Raheem Kassam @RaheemKassam .@GuidoFawkes, "I was out with the PM's aides last week and they laughed about EU renegotiations. They're not even pretending it's real." 1:07 PM - 26 Sep 2015
Which is not surprising in the least. The whole Cammo referendum has always been a farce.
Yes it is. Something Daniel Hannon has continually pointed out. but if Cameron thinks that this will improve his cances of remaining he is mistaken. Look at the Business for Britain publications to see how they are setting things up for a coherent alternative by first listing what he used to say and what should be asked for as a minimum. http://businessforbritain.org/change-or-go/
Streets ahead of Aaron Banks leave.eu
There's a BfB event in guildhall on 1st I could swing invites for people if they want
To develop my theme the mere existence of UKIP helps the Tories look more moderate, more centrist, more rational and less unpleasant. It has done more to detoxify the Tories than any single step that Cameron or Osborne have been able to take.
As Corbyn is about to find big tents with lots of lunatics and people whose views appall the majority of Britons is no recipe for electoral success.
Lots of views of UKIP are actually agreed with by large shares of the general public. I can't think of any policies they have which are lunatic. I would much rather the Right was not being split.
You have to bear in mind that as far as DavidL is concerned it appears that any view which is not in agreement with Cameroon othodoxy is ipso facto 'lunatic'.
Not so. I overstated my position and I apologise. I blame the rugby.
Scotland really struggling here. 13-6 down is unbelievable.
I think you will find that this is how Scotland are looking to play under Cotter. It is quite deliberate that the first half will not see Scotland go ahead, instead they are wearing the opponent down and using the second half to score.
I'm hoping that a in play bet on Scotland during the first half against South Africa will be quite profitable.
TUD There would indeed be thousands of jobs lost in Faslane and Helensburgh if Trident is moved out ..in spite of the nonsense that the SNP are feeding you.. and it is gratifying that McClusky has come around to my viewpoint ... now tell me , what is unintelligible about that... LOL..
I can only say that it does not surprise me that UKIP has lost 10% of it's membership since the election.
After all the build up prior to the election by some kippers, including me, the outcome of the GE was a huge disappointment, and the ructions about Farage's resignation didn't help. That UKIP has not advanced since the elections is evident by the poor attendance at the recently completed conference..
One of my reasons for joining UKIP was that I wanted to see a vibrant right wing party exist in the UK, (and I don't mean a so called far right party) and the rise of UKIP in 2013/14 was such a chance.
I will not resign my membership, but will let it lapse come March if there is no improvement. Also perhaps, at the age of 81, I need to let younger people take up the fight.
Many on PB will laugh and chuckle at what I have written; so be it. All I can say to that is get stuffed!
Ironically, any system close to PR [ not necessarily PR ] would have given UKIP or your party of the Right reasonable representation. AV or d'hondt would have given UKIP many more seats.
Was there a motion in favour of PR at the Lib Dem conference ?
There was a presentation on how STV works at the Kipper conference. What I struggle with is how the Surplus Votes bit works. How is it decided which pile of votes is classed as the surplus?
The surplus is the straightforward bit of STV. If say, a seat has 5 members, then one sixth of the vote is needed for a candidate to be elected. If say, one candidate won 25%, then that part of his vote which exceeds 16.67% is redistributed to his second choices.
I've never understood, though, how fractions of votes get redistributed.
The second preference of all votes cast for the first successfully elected candidate is multiplied by the fractional surplus and applied to those candidates.
So if the fractional surplus is 16.67% and the first elected gets 1000 votes, if 400 of those show a second preference for Candidate B, then Candidate B gets 400 * 16.67% or 66.68 votes added to their first preference total.
The solicitor, Christopher Hales, who acted for Thomson, was struck off last year for professional misconduct over his role in the deals.
Was Thomson in court or anything done on it, just smearing and wild speculation at this point. What is your opinion of your top Tory donor, who went bankrupt , hid assets , bent as a three bob bit, I will not hold my breath waiting on your response.
Are you defending the way Thompson operated her property empire, busily swindling scottish voters, quite possibly with dodgy mortgage deals? She is not a donor she is a MP.
I am saying that at present it is merely idle speculation, time will tell if she is a wrong un.
Thats a long way from 'LOL' all of a sudden. The history of her activities seems pretty plain and we'll documented.
So why has nothing been done about it , other than some whinging by a London Rag.........LOL You seem easily persuaded by some hogwash in a right wing rag. Did Mandelson end up in court after his mortgage irregularities?
Single Transferable Vote system in Multi-Member Constituencies implies that the elector has one vote and it gets transferred as much as is possible. Is D'Hondt the same or could it be applied to lists (if it was that would make it less preferable)?
If I remember correctly, Mr Song, D´Hondt is applied to party lists, altough there is scope for the individual electors to try to change the order within the list.
With STV, electors are not tied down to a single party. They could, for example, if they were so minded, cast their vote for all the female candidates of whatever party before starting on the men. It depends on what each elector considers to be important.
Several posters on PB constantly decry the power and influence of the party machine. STV is the voting system which best counters party control - assuming that is what the electors want, of course.
I wonder if Mr Eagles could give us a thread about D´Hondt at some time.....
Latest from the Labour debacle of a conference.....
Latest: Trident will NOT be debated at conference The renewal (or non-renewal) of Trident will NOT be discussed at this week's Labour conference after all. It had been expected to be one of the eight topics to be picked from 12 possible areas for debate, but it did not make the cut.
My colleague Christopher Hope says the party's policy committee did not choose it for discussion. BREAKING There will be NO vote on the Trident nuclear deterrent after all at the Labour party conference, sources tell me. M/F — Christopher Hope (@christopherhope) September 27, 2015
Why is it a debacle ?
Why is it not being discussed should be your question.
The unions have decided for you. A debacle....you might as well just save this weeks hotel bills.
Listen you FA. Don't f*cking advise me what should be my question, you pin-prick of a brain ! I still think it is not a debacle.
What will get you over the line into thinking it is a debacle? An epic fist fight on the floor of the conference hall?
As an aside, this Hillary story could mark the beginning of the end: http://reut.rs/1PDw4lC
'The exchange of 10 or so emails, the existence of which were first reported by the Associated Press on Friday, largely dealt with personnel issues, according to the State Department.'
Single Transferable Vote system in Multi-Member Constituencies implies that the elector has one vote and it gets transferred as much as is possible. Is D'Hondt the same or could it be applied to lists (if it was that would make it less preferable)?
If I remember correctly, Mr Song, D´Hondt is applied to party lists, altough there is scope for the individual electors to try to change the order within the list.
With STV, electors are not tied down to a single party. They could, for example, if they were so minded, cast their vote for all the female candidates of whatever party before starting on the men. It depends on what each elector considers to be important.
Several posters on PB constantly decry the power and influence of the party machine. STV is the voting system which best counters party control - assuming that is what the electors want, of course.
I wonder if Mr Eagles could give us a thread about D´Hondt at some time.....
I will, however I must declare that I consider the D'Hondt closed list system terrible as closed list systems are the spawn of Satan.
Mr. Dair, unsure if Hamilton would be value. He got it last time, I think, and this year it's been one-sided all season (save Singapore).
There's not a huge amount of competition this year. I don't recall any golfer or boxer doing particularly well this year, no outsider sports have thrown up a high profile new star.
I'm pretty confident it will come down to the Davis Cup, if GB wins then Murray will get SPOTY, if not Hamilton. Either way, I'm pretty certain Froome will end up third.
Single Transferable Vote system in Multi-Member Constituencies implies that the elector has one vote and it gets transferred as much as is possible. Is D'Hondt the same or could it be applied to lists (if it was that would make it less preferable)?
If I remember correctly, Mr Song, D´Hondt is applied to party lists, altough there is scope for the individual electors to try to change the order within the list.
With STV, electors are not tied down to a single party. They could, for example, if they were so minded, cast their vote for all the female candidates of whatever party before starting on the men. It depends on what each elector considers to be important.
Several posters on PB constantly decry the power and influence of the party machine. STV is the voting system which best counters party control - assuming that is what the electors want, of course.
I wonder if Mr Eagles could give us a thread about D´Hondt at some time.....
When I was a politics A Level student I thought PR was the work of the devil, but now I'm not so sure. If we were to go to PR then I'd much prefer STV over D'Hondt as it allows voters the order in which they allocate their vote to individuals. With D'Hondt it is the party that controls the order in which candidates are elected.
Latest from the Labour debacle of a conference.....
Latest: Trident will NOT be debated at conference The renewal (or non-renewal) of Trident will NOT be discussed at this week's Labour conference after all. It had been expected to be one of the eight topics to be picked from 12 possible areas for debate, but it did not make the cut.
My colleague Christopher Hope says the party's policy committee did not choose it for discussion. BREAKING There will be NO vote on the Trident nuclear deterrent after all at the Labour party conference, sources tell me. M/F — Christopher Hope (@christopherhope) September 27, 2015
Why is it a debacle ?
Why is it not being discussed should be your question.
The unions have decided for you. A debacle....you might as well just save this weeks hotel bills.
Listen you FA. Don't f*cking advise me what should be my question, you pin-prick of a brain ! I still think it is not a debacle.
What will get you over the line into thinking it is a debacle? An epic fist fight on the floor of the conference hall?
"But the motion failed to get the support it needed from activists in a ballot selecting the issues to be debated this week in Brighton."
Single Transferable Vote system in Multi-Member Constituencies implies that the elector has one vote and it gets transferred as much as is possible. Is D'Hondt the same or could it be applied to lists (if it was that would make it less preferable)?
If I remember correctly, Mr Song, D´Hondt is applied to party lists, altough there is scope for the individual electors to try to change the order within the list.
With STV, electors are not tied down to a single party. They could, for example, if they were so minded, cast their vote for all the female candidates of whatever party before starting on the men. It depends on what each elector considers to be important.
Several posters on PB constantly decry the power and influence of the party machine. STV is the voting system which best counters party control - assuming that is what the electors want, of course.
I wonder if Mr Eagles could give us a thread about D´Hondt at some time.....
I will, however I must declare that I consider the D'Hondt closed list system terrible as closed list systems are the spawn of Satan.
The demand for open lists iss a Utopian desire that can never be met by reality. It's shows a very unrealistic expectation of voter sophistication.
Surbiton....nowt to do with the security of the Nation then.. just some toys for the boys..utter tosh.. why trivialise such an important issue.. Labour are already showing they cannot deal with the vital matters such as Defence.
Single Transferable Vote system in Multi-Member Constituencies implies that the elector has one vote and it gets transferred as much as is possible. Is D'Hondt the same or could it be applied to lists (if it was that would make it less preferable)?
If I remember correctly, Mr Song, D´Hondt is applied to party lists, altough there is scope for the individual electors to try to change the order within the list.
With STV, electors are not tied down to a single party. They could, for example, if they were so minded, cast their vote for all the female candidates of whatever party before starting on the men. It depends on what each elector considers to be important.
Several posters on PB constantly decry the power and influence of the party machine. STV is the voting system which best counters party control - assuming that is what the electors want, of course.
I wonder if Mr Eagles could give us a thread about D´Hondt at some time.....
When I was a politics A Level student I thought PR was the work of the devil, but now I'm not so sure. If we were to go to PR then I'd much prefer STV over D'Hondt as it allows voters the order in which they allocate their vote to individuals. With D'Hondt it is the party that controls the order in which candidates are elected.
Yes but people vote for parties not candidates. It's very unlikely that they even have full information on the manifesto their voting for, most votes will be cast on the "I'm voting Labour because they'll give me the most" or "I'm voting Tory so my tax bill gets cut".
A voting system should have some understanding on voter behaviour. Voters will never be perfectly informed or even that interested in drilled down details, especially when it comes to specific candidates.
Also STV requires multi-member constituencies to be proportional - AV, which is just single member STV is not proportional at all. You really need 4 or 5 member constituencies to even start approaching proportionality. This would create some geographically immense constituencies in some parts of the country.
If Benn has any self respect he will surely resign his ministerial post..
No, as he will be the prime candidate to take over if there is any coup before 2020
Corbyn learning from Brown - destroy anybody that the disgruntled might rally around....
Whom did Gordon Brown destroy, that the disgruntled might have rallied around?
In the run-up to the 2010 general election, David Miliband, Alistair Darling and Jack Straw held senior Cabinet posts, as did Lord Mandelson, Alan Johnson and Harriet Harman. It is Tory myth that Brown purged the Cabinet or the party.
Yeah, Brown and his people were whiter than white in their dealings with colleagues. Tory myth?
"Mr Balls insists that he had no knowledge of the "three hideous smears" against John Reid, Charles Clarke and Ivan Lewis and claims that he resisted attempts by Mr Brown to undermine Alistair Darling, then Chancellor."
"A former defence secretary and some Generals [this week] wrote a letter demanding the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons programme. You're probably familiar with these men who are worried about their own virility and buy large sports cars, and this I think is a case in point." - Portillo
The compromise will be 2 Tridents. Britain has the capability of delivering nuclear even today.
Why is everyone so hung up on having nuclear missiles? I can see why so many young people side w Corbyn when he says he desires a world free of them.
I dissent from the UKIP line on this!
They are hung up on it because they are America's nuclear missiles, part of America's nuclear strategy; it just happens they are on British territory, paid for by Britain. If we were to cancel them, we would be breaking a part of that strategy. Hence the closer people get to the corridors of power, the more they seem to warm to the idea of keeping them.
"A former defence secretary and some Generals [this week] wrote a letter demanding the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons programme. You're probably familiar with these men who are worried about their own virility and buy large sports cars, and this I think is a case in point." - Portillo
The compromise will be 2 Tridents. Britain has the capability of delivering nuclear even today.
Why is everyone so hung up on having nuclear missiles? I can see why so many young people side w Corbyn when he says he desires a world free of them.
I dissent from the UKIP line on this!
They are hung up on it because they are America's nuclear missiles, part of America's nuclear strategy; it just happens they are on British territory, paid for by Britain. If we were to cancel them, we would be breaking a part of that strategy. Hence the closer people get to the corridors of power, the more they seem to warm to the idea of keeping them.
Would you be comfortable with our nuclear weapons if they were manufactured here?
"A former defence secretary and some Generals [this week] wrote a letter demanding the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons programme. You're probably familiar with these men who are worried about their own virility and buy large sports cars, and this I think is a case in point." - Portillo
The compromise will be 2 Tridents. Britain has the capability of delivering nuclear even today.
Why is everyone so hung up on having nuclear missiles? I can see why so many young people side w Corbyn when he says he desires a world free of them.
I dissent from the UKIP line on this!
They are hung up on it because they are America's nuclear missiles, part of America's nuclear strategy; it just happens they are on British territory, paid for by Britain. If we were to cancel them, we would be breaking a part of that strategy. Hence the closer people get to the corridors of power, the more they seem to warm to the idea of keeping them.
Would you be comfortable with our nuclear weapons if they were manufactured here?
Latest from the Labour debacle of a conference.....
Latest: Trident will NOT be debated at conference The renewal (or non-renewal) of Trident will NOT be discussed at this week's Labour conference after all. It had been expected to be one of the eight topics to be picked from 12 possible areas for debate, but it did not make the cut.
My colleague Christopher Hope says the party's policy committee did not choose it for discussion. BREAKING There will be NO vote on the Trident nuclear deterrent after all at the Labour party conference, sources tell me. M/F — Christopher Hope (@christopherhope) September 27, 2015
Why is it a debacle ?
Why is it not being discussed should be your question.
The unions have decided for you. A debacle....you might as well just save this weeks hotel bills.
Listen you FA. Don't f*cking advise me what should be my question, you pin-prick of a brain ! I still think it is not a debacle.
It's all gone terribly wrong. What happened to the smug Surbiton pre May? He was more relaxed, wrong but relaxed.
Labour are scared shitless of dealing with the big boys issues...like the defense of the citizens of the UK... And they want to run the country...ya gorra larf..
As an aside, this Hillary story could mark the beginning of the end: http://reut.rs/1PDw4lC
'The exchange of 10 or so emails, the existence of which were first reported by the Associated Press on Friday, largely dealt with personnel issues, according to the State Department.'
Such as whether to assign additional protection officers to the Ambassador to Libya, as he requested?
"A former defence secretary and some Generals [this week] wrote a letter demanding the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons programme. You're probably familiar with these men who are worried about their own virility and buy large sports cars, and this I think is a case in point." - Portillo
The compromise will be 2 Tridents. Britain has the capability of delivering nuclear even today.
Why is everyone so hung up on having nuclear missiles? I can see why so many young people side w Corbyn when he says he desires a world free of them.
I dissent from the UKIP line on this!
They are hung up on it because they are America's nuclear missiles, part of America's nuclear strategy; it just happens they are on British territory, paid for by Britain. If we were to cancel them, we would be breaking a part of that strategy. Hence the closer people get to the corridors of power, the more they seem to warm to the idea of keeping them.
Would you be comfortable with our nuclear weapons if they were manufactured here?
If we ever had Russian ones here they have probably already been launched. ;-)
Yes but people vote for parties not candidates. It's very unlikely that they even have full information on the manifesto their voting for, most votes will be cast on the "I'm voting Labour because they'll give me the most" or "I'm voting Tory so my tax bill gets cut".
A voting system should have some understanding on voter behaviour. Voters will never be perfectly informed or even that interested in drilled down details, especially when it comes to specific candidates.
Also STV requires multi-member constituencies to be proportional - AV, which is just single member STV is not proportional at all. You really need 4 or 5 member constituencies to even start approaching proportionality. This would create some geographically immense constituencies in some parts of the country.
Unduly pessimistic about the level of voter sophistication, I fear, Mr Dair. If people currently vote for the party rather than the individual, that is a consequence of the FPTP voting system, because you are allowed only one vote, and you give it to the person your party decided to impose on you.
If, under STV, you had a four-member consituency, you could still give your party your first four preferences, but you do have to put them in order of preference. If you had to rank four SDP candidates, would you not have any preference among them? Would you not take some interest (as an ordinary voter) in finding about their track record?
It seems to happen in the Republic of Ireland. How else would they be able to get rid of an unpopular party leader, while still supporting the party?
This is how the Independence Alliance can, and probably will, win an overall majority of seats while not getting most votes.
That said, turnout continues to be at record levels in areas that traditionally vote for anti-separatist parties.
Bet you £5 that JxSi doesn't get a majority of seats
They won't, but CUP is also pro-independence and they look like winning between 8 and 12 seats. Intriguingly, though, they have said they won't support it in the new Parliament if most votes are cast for anti-independence parties. With the large turnout - especially in the large urban areas where support for separation is lowest - that is now looking a distinct possibility. That, plus a change of government in Madrid in December could help to resolve things.
Latest from the Labour debacle of a conference.....
Latest: Trident will NOT be debated at conference The renewal (or non-renewal) of Trident will NOT be discussed at this week's Labour conference after all. It had been expected to be one of the eight topics to be picked from 12 possible areas for debate, but it did not make the cut.
My colleague Christopher Hope says the party's policy committee did not choose it for discussion. BREAKING There will be NO vote on the Trident nuclear deterrent after all at the Labour party conference, sources tell me. M/F — Christopher Hope (@christopherhope) September 27, 2015
Why is it a debacle ?
Why is it not being discussed should be your question.
The unions have decided for you. A debacle....you might as well just save this weeks hotel bills.
Listen you FA. Don't f*cking advise me what should be my question, you pin-prick of a brain ! I still think it is not a debacle.
It's all gone terribly wrong. What happened to the smug Surbiton pre May? He was more relaxed, wrong but relaxed.
TBF They were only pointing and laughing at Miliband then....
Francis is perceived as challenging the orthodoxy of his church. Corbyn, by contrast, affirms the orthodoxy of his party. In fact, he reduces it to its radical core. His followers use that core as a yardstick by which to test the orthodoxy of MPs. And if they commit the heresies of favouring private ownership of the railways or maintaining Trident then they are “Tory scum.” They risk excommunication for their sins. No, El Corbyno is nothing like Francis at all. He’s much closer to Savonarola, the radical renaissance priest who took over Florence and burned its “vanities” in the public square. A man who thought he was more Catholic than the Pope.
The higher the turnout in Barcelona and Tarragona (the first especially) the lower the chance of a pro-independence overall majority.
It's going to be very close, but it looks like there'll be plenty of wriggle room for Madrid and Brussels to say there is no majority for independence in Catalonia.
As an aside, this Hillary story could mark the beginning of the end: http://reut.rs/1PDw4lC
'The exchange of 10 or so emails, the existence of which were first reported by the Associated Press on Friday, largely dealt with personnel issues, according to the State Department.'
Such as whether to assign additional protection officers to the Ambassador to Libya, as he requested?
That would be a personnel issue, right?
Well we shall see, but it was only 10 emails and the State Dept statement did not suggest anything explosive
The higher the turnout in Barcelona and Tarragona (the first especially) the lower the chance of a pro-independence overall majority.
It's going to be very close, but it looks like there'll be plenty of wriggle room for Madrid and Brussels to say there is no majority for independence in Catalonia.
Surely this election would be the equivalent of the SNP winning at Holyrood in 2011, ie giving a mandate for a referendum on independence, not actually leading directly to independence itself?
There is a new poll that has Hillary only 7 points ahead of Sanders, 42-35. I still don't think it can happen but it grows harder to see how she would win most two-way races against a decent Democrat. But there is so little time!
Francis is perceived as challenging the orthodoxy of his church. Corbyn, by contrast, affirms the orthodoxy of his party. In fact, he reduces it to its radical core. His followers use that core as a yardstick by which to test the orthodoxy of MPs. And if they commit the heresies of favouring private ownership of the railways or maintaining Trident then they are “Tory scum.” They risk excommunication for their sins. No, El Corbyno is nothing like Francis at all. He’s much closer to Savonarola, the radical renaissance priest who took over Florence and burned its “vanities” in the public square. A man who thought he was more Catholic than the Pope.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Most of Corbyn's priorities are not Labour policies. Trident is the most obvious case in point. If you are looking for a religious comparison, he is Zwingli.
The higher the turnout in Barcelona and Tarragona (the first especially) the lower the chance of a pro-independence overall majority.
It's going to be very close, but it looks like there'll be plenty of wriggle room for Madrid and Brussels to say there is no majority for independence in Catalonia.
The higher the turnout in Barcelona and Tarragona (the first especially) the lower the chance of a pro-independence overall majority.
It's going to be very close, but it looks like there'll be plenty of wriggle room for Madrid and Brussels to say there is no majority for independence in Catalonia.
Surely this election would be the equivalent of the SNP winning at Holyrood in 2011, ie giving a mandate for a referendum on independence, not actually leading directly to independence itself?
A referendum has been ruled illegal as only the Spanish government can mandate one. The Catalan government has called this election specifically to seek a mandate to declare independence within 18 months. That's the very short summary. As you'd expect, there's a mich longer one too!
Yes but people vote for parties not candidates. It's very unlikely that they even have full information on the manifesto their voting for, most votes will be cast on the "I'm voting Labour because they'll give me the most" or "I'm voting Tory so my tax bill gets cut".
A voting system should have some understanding on voter behaviour. Voters will never be perfectly informed or even that interested in drilled down details, especially when it comes to specific candidates.
Also STV requires multi-member constituencies to be proportional - AV, which is just single member STV is not proportional at all. You really need 4 or 5 member constituencies to even start approaching proportionality. This would create some geographically immense constituencies in some parts of the country.
Unduly pessimistic about the level of voter sophistication, I fear, Mr Dair. If people currently vote for the party rather than the individual, that is a consequence of the FPTP voting system, because you are allowed only one vote, and you give it to the person your party decided to impose on you.
If, under STV, you had a four-member consituency, you could still give your party your first four preferences, but you do have to put them in order of preference. If you had to rank four SDP candidates, would you not have any preference among them? Would you not take some interest (as an ordinary voter) in finding about their track record?
It seems to happen in the Republic of Ireland. How else would they be able to get rid of an unpopular party leader, while still supporting the party?
The incentives in STV are different across parties and candidates. Parties usually want to get their candidates on roughly-similar vote totals. This maximises the expected seat total, because some share of voters will always transfer after their first preference without regard to party. So it's in the party interest to have as many continuing candidates in the election as possible. But it is in the candidate interest to get as many votes as possible and let your running mate go hang; sauve qui peut.
Google "Limerick East 2007" for a good example of why parties don't want candidates to be too strong; the transfers from the leading candidate went everywhere, 40 per cent to other parties, whereas if the party's voters had evenly distributed their votes across three candidates they'd probably have got an extra seat (because other parties' transfers go everywhere too).
STV works fine in every country that uses it, with low spoiled vote rates. Even if you assume voters know almost nothing about candidates, they usually know where the candidate lives from the most basic media coverage, and they tend to like local representation.
If the media wasn't filled with incredulous nonsense like this "report", then potentially damaging stories like Michelle Thomson would not end up being so easily dismissed and ignored.
Yes, UKIP is finished. It was an interesting fad for a bit, but I suspect it will be all but forgotten in a few year's time. The interesting question is what will happen to Farage's disciples. I suspect many will decamp to Corbyn's Labour. He seems to provide the naughtiness most of them crave.
Yes, UKIP is finished. It was an interesting fad for a bit, but I suspect it will be all but forgotten in a few year's time. The interesting question is what will happen to Farage's disciples. I suspect many will decamp to Corbyn's Labour. He seems to provide the naughtiness most of them crave.
A fitting footnote will be Britain leaving the EU.. then the party can finish a la Paul Weller ending The Jam and leaving everyone wanting more
If the media wasn't filled with incredulous nonsense like this "report", then potentially damaging stories like Michelle Thomson would not end up being so easily dismissed and ignored.
I love not only the backtracking but also the trashing of a paper report when the story is not in your favour which of course was not in evidence during piggy gate when it was of course "absolutely true"
Yes, UKIP is finished. It was an interesting fad for a bit, but I suspect it will be all but forgotten in a few year's time. The interesting question is what will happen to Farage's disciples. I suspect many will decamp to Corbyn's Labour. He seems to provide the naughtiness most of them crave.
A fitting footnote will be Britain leaving the EU.. then the party can finish a la Paul Weller ending The Jam and leaving everyone wanting more
Britain voting to leave the EU will be just the start. Then there will come the negotiations and decisions about what we do want from Europe; and that will be the cause of a whole load of arguments and recriminations.
Yes, UKIP is finished. It was an interesting fad for a bit, but I suspect it will be all but forgotten in a few year's time. The interesting question is what will happen to Farage's disciples. I suspect many will decamp to Corbyn's Labour. He seems to provide the naughtiness most of them crave.
A fitting footnote will be Britain leaving the EU.. then the party can finish a la Paul Weller ending The Jam and leaving everyone wanting more
Britain voting to leave the EU will be just the start. Then there will come the negotiations and decisions about what we do want from Europe; and that will be the cause of a whole load of arguments and recriminations.
If we exit the EU, as long as we don't do anything silly like keeping free movement, there shouldn't be any recriminations.
Yes, UKIP is finished. It was an interesting fad for a bit, but I suspect it will be all but forgotten in a few year's time. The interesting question is what will happen to Farage's disciples. I suspect many will decamp to Corbyn's Labour. He seems to provide the naughtiness most of them crave.
UKIP won't be finished as long as we stay in an unreformed EU. Even afterwards, they could stay alive as long as immigration levels remain unaddressed.
Blooy hell it's tight. On vote percentage, pro-Indy parties have 49.8%.
If that turns out to be right Spain will be in deep crisis.
It rather depends on CUP, I suspect. I don't believe they will support a UDI without an absolute majority of votes for independence.
If we assume that the figures are right (and they could be 51-49 either way, of course), then I would expect that CUP will demand a proper referendum, and threaten to support a UDI in the event that it is denied.
In this way, everything will muddle on for a few years yet.
First exit poll in Catalonia shows overall majority for pro-independence parties. Just.
That probably means anti-independence parties have won most votes.
That opinion poll has pro-independence percentage at 49.8%, anti-independence at 50.2%!
It's going to be a very exciting evening :-)
(Like you, I don't think CUP will back a UDI without an absolute percentage in favour...)
Another exit poll has the Indy parties winning but on a lower percentage of the vote. It has the Socialists doing better, which may fit with the higher turnout. This is going to be very exciting.
Yes, UKIP is finished. It was an interesting fad for a bit, but I suspect it will be all but forgotten in a few year's time. The interesting question is what will happen to Farage's disciples. I suspect many will decamp to Corbyn's Labour. He seems to provide the naughtiness most of them crave.
A fitting footnote will be Britain leaving the EU.. then the party can finish a la Paul Weller ending The Jam and leaving everyone wanting more
Britain voting to leave the EU will be just the start. Then there will come the negotiations and decisions about what we do want from Europe; and that will be the cause of a whole load of arguments and recriminations.
If we exit the EU, as long as we don't do anything silly like keeping free movement, there shouldn't be any recriminations.
Then we will not get any agreements nor be able to join the EEA. No single market. Falling inward investment. A slow death of our car industry.
Yes, UKIP is finished. It was an interesting fad for a bit, but I suspect it will be all but forgotten in a few year's time. The interesting question is what will happen to Farage's disciples. I suspect many will decamp to Corbyn's Labour. He seems to provide the naughtiness most of them crave.
A fitting footnote will be Britain leaving the EU.. then the party can finish a la Paul Weller ending The Jam and leaving everyone wanting more
Britain voting to leave the EU will be just the start. Then there will come the negotiations and decisions about what we do want from Europe; and that will be the cause of a whole load of arguments and recriminations.
If we exit the EU, as long as we don't do anything silly like keeping free movement, there shouldn't be any recriminations.
You see: I am an Out-er, on the basis that we would be better off as Norway or Switzerland. And I don't see why any foreigners should receive any benefits, or get a vote.
But I believe - as an employer - that I am served better by being able to hire anyone I want from as large a talent pool as possible. And as an employee I like the freedom of being able to work for anyone who'll employ me across as large a range of places as possible. It's a clear extension of my freedom as a human being.
Blooy hell it's tight. On vote percentage, pro-Indy parties have 49.8%.
If that turns out to be right Spain will be in deep crisis.
It rather depends on CUP, I suspect. I don't believe they will support a UDI without an absolute majority of votes for independence.
If we assume that the figures are right (and they could be 51-49 either way, of course), then I would expect that CUP will demand a proper referendum, and threaten to support a UDI in the event that it is denied.
In this way, everything will muddle on for a few years yet.
The first exit poll has anti-Indy parties on 48.4%; the second pne looks to have them over 50%.
Blooy hell it's tight. On vote percentage, pro-Indy parties have 49.8%.
If that turns out to be right Spain will be in deep crisis.
It rather depends on CUP, I suspect. I don't believe they will support a UDI without an absolute majority of votes for independence.
If we assume that the figures are right (and they could be 51-49 either way, of course), then I would expect that CUP will demand a proper referendum, and threaten to support a UDI in the event that it is denied.
In this way, everything will muddle on for a few years yet.
The first exit poll has anti-Indy parties on 48.4%; the second pne looks to have them over 50%.
The only EP I've seen is the TV3 one, which has JxSi + CUP on 49.8...
The higher the turnout in Barcelona and Tarragona (the first especially) the lower the chance of a pro-independence overall majority.
It's going to be very close, but it looks like there'll be plenty of wriggle room for Madrid and Brussels to say there is no majority for independence in Catalonia.
Surely this election would be the equivalent of the SNP winning at Holyrood in 2011, ie giving a mandate for a referendum on independence, not actually leading directly to independence itself?
A referendum has been ruled illegal as only the Spanish government can mandate one. The Catalan government has called this election specifically to seek a mandate to declare independence within 18 months. That's the very short summary. As you'd expect, there's a mich longer one too!
Indeed, but surely what they are really seeking is a mandate to call a referendum on independence with or without the consent of Madrid. After all, the victories of the Parti Quebecois in 1976 and 1994 and the SNP in 2011 only led to referendums on independence, they did not actually lead directly to independence. In any case, on these exit polls it looks like the CUP has a mandate for a referendum at least
Yes, UKIP is finished. It was an interesting fad for a bit, but I suspect it will be all but forgotten in a few year's time. The interesting question is what will happen to Farage's disciples. I suspect many will decamp to Corbyn's Labour. He seems to provide the naughtiness most of them crave.
UKIP won't be finished as long as we stay in an unreformed EU. Even afterwards, they could stay alive as long as immigration levels remain unaddressed.
When I were a lad, as they say, there was something called the League of Empire Loyalists. To be fair, it didn't have the support UKIP had ... don't recall it ever really fighting aGeneral Election ....normally supported the Tories, but whatever happened to it?
There is a new poll that has Hillary only 7 points ahead of Sanders, 42-35. I still don't think it can happen but it grows harder to see how she would win most two-way races against a decent Democrat. But there is so little time!
Yes, UKIP is finished. It was an interesting fad for a bit, but I suspect it will be all but forgotten in a few year's time. The interesting question is what will happen to Farage's disciples. I suspect many will decamp to Corbyn's Labour. He seems to provide the naughtiness most of them crave.
UKIP won't be finished as long as we stay in an unreformed EU. Even afterwards, they could stay alive as long as immigration levels remain unaddressed.
Yes. Ukip supporters will not be deterred by this turn of events. If they were worried about the behaviour of their MPs, they would probably be voting for a party with MPs.
Yes, UKIP is finished. It was an interesting fad for a bit, but I suspect it will be all but forgotten in a few year's time. The interesting question is what will happen to Farage's disciples. I suspect many will decamp to Corbyn's Labour. He seems to provide the naughtiness most of them crave.
A fitting footnote will be Britain leaving the EU.. then the party can finish a la Paul Weller ending The Jam and leaving everyone wanting more
Britain voting to leave the EU will be just the start. Then there will come the negotiations and decisions about what we do want from Europe; and that will be the cause of a whole load of arguments and recriminations.
If we exit the EU, as long as we don't do anything silly like keeping free movement, there shouldn't be any recriminations.
The problem is that there is no one vision of what our relationship would be outside the EU. Mr Tyndall has done a good job in trying to work one out, but much would be dependent on negotiations with our once and future partners. Just because we want to be part of one agreement / group or another does not mean we will, or that the price will not be too high.
There are a range of views: from those who would be happy outside the EU but keeping strong links, to those who seem to want to pull up the drawbridge and sail the UK into the mid-Atlantic. There does not seem to be a consensus even amongst the more enthusiastic BOOers.
My concerns are twofold: 1) We p*ss off our EU partners so much that they play hard ball with us. That's why I'd personally like any split to be done as politely and pleasantly as possible; we regret having to leave the EU, but we all want different things from it and the UK cannot agree with the consensus.
2) That we cannot agree amongst ourselves what we want to be a part of, and business suffers from a paralysis caused by lack of decision making.
I'm probably going to vote 'leave'. I'd feel a lot ore confident about that if we had a firm vision of the UK outside the EU. We do not. Then again, 'stay' can't really tell us what the EU will be like in ten years either ...
Yes, UKIP is finished. It was an interesting fad for a bit, but I suspect it will be all but forgotten in a few year's time. The interesting question is what will happen to Farage's disciples. I suspect many will decamp to Corbyn's Labour. He seems to provide the naughtiness most of them crave.
A fitting footnote will be Britain leaving the EU.. then the party can finish a la Paul Weller ending The Jam and leaving everyone wanting more
Britain voting to leave the EU will be just the start. Then there will come the negotiations and decisions about what we do want from Europe; and that will be the cause of a whole load of arguments and recriminations.
If we exit the EU, as long as we don't do anything silly like keeping free movement, there shouldn't be any recriminations.
You see: I am an Out-er, on the basis that we would be better off as Norway or Switzerland. And I don't see why any foreigners should receive any benefits, or get a vote.
But I believe - as an employer - that I am served better by being able to hire anyone I want from as large a talent pool as possible. And as an employee I like the freedom of being able to work for anyone who'll employ me across as large a range of places as possible. It's a clear extension of my freedom as a human being.
If we leave the EU why does the talent pool narrow? If you run a specialist technology company (for example) you'll have the resources to select from across the world, quite rightly. If you run a cafe there'll be plenty locally quite capable of washing pots, no need to trawl the globe.
Blooy hell it's tight. On vote percentage, pro-Indy parties have 49.8%.
If that turns out to be right Spain will be in deep crisis.
It rather depends on CUP, I suspect. I don't believe they will support a UDI without an absolute majority of votes for independence.
If we assume that the figures are right (and they could be 51-49 either way, of course), then I would expect that CUP will demand a proper referendum, and threaten to support a UDI in the event that it is denied.
In this way, everything will muddle on for a few years yet.
The first exit poll has anti-Indy parties on 48.4%; the second pne looks to have them over 50%.
The only EP I've seen is the TV3 one, which has JxSi + CUP on 49.8...
Yes, UKIP is finished. It was an interesting fad for a bit, but I suspect it will be all but forgotten in a few year's time. The interesting question is what will happen to Farage's disciples. I suspect many will decamp to Corbyn's Labour. He seems to provide the naughtiness most of them crave.
A fitting footnote will be Britain leaving the EU.. then the party can finish a la Paul Weller ending The Jam and leaving everyone wanting more
Britain voting to leave the EU will be just the start. Then there will come the negotiations and decisions about what we do want from Europe; and that will be the cause of a whole load of arguments and recriminations.
If we exit the EU, as long as we don't do anything silly like keeping free movement, there shouldn't be any recriminations.
The problem is that there is no one vision of what our relationship would be outside the EU. Mr Tyndall has done a good job in trying to work one out, but much would be dependent on negotiations with our once and future partners. Just because we want to be part of one agreement / group or another does not mean we will, or that the price will not be too high.
There are a range of views: from those who would be happy outside the EU but keeping strong links, to those who seem to want to pull up the drawbridge and sail the UK into the mid-Atlantic. There does not seem to be a consensus even amongst the more enthusiastic BOOers.
My concerns are twofold: 1) We p*ss off our EU partners so much that they play hard ball with us. That's why I'd personally like any split to be done as politely and pleasantly as possible; we regret having to leave the EU, but we all want different things from it and the UK cannot agree with the consensus.
2) That we cannot agree amongst ourselves what we want to be a part of, and business suffers from a paralysis caused by lack of decision making.
I'm probably going to vote 'leave'. I'd feel a lot ore confident about that if we had a firm vision of the UK outside the EU. We do not. Then again, 'stay' can't really tell us what the EU will be like in ten years either ...
Yes, UKIP is finished. It was an interesting fad for a bit, but I suspect it will be all but forgotten in a few year's time. The interesting question is what will happen to Farage's disciples. I suspect many will decamp to Corbyn's Labour. He seems to provide the naughtiness most of them crave.
UKIP won't be finished as long as we stay in an unreformed EU. Even afterwards, they could stay alive as long as immigration levels remain unaddressed.
When I were a lad, as they say, there was something called the League of Empire Loyalists. To be fair, it didn't have the support UKIP had ... don't recall it ever really fighting aGeneral Election ....normally supported the Tories, but whatever happened to it?
I assume the members just died off.
Like UKIP's will!
Like every party will in time. None have a divine right to exist. I've been a member of three which have existed and dissolved/merged
So now that Corbyn hasn't managed to change or water down Labour's official policy on Trident, does that mean that he will have to defy the whip to vote against it?
Yes, UKIP is finished. It was an interesting fad for a bit, but I suspect it will be all but forgotten in a few year's time. The interesting question is what will happen to Farage's disciples. I suspect many will decamp to Corbyn's Labour. He seems to provide the naughtiness most of them crave.
A fitting footnote will be Britain leaving the EU.. then the party can finish a la Paul Weller ending The Jam and leaving everyone wanting more
Britain voting to leave the EU will be just the start. Then there will come the negotiations and decisions about what we do want from Europe; and that will be the cause of a whole load of arguments and recriminations.
If we exit the EU, as long as we don't do anything silly like keeping free movement, there shouldn't be any recriminations.
You see: I am an Out-er, on the basis that we would be better off as Norway or Switzerland. And I don't see why any foreigners should receive any benefits, or get a vote.
But I believe - as an employer - that I am served better by being able to hire anyone I want from as large a talent pool as possible. And as an employee I like the freedom of being able to work for anyone who'll employ me across as large a range of places as possible. It's a clear extension of my freedom as a human being.
If we leave the EU why does the talent pool narrow? If you run a specialist technology company (for example) you'll have the resources to select from across the world, quite rightly. If you run a cafe there'll be plenty locally quite capable of washing pots, no need to trawl the globe.
I'm sorry, but people graduate from the technology department at the University of Krakow and jump on a bus to London. They work for start-ups around Old Street (and other places). They go there because that is where the greatest concentration of start-up tech jobs is in the world, outside Silicon Valley.
These guys are 21, 22, 23: they don't fill in forms, they turn up at Techstars, and the like, and ask for jobs.
Blooy hell it's tight. On vote percentage, pro-Indy parties have 49.8%.
If that turns out to be right Spain will be in deep crisis.
It rather depends on CUP, I suspect. I don't believe they will support a UDI without an absolute majority of votes for independence.
If we assume that the figures are right (and they could be 51-49 either way, of course), then I would expect that CUP will demand a proper referendum, and threaten to support a UDI in the event that it is denied.
In this way, everything will muddle on for a few years yet.
The first exit poll has anti-Indy parties on 48.4%; the second pne looks to have them over 50%.
The only EP I've seen is the TV3 one, which has JxSi + CUP on 49.8...
Yes, UKIP is finished. It was an interesting fad for a bit, but I suspect it will be all but forgotten in a few year's time. The interesting question is what will happen to Farage's disciples. I suspect many will decamp to Corbyn's Labour. He seems to provide the naughtiness most of them crave.
A fitting footnote will be Britain leaving the EU.. then the party can finish a la Paul Weller ending The Jam and leaving everyone wanting more
Britain voting to leave the EU will be just the start. Then there will come the negotiations and decisions about what we do want from Europe; and that will be the cause of a whole load of arguments and recriminations.
If we exit the EU, as long as we don't do anything silly like keeping free movement, there shouldn't be any recriminations.
You see: I am an Out-er, on the basis that we would be better off as Norway or Switzerland. And I don't see why any foreigners should receive any benefits, or get a vote.
But I believe - as an employer - that I am served better by being able to hire anyone I want from as large a talent pool as possible. And as an employee I like the freedom of being able to work for anyone who'll employ me across as large a range of places as possible. It's a clear extension of my freedom as a human being.
If we leave the EU why does the talent pool narrow? If you run a specialist technology company (for example) you'll have the resources to select from across the world, quite rightly. If you run a cafe there'll be plenty locally quite capable of washing pots, no need to trawl the globe.
If people aren't needed or providing a service here via their employment, then why are they getting hired?
Yes, UKIP is finished. It was an interesting fad for a bit, but I suspect it will be all but forgotten in a few year's time. The interesting question is what will happen to Farage's disciples. I suspect many will decamp to Corbyn's Labour. He seems to provide the naughtiness most of them crave.
A fitting footnote will be Britain leaving the EU.. then the party can finish a la Paul Weller ending The Jam and leaving everyone wanting more
Britain voting to leave the EU will be just the start. Then there will come the negotiations and decisions about what we do want from Europe; and that will be the cause of a whole load of arguments and recriminations.
If we exit the EU, as long as we don't do anything silly like keeping free movement, there shouldn't be any recriminations.
You see: I am an Out-er, on the basis that we would be better off as Norway or Switzerland. And I don't see why any foreigners should receive any benefits, or get a vote.
But I believe - as an employer - that I am served better by being able to hire anyone I want from as large a talent pool as possible. And as an employee I like the freedom of being able to work for anyone who'll employ me across as large a range of places as possible. It's a clear extension of my freedom as a human being.
If we leave the EU why does the talent pool narrow? If you run a specialist technology company (for example) you'll have the resources to select from across the world, quite rightly. If you run a cafe there'll be plenty locally quite capable of washing pots, no need to trawl the globe.
I'm sorry, but people graduate from the technology department at the University of Krakow and jump on a bus to London. They work for start-ups around Old Street (and other places). They go there because that is where the greatest concentration of start-up tech jobs is in the world, outside Silicon Valley.
These guys are 21, 22, 23: they don't fill in forms, they turn up at Techstars, and the like, and ask for jobs.
So if we leave the EU and introduce a visa system along the lines of Australia and Canada, those bright Poles will still be allowed, I hope encouraged, to come here.
Your view is contradictory, you mention Norway and Switzerlandland then suggest we'll be building a Hungarian style barbed wire fence. We need and want bright young graduates. I'm sure you can think of one or two we don't want or need.
Yes, UKIP is finished. It was an interesting fad for a bit, but I suspect it will be all but forgotten in a few year's time. The interesting question is what will happen to Farage's disciples. I suspect many will decamp to Corbyn's Labour. He seems to provide the naughtiness most of them crave.
A fitting footnote will be Britain leaving the EU.. then the party can finish a la Paul Weller ending The Jam and leaving everyone wanting more
Britain voting to leave the EU will be just the start. Then there will come the negotiations and decisions about what we do want from Europe; and that will be the cause of a whole load of arguments and recriminations.
If we exit the EU, as long as we don't do anything silly like keeping free movement, there shouldn't be any recriminations.
You see: I am an Out-er, on the basis that we would be better off as Norway or Switzerland. And I don't see why any foreigners should receive any benefits, or get a vote.
But I believe - as an employer - that I am served better by being able to hire anyone I want from as large a talent pool as possible. And as an employee I like the freedom of being able to work for anyone who'll employ me across as large a range of places as possible. It's a clear extension of my freedom as a human being.
If we leave the EU why does the talent pool narrow? If you run a specialist technology company (for example) you'll have the resources to select from across the world, quite rightly. If you run a cafe there'll be plenty locally quite capable of washing pots, no need to trawl the globe.
I'm sorry, but people graduate from the technology department at the University of Krakow and jump on a bus to London. They work for start-ups around Old Street (and other places). They go there because that is where the greatest concentration of start-up tech jobs is in the world, outside Silicon Valley.
These guys are 21, 22, 23: they don't fill in forms, they turn up at Techstars, and the like, and ask for jobs.
The cafe argument is hardly obvious either. The numbers of "locals" working in local cafes, takeways, restaurants in places like London must be a miniscule percentage based on experience. Even if you managed to fill these jobs with every person on benefits, i suspect that a labour shortage would emerge pretty rapidly. And customer service would go rapidly down the pan, as the existing workforce is by and large highly motivated to better themselves which i suspect would be less true of the replacement.
Comments
I'm hoping that a in play bet on Scotland during the first half against South Africa will be quite profitable.
So if the fractional surplus is 16.67% and the first elected gets 1000 votes, if 400 of those show a second preference for Candidate B, then Candidate B gets 400 * 16.67% or 66.68 votes added to their first preference total.
You seem easily persuaded by some hogwash in a right wing rag.
Did Mandelson end up in court after his mortgage irregularities?
http://www.thelocal.se/20150520/two-found-guilty-in-migration-board-bribery-case
;-)
With STV, electors are not tied down to a single party. They could, for example, if they were so minded, cast their vote for all the female candidates of whatever party before starting on the men. It depends on what each elector considers to be important.
Several posters on PB constantly decry the power and influence of the party machine. STV is the voting system which best counters party control - assuming that is what the electors want, of course.
I wonder if Mr Eagles could give us a thread about D´Hondt at some time.....
I am no supporter of Clinton but how is thisna killer?
I'm pretty confident it will come down to the Davis Cup, if GB wins then Murray will get SPOTY, if not Hamilton. Either way, I'm pretty certain Froome will end up third.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34369166
There are other more important things to discuss than some General and Admirals toy-set.
Corrected.. but still wrong
A voting system should have some understanding on voter behaviour. Voters will never be perfectly informed or even that interested in drilled down details, especially when it comes to specific candidates.
Also STV requires multi-member constituencies to be proportional - AV, which is just single member STV is not proportional at all. You really need 4 or 5 member constituencies to even start approaching proportionality. This would create some geographically immense constituencies in some parts of the country.
"Mr Balls insists that he had no knowledge of the "three hideous smears" against John Reid, Charles Clarke and Ivan Lewis and claims that he resisted attempts by Mr Brown to undermine Alistair Darling, then Chancellor."
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/conference/article3875267.ece
http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2015/09/27/actualidad/1443369730_464891.html?id_externo_rsoc=TW_CM
This is how the Independence Alliance can, and probably will, win an overall majority of seats while not getting most votes.
That said, turnout continues to be at record levels in areas that traditionally vote for anti-separatist parties.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tragic-two-month-old-baby-6525391
The parents must be besides themselves.
http://elpais.com/m/politica/2015/09/27/actualidad/1443327264_049842.html
I'm looking at Twitter & El Pais (http://elpais.com/elpais/2015/09/27/inenglish/1443344688_042394.html); the latter is a little content light.
That would be a personnel issue, right?
;-)
If, under STV, you had a four-member consituency, you could still give your party your first four preferences, but you do have to put them in order of preference. If you had to rank four SDP candidates, would you not have any preference among them? Would you not take some interest (as an ordinary voter) in finding about their track record?
It seems to happen in the Republic of Ireland. How else would they be able to get rid of an unpopular party leader, while still supporting the party?
It's going to be very close, but it looks like there'll be plenty of wriggle room for Madrid and Brussels to say there is no majority for independence in Catalonia.
Asked in an interview on Sky News on September 6 if she would house Syrian refugees in her own home, Ms Sturgeon replied:
‘Yes, I would."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3250573/SNP-chief-Nicola-Sturgeon-backtracks-vow-home-Syrian-refugees.html#ixzz3mxiPQ6un
Google "Limerick East 2007" for a good example of why parties don't want candidates to be too strong; the transfers from the leading candidate went everywhere, 40 per cent to other parties, whereas if the party's voters had evenly distributed their votes across three candidates they'd probably have got an extra seat (because other parties' transfers go everywhere too).
STV works fine in every country that uses it, with low spoiled vote rates. Even if you assume voters know almost nothing about candidates, they usually know where the candidate lives from the most basic media coverage, and they tend to like local representation.
#awkward https://t.co/vOZEi9ixMY
https://twitter.com/angusmacneilsnp/status/648108255777017856
If the media wasn't filled with incredulous nonsense like this "report", then potentially damaging stories like Michelle Thomson would not end up being so easily dismissed and ignored.
That probably means anti-independence parties have won most votes.
If that turns out to be right Spain will be in deep crisis.
Nice attempt at "look squirrel" though....
It's going to be a very exciting evening :-)
(Like you, I don't think CUP will back a UDI without an absolute percentage in favour...)
If we assume that the figures are right (and they could be 51-49 either way, of course), then I would expect that CUP will demand a proper referendum, and threaten to support a UDI in the event that it is denied.
In this way, everything will muddle on for a few years yet.
First #CataloniaVotes exit poll:
JxSí 63-66
C's-ALDE 19-21
PSC-S&D 14-16
CSQEP 12-14
CUP-LEFT 11-13
PPC-EPP 9-11
#eleccionescatalanas #27S
But I believe - as an employer - that I am served better by being able to hire anyone I want from as large a talent pool as possible. And as an employee I like the freedom of being able to work for anyone who'll employ me across as large a range of places as possible. It's a clear extension of my freedom as a human being.
Who did the other ones?
I assume the members just died off.
Like UKIP's will!
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-wsj-poll-2016-gop-race-n433991
There are a range of views: from those who would be happy outside the EU but keeping strong links, to those who seem to want to pull up the drawbridge and sail the UK into the mid-Atlantic. There does not seem to be a consensus even amongst the more enthusiastic BOOers.
My concerns are twofold:
1) We p*ss off our EU partners so much that they play hard ball with us. That's why I'd personally like any split to be done as politely and pleasantly as possible; we regret having to leave the EU, but we all want different things from it and the UK cannot agree with the consensus.
2) That we cannot agree amongst ourselves what we want to be a part of, and business suffers from a paralysis caused by lack of decision making.
I'm probably going to vote 'leave'. I'd feel a lot ore confident about that if we had a firm vision of the UK outside the EU. We do not. Then again, 'stay' can't really tell us what the EU will be like in ten years either ...
I've been a member of three which have existed and dissolved/merged
These guys are 21, 22, 23: they don't fill in forms, they turn up at Techstars, and the like, and ask for jobs.
http://resultats.parlament2015.cat/09AU/DAU09999CM_L2.htm
(Warning: only 3,800 votes counted, so not likely to be representative)
Your view is contradictory, you mention Norway and Switzerlandland then suggest we'll be building a Hungarian style barbed wire fence. We need and want bright young graduates. I'm sure you can think of one or two we don't want or need.