Of course the thing that seems to have been forgotten and actually is that at the 1983 general election the SDP decided to enter an electoral pact with the Liberals (echoing the disasterous pact that Labour, including the likes of Jenkins, Owen and Williams had just 6 years before. If the SDP did so badly perhaps it was because they mixed with the wrong people.

Or alternatively UKIP are not burdened by the baggage of the likes of Woy, Shirley, David and Bill who were all leading lights in that disaster that was the 1970's Labour Government.that nearly bankrupted the country. The SDP were Labour rejects. In the face of a post Falklands resurgent Conservative Party is it any wonder that Labour-lite were treated with the same scepticism as their former friends in the Labour Party?

Or alternatively taking the other viewpoint the Alliance polled 3.4 million more votes than the Liberals in 1979 almost all (3 million) of which came from the Labour Party it would seem. In such a circumstance if UKIP took half that number of votes from the Tories (so they were polling somewhere between 2.5 and 3 million votes they would be cock-a-hoop based on previous performance.

Whichever way its a poor comparison. The SDP was not a traditional poltical party but a vehicle for a number of 'celebrity' politicians who had used the Labour Party to get their status and then deserted Labour. UKIP on the other hand are a 20 year old party formed to represent views no longer represented elsewhere.

Sadly this is nothing more than just another Smithson strawman in his solo crusade to talk down UKIP.

JamesKelly

"Can lifestyle choices really be blamed on a country's constitutional settlement?"

Why do people have such poor lifestyle choices, SO? Are you seriously suggesting that the way we've been governed over recent decades (you identified the 1950s as the turning-point) is not having a major impact?

Scott_P

SouthamObserver said:

Can lifestyle choices really be blamed on a country's constitutional settlement?

People in Scotland under "Westminster rule" live considerably longer than they did when Scotland was an Independent Nation

Clearly James is right that constitutional settlement is the key factor, and Scotland should retain it's current status.

Sean_F

JamesKelly said:

"And, is that caused by Scotland's current constitutional position?"

Are you suggesting it isn't? On what basis?

It's hard to prove a negative. Do you have links to any medical literature that indicates that your claim is correct?

It's a mystery as to why Scottish life expectancy is lower than the rest of the UK, given similar standards of healthcare.

JamesKelly

"It's a mystery as to why Scottish life expectancy is lower than the rest of the UK"

Ah yes, of course, a total mystery.

Anything good that happens in Scotland = conclusive proof that we are 'better together' in this, the most glorious political union the planet has yet had the good fortune to witness.

Anything bad that happens in Scotland = BAFFLING.

"It's a triumph for Dave!"

Sunil_Prasannan

Anorak said:

Murray a set up

Sunil, it seems I'm Henman to your Federer in terms of tennis reporting.

Or even Nadal?

He's down two sets and a break in the third set....

Sean_F

JamesKelly said:

"Can lifestyle choices really be blamed on a country's constitutional settlement?"

Why do people have such poor lifestyle choices, SO? Are you seriously suggesting that the way we've been governed over recent decades (you identified the 1950s as the turning-point) is not having a major impact?

Given that the quality of government is much the same across the UK, you'd expect the impact on health outcomes to be similar across the UK as well.

Sean_F

JamesKelly said:

"It's a mystery as to why Scottish life expectancy is lower than the rest of the UK"

Ah yes, of course, a total mystery.

Anything good that happens in Scotland = conclusive proof that we are 'better together' in this, the most glorious political union the planet has yet had the good fortune to witness.

Anything bad that happens in Scotland = BAFFLING.

"It's a triumph for Dave!"

Can you point to any medical literature that backs your assertion?

Plato

This could be interesting and embarrassing

RT @jameschappers: .@Keith_VazMP writes to SOCA chair Sir Ian Andrew demanding list of blue chip firms employing private investigators to break the law

JamesKelly

"Given that the quality of government is much the same across the UK"

If that was really true we'd be enjoying the affluence and life expectancy of the Home Counties, and independence wouldn't really be an issue.

Anyone naive enough to think that the UK government sees itself as a government for the whole UK should read the McCrone report.

Sean_F

JamesKelly said:

"Given that the quality of government is much the same across the UK"

If that was really true we'd be enjoying the affluence and life expectancy of the Home Counties, and independence wouldn't really be an issue.

Anyone naive enough to think that the UK government sees itself as a government for the whole UK should read the McCrone report.

So, why do you think that Northern Ireland, and Wales, both poorer than Scotland, enjoy better health outcomes?

JamesKelly

"Can you point to any medical literature that backs your assertion?"

I'll have a look if I ever get to the point of needing to refute any medical literature you may want to cite in support of your extraordinary assertion that Scotland's poor life expectancy figures have nothing to do with the way we are governed from London. Do you have any?

Morris_Dancer

Good evening, everyone.

Surprised how Nadal's first match is going.

JamesKelly

"So, why do you think that Northern Ireland, and Wales, both poorer than Scotland, enjoy better health outcomes?"

Why do you think Wales and Northern Ireland both have lower life expectancy figures than England? Do you really want to pursue this point?

SouthamObserver

JamesKelly said:

"Can lifestyle choices really be blamed on a country's constitutional settlement?"

Why do people have such poor lifestyle choices, SO? Are you seriously suggesting that the way we've been governed over recent decades (you identified the 1950s as the turning-point) is not having a major impact?

I don't know, it was a genuine question.

It's interesting, though, that the change began to occur around the time of the establishment of the NHS; while the real acceleration seems to have begun at the start of the 1980s and the end of heavy industry.

MarkSenior

We will get a good idea of how resilient UKIP support is in council by elections over the next 5/6 weeks .
We have
this Thursday South Tyneside MBC Cleadon and East Bolden UKIP seat elected as Conservative death
and Worcs CC Stourport UKIP seat resignation following racist comments
July 4th Newcastle Under Lyme DC Silverdale/Parkside Labour seat gained from UKIP in 2011majority of just 40
August 1st Norfolk CC Thetford West UKIP seat resignation following shoplifting disclosure majority just 1 vote
Date TBC Worcs CC St Marys UKIP seat death

It would not be surprising if UKIP won none of these by elections .

Charles

JamesKelly said:

"If, of course, someone was to provide compelling evidence that political structure is more important than, say, diet and exercise I would change my mind."

Has it never crossed your mind that political structures affect things like diet and exercise, Charles? Was it pure coincidence that male life expectancy plummeted in Russia in the decade following the collapse of communism?

Because of collapsing market structures, incomes and access to medication.

I don't that Scottish residents will lack access to food, water and healthcare regardless of the political systems on offer.

Sean_F

JamesKelly said:

"Can you point to any medical literature that backs your assertion?"

I'll have a look if I ever get to the point of needing to refute any medical literature you may want to cite in support of your extraordinary assertion that Scotland's poor life expectancy figures have nothing to do with the way we are governed from London. Do you have any?

I've never made such an assertion. I've questioned your assertion that Scotland's low life expectancy is due to its being part of the UK (something which appears to have no bearing on life expectancy in Wales and Northern Ireland).

Charles

Theuniondivvie said:

Charles said:

Ok, pedant.

Happy to go with 'highly sceptical that the life expectancy of someone living in Scotland is affected by whether Scotland is part of the United Kingdom or not'.

If, of course, someone was to provide compelling evidence that political structure is more important than, say, diet and exercise I would change my mind.

So life expectancy, diet, lifestyle and socio-economics in general are nothing to do with political structures?
Right-oh.

The difference between (1) Scotland, an independent mature Western democracy, and (2) Scotland, an important part of the United Kingdom, an mature Western democracy is not meaningful.

Russia post the collapse of communism is not a meaningful comparable.