As I posted the other day , there are several people on the Vote2012 website trying to draw up proposals for the 29 new Welsh constituencies . Whether they start in the North and work South or South and work North they all end up with a mess and a couple of constituencies Y Gweddillion - and left over bits" The plus/minus 5% limit is too tight for 29 sensible constituencies to be drawn up . .
I'm fully in favour of equalising constituency sizes, but in Wales it seems impossible without some very odd contortions. We're going to end up wth constituencies that contain bits of several towns to meet the +/-5% rule.
Yes the problem is that if say you start off in Cardiff/Glamorgan and have 5 sensible constituencies they are all at the bottom of the Plus/Minus 5% limit and the remaining 24 Welsh constituencies have to meet a tighter limit than plus//minus 5% .
They'll all be much closer than the current massively unbalanced status quo though.
The problem with Wales is that there are two competing desires: near identical sized constituencies, and constituencies that have some commonality. We could get an algorithm to produce 600 absolutely identically sized constituencies, but it would result in them bearing no relation to existing entities such as town, councils, counties and the like.
Yes we can have 600 constituencies numbered 1-600 . Every elector is randomly put into 1 wherever they live . 600 equal sized constituencies and most GEs would have one party winning all 600 of them with FPTP .
No they would not! Standard deviation would prevent that.
A party with a lead of around 6% would win all 600 seats
I just played in Excel, and I think it's even narrower than that. 4 or 5% assuming each is random would be enough to get 600 seats in the majority of cases. And third parties would literally get no votes seats.
I think it would be more complicated. The distribution would still give some seats with mainly voters in urban areas or mainly voters in rural areas. I'm not sure that effect is priced into your conclusion.
I don't think you read @MarkSenior's post right. He suggested every elector being randomly put into one of the 600 constituencies. This effectively gives you 600 opinion polls of 60,000 people. Because they would be truly random, they would all look almost identical.
The problem with Wales is that there are two competing desires: near identical sized constituencies, and constituencies that have some commonality. We could get an algorithm to produce 600 absolutely identically sized constituencies, but it would result in them bearing no relation to existing entities such as town, councils, counties and the like.
Indeed but on the question of near identical size they be much closer than they are currently.
On the question of commonality, politicians will just have to get used to representing different areas. It will still be much more common than under any other form of voting system with regional voting areas.
I agree completely that it is much better that sizes are more similar. The current range is something close to +/- 25%, and I just wonder whether 7.5% might have allowed a little more flexibility. After all, we don't want a situation where constituencies look like US congressional districts.
Yes plus/minus 7.5% makes things much more flexible and easier .
In 2013, most of the complaining was about small parts of seats being out of place. I don't recall any seat which substantively lacked commonality, although I was not focussed on Wales.
In 2013 you had the original ludicrous proposal for the Mersey Banks seat though the Boundaries Commission realised how daft that was and dropped it from the final proposals .
I'm fully in favour of equalising constituency sizes, but in Wales it seems impossible without some very odd contortions. We're going to end up wth constituencies that contain bits of several towns to meet the +/-5% rule.
Yes the problem is that if say you start off in Cardiff/Glamorgan and have 5 sensible constituencies they are all at the bottom of the Plus/Minus 5% limit and the remaining 24 Welsh constituencies have to meet a tighter limit than plus//minus 5% .
They'll all be much closer than the current massively unbalanced status quo though.
The problem with Wales is that there are two competing desires: near identical sized constituencies, and constituencies that have some commonality. We could get an algorithm to produce 600 absolutely identically sized constituencies, but it would result in them bearing no relation to existing entities such as town, councils, counties and the like.
Yes we can have 600 constituencies numbered 1-600 . Every elector is randomly put into 1 wherever they live . 600 equal sized constituencies and most GEs would have one party winning all 600 of them with FPTP .
No they would not! Standard deviation would prevent that.
A party with a lead of around 6% would win all 600 seats
I just played in Excel, and I think it's even narrower than that. 4 or 5% assuming each is random would be enough to get 600 seats in the majority of cases. And third parties would literally get no votes seats.
I think it would be more complicated. The distribution would still give some seats with mainly voters in urban areas or mainly voters in rural areas. I'm not sure that effect is priced into your conclusion.
I don't think you read @MarkSenior's post right. He suggested every elector being randomly put into one of the 600 constituencies. This effectively gives you 600 opinion polls of 60,000 people. Because they would be truly random, they would all look almost identical.
I did read it right, I'm just thinking through what sort of effects the methodology assumes aren't present.
Is the error the same as taking a sample of 100,000 people 600 times over? I mean, that assumes people can be sampled more than once, whereas in our example they are sampled exactly once.
Ah - so you are relying on the 2013 proposals! That would effectively restore the Ceredigion and Pembroke North seat that existed from 1983 until 1997 which was a LibDem stronghold! Regarding your point that a constituency stretching from Eglwyswrw to Milford Haven being too big, may I remind you that until 1983 the Pembrokeshire seat went from Eglwyswrw to beyond Pembroke Dock!
I got the village wrong. I have changed it. (I actually meant Eglwyswrw to Eglwysfach, but I realised nobody would know where they were apart from us so I kept Milford Haven instead.)
I think you will find Cynog Dafis won the Cardigan PN constituency in 1992. He was not a Liberal Democrat.
The Liberal Democrat position in Pembrokeshire has withered away completely. I say again, this would be a safe Conservative seat with Plaid, the LDs and Labour fighting for second.
I had forgotten about Dafis winning in 1992 as a effectively a joint Plaid & Green candidate. When the Ceredigion & Pembroke North was created in 1983 Labour voters switched tactically to the LibDems and I suspect that would happen again. I would expect LibDems to win.
Tactical voting is dead for the moment. It would of course be unusual in that both Crabb and Mark Williams are incumbent MPs, but I don't think Williams would get any help from Labour voters. Plaid Cymru, but they're not really in play. More likely Williams would leak votes to the Conservatives to block Labour, and to Labour from those young idealists in Aberystwyth and Lampeter who see the world in terms of goodies and baddies, and are naive enough to think of Corbyn as a goodie.
That seat would be an easy Conservative win, as the one to the south should be a straightforward Labour win.
No - I am afraid you are way off here. In 2015 the LibDems led the Tories in Ceredigion by over 9000 votes! North Pembrokeshire is not particularly strong for the Tories - there is a good Plaid vote and quite strong Labour support in Fishguard. No way would the Tories gain an advantage in this part of the seat to offset their 9000 deficit in Ceredigion. Crabb will not seek the candidature for this seat I feel certain.If the need arose there would be significant anti - Tory tactical voting here - but it would not be necessary.
The problem with Wales is that there are two competing desires: near identical sized constituencies, and constituencies that have some commonality. We could get an algorithm to produce 600 absolutely identically sized constituencies, but it would result in them bearing no relation to existing entities such as town, councils, counties and the like.
Yes we can have 600 constituencies numbered 1-600 . Every elector is randomly put into 1 wherever they live . 600 equal sized constituencies and most GEs would have one party winning all 600 of them with FPTP .
No they would not! Standard deviation would prevent that.
A party with a lead of around 6% would win all 600 seats
I just played in Excel, and I think it's even narrower than that. 4 or 5% assuming each is random would be enough to get 600 seats in the majority of cases. And third parties would literally get no votes seats.
I think it would be more complicated. The distribution would still give some seats with mainly voters in urban areas or mainly voters in rural areas. I'm not sure that effect is priced into your conclusion.
I don't think you read @MarkSenior's post right. He suggested every elector being randomly put into one of the 600 constituencies. This effectively gives you 600 opinion polls of 60,000 people. Because they would be truly random, they would all look almost identical.
I did read it right, I'm just thinking through what sort of effects the methodology assumes aren't present.
Is the error the same as taking a sample of 100,000 people 600 times over? I mean, that assumes people can be sampled more than once, whereas in our example they are sampled exactly once.
Interesting. Maybe I should write a little Python script: firstly, we decide what split the electorate is (say 40:30:20:10), and then we create 36m unique voter IDs and make them proportionate. We then start off with constituency one and pick one of these 36m at random, and place him in constituency one. Repeat 60,000 times. (And each time you remove the potential voter from the pile.) After 60,000 times, you move on to constituency two, etc.
Mr. Crosby, shutting down a road is despicable. Trump's an oaf, but you can't (well, shouldn't) just stop people attending a democratic event in a free country because you dislike the individual at the heart of it.
Mr. Crosby, shutting down a road is despicable. Trump's an oaf, but you can't (well, shouldn't) just stop people attending a democratic event in a free country because you dislike the individual at the heart of it.
Those that oppose Trump are like the French! Eeek!
I agree with Justin124 that a reconstituted Ceredigion & Pembroke North would probably be a LibDem hold with Plaid in second place.
It would not be a safe Conservative seat.
Surprisingly, every party except the Tories have won the Cardiganshire seat in recent times (Lab in 1966, PC in 1992, LibDems in 2005).
My guess is a South Pembrokeshire seat would be very tight between Tories & Labour. Pembrokeshire is one of the areas of Wales gaining population, and I think the demographic changes are favouring the Tories, albeit slowly -- much like in the Gower
Ah - so you are relying on the 2013 proposals! That would effectively restore the Ceredigion and Pembroke North seat that existed from 1983 until 1997 which was a LibDem stronghold! Regarding your point that a constituency stretching from Eglwyswrw to Milford Haven being too big, may I remind you that until 1983 the Pembrokeshire seat went from Eglwyswrw to beyond Pembroke Dock!
I got the village wrong. I have changed it. (I actually meant Eglwyswrw to Eglwysfach, but I realised nobody would know where they were apart from us so I kept Milford Haven instead.)
I think you will find Cynog Dafis won the Cardigan PN constituency in 1992. He was not a Liberal Democrat.
The Liberal Democrat position in Pembrokeshire has withered away completely. I say again, this would be a safe Conservative seat with Plaid, the LDs and Labour fighting for second.
I had forgotten about Dafis winning in 1992 as a effectively a joint Plaid & Green candidate. When the Ceredigion & Pembroke North was created in 1983 Labour voters switched tactically to the LibDems and I suspect that would happen again. I would expect LibDems to win.
Tactical voting is dead for the moment. It would of course be unusual in that both Crabb and Mark Williams are incumbent MPs, but I don't think Williams would get any help from Labour voters. Plaid Cymru, but they're not really in play. More likely Williams would leak votes to the Conservatives to block Labour, and to Labour from those young idealists in Aberystwyth and Lampeter who see the world in terms of goodies and baddies, and are naive enough to think of Corbyn as a goodie.
That seat would be an easy Conservative win, as the one to the south should be a straightforward Labour win.
When the constituency formerly existed under such boundaries - 1983 - 1997 - the Tories never once managed to achieve 30% of the vote there.
OK: I've started on my script. I'm going to start with two parties: one on 55 and the other on 45, and then 'work inwards', 54-46, etc. and see how it affects the results.
Mr. Crosby, shutting down a road is despicable. Trump's an oaf, but you can't (well, shouldn't) just stop people attending a democratic event in a free country because you dislike the individual at the heart of it.
Mr D - you may be interested to hear that a group of Morris Dancers were performing in the middle of Leeds today. Better than F1.
OK: I've started on my script. I'm going to start with two parties: one on 55 and the other on 45, and then 'work inwards', 54-46, etc. and see how it affects the results.
It will be interesting to see the results. I suspect the effect of removing the voter from the pile will actually be minimal, on a regression to the mean basis.
OK: I've started on my script. I'm going to start with two parties: one on 55 and the other on 45, and then 'work inwards', 54-46, etc. and see how it affects the results.
I agree with Justin124 that a reconstituted Ceredigion & Pembroke North would probably be a LibDem hold with Plaid in second place.
It would not be a safe Conservative seat.
Surprisingly, every party except the Tories have won the Cardiganshire seat in recent times (Lab in 1966, PC in 1992, LibDems in 2005).
My guess is a South Pembrokeshire seat would be very tight between Tories & Labour. Pembrokeshire is one of the areas of Wales gaining population, and I think the demographic changes are favouring the Tories, albeit slowly -- much like in the Gower
OK: I've started on my script. I'm going to start with two parties: one on 55 and the other on 45, and then 'work inwards', 54-46, etc. and see how it affects the results.
Why not just Matlab or R it?
Because I'm good at Python, and have never used either of those... and it would seem that a Monte Carlo analysis is the simplest way forward - a few tens of lines of code...
OK: I've started on my script. I'm going to start with two parties: one on 55 and the other on 45, and then 'work inwards', 54-46, etc. and see how it affects the results.
It will be interesting to see the results. I suspect the effect of removing the voter from the pile will actually be minimal, on a regression to the mean basis.
I was wondering if the last constituency will actually be the 'least proportional' one - even though that makes no sense.
OK: I've started on my script. I'm going to start with two parties: one on 55 and the other on 45, and then 'work inwards', 54-46, etc. and see how it affects the results.
Why not just Matlab or R it?
Because I'm good at Python, and have never used either of those... and it would seem that a Monte Carlo analysis is the simplest way forward - a few tens of lines of code...
Monte Carlo is always the correct solution for rapid development
OK: I've started on my script. I'm going to start with two parties: one on 55 and the other on 45, and then 'work inwards', 54-46, etc. and see how it affects the results.
Why not just Matlab or R it?
Because I'm good at Python, and have never used either of those... and it would seem that a Monte Carlo analysis is the simplest way forward - a few tens of lines of code...
Mr. Crosby, shutting down a road is despicable. Trump's an oaf, but you can't (well, shouldn't) just stop people attending a democratic event in a free country because you dislike the individual at the heart of it.
I suspect a fair few Trump waverers will see this sort of idiocy on their TVs and decide to go and vote for him. American's in my experience take a fairly dim view of people trying to interfere in their democratic prerogatives!
OK: I've started on my script. I'm going to start with two parties: one on 55 and the other on 45, and then 'work inwards', 54-46, etc. and see how it affects the results.
Why not just Matlab or R it?
Because I'm good at Python, and have never used either of those... and it would seem that a Monte Carlo analysis is the simplest way forward - a few tens of lines of code...
Monte Carlo is always the correct solution for rapid development
It's amazing how quick modern computers are. I'm using a Macbook Retina (you know, the absurdly underpowered one), and writing Python (which is not the quickest of languages), plus I'm probably writing apallingly inefficient code. And it still only takes a few seconds to do a simulation..
OK: I've started on my script. I'm going to start with two parties: one on 55 and the other on 45, and then 'work inwards', 54-46, etc. and see how it affects the results.
Why not just Matlab or R it?
Because I'm good at Python, and have never used either of those... and it would seem that a Monte Carlo analysis is the simplest way forward - a few tens of lines of code...
Monte Carlo is always the correct solution for rapid development
It's amazing how quick modern computers are. I'm using a Macbook Retina (you know, the absurdly underpowered one), and writing Python (which is not the quickest of languages), plus I'm probably writing apallingly inefficient code. And it still only takes a few seconds to do a simulation..
The resurgence of all the Deep Learning Neural Network stuff is massively down to this. Most of the algorithms were formulated in the 80's, but at the time it took super computers just to run the toy problems. Now especially with the power of GPU's, you can test inexpensive machine learning setups with consumer level hardware.
Yet ever since 2010, he has fought with Osborne over repeated attempts to take big lumps out of the welfare budget. Every Budget and Autumn Statement saw the Treasury pirates, knives in their mouths, ready to board the good ship DWP and raid its treasure. Many times, Captain Smithy saw them off as Downing Street’s Admiral of the Fleet hoved into view to sort out yet another skirmish,
I know of at least two - and there are rumoured to be four in total - resignation letters IDS had written to Cameron before yesterday, each a protest over cuts plans that had the effect of Osborne and No.10 backing off. The last time was at the height of the tax credits cuts row, when he told a colleague ‘I have it in my pocket’, before managing to get Osborne to abandon moves to taper Universal Credit as his alternative.
He has needed a thick skin to cope with the mickey-taking too. When he uttered his famous football-terraces yell during the 2015 summer Budget, he was not cheering on more austerity, he was cheering the creation of the National Living Wage. Tellingly, he had not been informed by the Treasury of this huge policy change, but he cheered it because he felt it would get to the heart of his plan to help get people off benefits into work - by the state refusing to subsidise low pay.
Yet ever since 2010, he has fought with Osborne over repeated attempts to take big lumps out of the welfare budget. Every Budget and Autumn Statement saw the Treasury pirates, knives in their mouths, ready to board the good ship DWP and raid its treasure. Many times, Captain Smithy saw them off as Downing Street’s Admiral of the Fleet hoved into view to sort out yet another skirmish, I know of at least two - and there are rumoured to be four in total - resignation letters IDS had written to Cameron before yesterday, each a protest over cuts plans that had the effect of Osborne and No.10 backing off. The last time was at the height of the tax credits cuts row, when he told a colleague ‘I have it in my pocket’, before managing to get Osborne to abandon moves to taper Universal Credit as his alternative. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/19/the-waugh-zone-march-19-2_n_9504448.html
Why oh why did Osborne not understand the risk of him resigning?
Yet ever since 2010, he has fought with Osborne over repeated attempts to take big lumps out of the welfare budget. Every Budget and Autumn Statement saw the Treasury pirates, knives in their mouths, ready to board the good ship DWP and raid its treasure. Many times, Captain Smithy saw them off as Downing Street’s Admiral of the Fleet hoved into view to sort out yet another skirmish, I know of at least two - and there are rumoured to be four in total - resignation letters IDS had written to Cameron before yesterday, each a protest over cuts plans that had the effect of Osborne and No.10 backing off. The last time was at the height of the tax credits cuts row, when he told a colleague ‘I have it in my pocket’, before managing to get Osborne to abandon moves to taper Universal Credit as his alternative. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/19/the-waugh-zone-march-19-2_n_9504448.html
Why oh why did Osborne not understand the risk of him resigning?
The rest of the article alleges that Osborne sees him as an idiot who would do what he was told, despite having the mickey taken out of him....described as treated like the minister for paper clips.
Yes, I suggested that. IIRC you're one of the people who prefers EEA to EU but EU to Looser Arrangement?
Something like the door-in-the-face fallacy, making the middle of three options seem the most reasonable.
There are three arguments that - to me - make EFTA/EEA look by far the most attractive option:
1. It recovers the vast bulk of sovereignty, removes ECJ oversight, and costs less. 2. It would enable various measures that would reduce immigration, while still maintaining freedom for British people to work across the EEA and for British employers to employe from the across the EEA. 3. Those countries that are in the EEA - like Norway - are - according to polls - overwhelmingly in favour of keeping their current status.
And it does all this while allowing businesses like mine - that generate a very substantial portion of their revenues from the EU, under the single European Financial passport - to continue as they do now.
There is two reasons why I prefer FTA:
1. It means the only EU regulation we sign up to is fixed at time of signing. There can be no new EU rules that we have to sign up to at risk of suspending chapters of free trade. 2. I'm not convinced EEA would reduce immigration much at all. According to Richard Nabavi they would have same benefits rights. Even if they did not, I'm not sure that would change many minds.
You'd like to think questioning someones religion would be a new low but with Trump he has done it many times before.
What amazes me is how much Trump supporters lap up his obviously fake flattery about returning to Utah or buying a farm in Iowa. It seems like they are sort of people who have to live vicariously through others.
Yet ever since 2010, he has fought with Osborne over repeated attempts to take big lumps out of the welfare budget. Every Budget and Autumn Statement saw the Treasury pirates, knives in their mouths, ready to board the good ship DWP and raid its treasure. Many times, Captain Smithy saw them off as Downing Street’s Admiral of the Fleet hoved into view to sort out yet another skirmish, I know of at least two - and there are rumoured to be four in total - resignation letters IDS had written to Cameron before yesterday, each a protest over cuts plans that had the effect of Osborne and No.10 backing off. The last time was at the height of the tax credits cuts row, when he told a colleague ‘I have it in my pocket’, before managing to get Osborne to abandon moves to taper Universal Credit as his alternative. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/19/the-waugh-zone-march-19-2_n_9504448.html
Why oh why did Osborne not understand the risk of him resigning?
The rest of the article alleges that Osborne sees him as an idiot who would do what he was told, despite having the mickey taken out of him....described as treated like the minister for paper clips.
Thatcher's treatment of Howe? I was never a fan of IDS as Leader, but he has a lot of respect in the membership and I would estimate that he could sway a significant 20%/25% away from Osborne in a future vote. Not smart of Osborne to act in this way.
After a busy day on the EU stall and then a Co-op party meeting (oh yes) this afternoon I've just finished watching F1 qualifying. What the bleeding flip is the idea behind the knockout clock? Absolutely stupid!
You'd like to think questioning someones religion would be a new low but with Trump he has done it many times before.
What amazes me is how much Trump supporters lap up his obviously fake flattery about returning to Utah or buying a farm in Iowa. It seems like they are sort of people who have to live vicariously through others.
He is just following the same approach lots of other performers take...bands that say it great to be in .... our favourite place...the best crowd....and people lap the crap up.
You'd like to think questioning someones religion would be a new low but with Trump he has done it many times before.
What amazes me is how much Trump supporters lap up his obviously fake flattery about returning to Utah or buying a farm in Iowa. It seems like they are sort of people who have to live vicariously through others.
They're angry people who go through life being perpetually disappointed.
ICYMI I have just caught up with Charles Moore's biting attack on Osborne. “I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I’m sorry: I should have analysed the profound changes in the global economy which altered almost everything, but instead I treated the job as a political game. I passed a ridiculous and unenforceable law telling myself that I had to achieve surplus over the cycle, and I then failed to do this. I undermined private pensions. I was tougher on the middle class than on the big boys. I invented the Office of Tax Simplification but added five times more pages to the tax code than the length of the entire document 50 years ago. I wasted my time copying Gordon Brown – trying to wrong-foot the Opposition, planning headlines and building up a system of patronage so that I could become prime minister.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12198214/The-Chancellor-has-little-purpose-beyond-his-own-political-success.html Not a fan?
Yet ever since 2010, he has fought with Osborne over repeated attempts to take big lumps out of the welfare budget. Every Budget and Autumn Statement saw the Treasury pirates, knives in their mouths, ready to board the good ship DWP and raid its treasure. Many times, Captain Smithy saw them off as Downing Street’s Admiral of the Fleet hoved into view to sort out yet another skirmish, I know of at least two - and there are rumoured to be four in total - resignation letters IDS had written to Cameron before yesterday, each a protest over cuts plans that had the effect of Osborne and No.10 backing off. The last time was at the height of the tax credits cuts row, when he told a colleague ‘I have it in my pocket’, before managing to get Osborne to abandon moves to taper Universal Credit as his alternative. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/19/the-waugh-zone-march-19-2_n_9504448.html
Why oh why did Osborne not understand the risk of him resigning?
Because Osborne, like Cameron, is an arrogant ***t who cares nothing for anyone or anything except his own ambition?
Yet ever since 2010, he has fought with Osborne over repeated attempts to take big lumps out of the welfare budget. Every Budget and Autumn Statement saw the Treasury pirates, knives in their mouths, ready to board the good ship DWP and raid its treasure. Many times, Captain Smithy saw them off as Downing Street’s Admiral of the Fleet hoved into view to sort out yet another skirmish, I know of at least two - and there are rumoured to be four in total - resignation letters IDS had written to Cameron before yesterday, each a protest over cuts plans that had the effect of Osborne and No.10 backing off. The last time was at the height of the tax credits cuts row, when he told a colleague ‘I have it in my pocket’, before managing to get Osborne to abandon moves to taper Universal Credit as his alternative. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/19/the-waugh-zone-march-19-2_n_9504448.html
Why oh why did Osborne not understand the risk of him resigning?
Because Osborne, like Cameron, is an arrogant ***t who cares nothing for anyone or anything except his own ambition?
Very true. Which nails the doubts raised on here about whether Osborne ever wanted the top job.
You'd like to think questioning someones religion would be a new low but with Trump he has done it many times before.
What amazes me is how much Trump supporters lap up his obviously fake flattery about returning to Utah or buying a farm in Iowa. It seems like they are sort of people who have to live vicariously through others.
He is just following the same approach lots of other performers take...bands that say it great to be in .... our favourite place...the best crowd....and people lap the crap up.
Youd hope people would be more sceptical when choosing a president than enjoying a night out. Its a very strange theatre to have hero worship in. When people admire him for being "so alpha" it just looks very sad.
You'd like to think questioning someones religion would be a new low but with Trump he has done it many times before.
What amazes me is how much Trump supporters lap up his obviously fake flattery about returning to Utah or buying a farm in Iowa. It seems like they are sort of people who have to live vicariously through others.
He is just following the same approach lots of other performers take...bands that say it great to be in .... our favourite place...the best crowd....and people lap the crap up.
Youd hope people would be more sceptical when choosing a president than enjoying a night out. Its a very strange theatre to have hero worship in. When people admire him for being "so alpha" it just looks very sad.
Tony Blair....Barack Obama....then they are disappointed when they turn out just to be like any other politician.
In a way, Cameron actually benefits from the fact that few people have that hero worship of him, which sets expectations a lot lower for when he doesn't do what he says.
Yet ever since 2010, he has fought with Osborne over repeated attempts to take big lumps out of the welfare budget. Every Budget and Autumn Statement saw the Treasury pirates, knives in their mouths, ready to board the good ship DWP and raid its treasure. Many times, Captain Smithy saw them off as Downing Street’s Admiral of the Fleet hoved into view to sort out yet another skirmish, I know of at least two - and there are rumoured to be four in total - resignation letters IDS had written to Cameron before yesterday, each a protest over cuts plans that had the effect of Osborne and No.10 backing off. The last time was at the height of the tax credits cuts row, when he told a colleague ‘I have it in my pocket’, before managing to get Osborne to abandon moves to taper Universal Credit as his alternative. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/19/the-waugh-zone-march-19-2_n_9504448.html
Why oh why did Osborne not understand the risk of him resigning?
Because Osborne, like Cameron, is an arrogant ***t who cares nothing for anyone or anything except his own ambition?
Not really wisihng to have a poke at Cameron, but this is the second time he;s had a right winger resign on a point of principle ( David Davis was the other ). In both cases he was genuinely confused by it. I think the political animal in him cant quite comprehend that people might hold their values higher than their office.
My current prediction is for Trump to get 1,332 (viable range, c. 1,182 to 1,382, excluding any Rubio switchers outside Alaska. He gets a majority in California, and I have assumed only a slight effect of that fact afterwards.
My predictions are for zero delegates in Utah, and wins in Arizona and American Samoa.
Then: minority positions in North Dakota, Wisconsin, Colorado and Wyoming.
Then a big surge, comprehensive victories (assisted by several WTA states) in:
New York Connecticut Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania Rhode Island
This gets him to over a thousand. Indiana is more difficult in terms of extent, but is very likely a Trump victory.
A loss in Nebraska and a win in West Virginia look near certain at the moment.
I think Trump will gain a small win in Washington and a small loss in Oregon.
That will give him the opportunity to take it all in CA, and he will do well enough.
Mr. Betting, not a fan of the term sociopath. Prefer psychopath.
Also, self-diagnosis tends to overestimate just about every psych problem.
Psychopathology is an interesting condition. Some reckon it came about to the great benefit of mankind, as psychopaths are great leaders. The problem is quite a lot of them do make a habit of murdering people...
Mr. Pioneers, quite agree. It's a stupid idea, rushed, ill-considered and entirely uncalled for (literally). People were happy with old qualifying.
We'll see how much of a difference the radio rule changes make in the race.
One thing I'd like to say about that hysterically messy qualifying: I was surprised that I felt genuine joy when I saw the Renaults' wearing yellow-and-black livery. Back to the eighties.
Mr. Betting, not a fan of the term sociopath. Prefer psychopath. Also, self-diagnosis tends to overestimate just about every psych problem. Psychopathology is an interesting condition. Some reckon it came about to the great benefit of mankind, as psychopaths are great leaders. The problem is quite a lot of them do make a habit of murdering people...
I prefer sociopath simply for the attachment with murder that comes with the tag psychopath. But either way there is something very dark about Osborne, worse than Widdicombe's slur of Michael Howard. Maybe the tabloid stories about his youth were true as SeanT of this parish has hinted. If so may be we are about to read more?
Yet ever since 2010, he has fought with Osborne over repeated attempts to take big lumps out of the welfare budget. Every Budget and Autumn Statement saw the Treasury pirates, knives in their mouths, ready to board the good ship DWP and raid its treasure. Many times, Captain Smithy saw them off as Downing Street’s Admiral of the Fleet hoved into view to sort out yet another skirmish, I know of at least two - and there are rumoured to be four in total - resignation letters IDS had written to Cameron before yesterday, each a protest over cuts plans that had the effect of Osborne and No.10 backing off. The last time was at the height of the tax credits cuts row, when he told a colleague ‘I have it in my pocket’, before managing to get Osborne to abandon moves to taper Universal Credit as his alternative. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/19/the-waugh-zone-march-19-2_n_9504448.html
Why oh why did Osborne not understand the risk of him resigning?
Because Osborne, like Cameron, is an arrogant ***t who cares nothing for anyone or anything except his own ambition?
Not really wisihng to have a poke at Cameron, but this is the second time he;s had a right winger resign on a point of principle ( David Davis was the other ). In both cases he was genuinely confused by it. I think the political animal in him cant quite comprehend that people might hold their values higher than their office.
Davis resigned in protest against Labour though. It was pretty confusing tbh.
It'll be Trump as the Republican runner. Question is who he runs with (can we have Palin and Christie have a swear off? 90 minutes say what you like debate...)
And though I want Sanders it looks like Shillary for the Democrats. Trump is going to tear her apart
Yet ever since 2010, he has fought with Osborne over repeated attempts to take big lumps out of the welfare budget. Every Budget and Autumn Statement saw the Treasury pirates, knives in their mouths, ready to board the good ship DWP and raid its treasure. Many times, Captain Smithy saw them off as Downing Street’s Admiral of the Fleet hoved into view to sort out yet another skirmish, I know of at least two - and there are rumoured to be four in total - resignation letters IDS had written to Cameron before yesterday, each a protest over cuts plans that had the effect of Osborne and No.10 backing off. The last time was at the height of the tax credits cuts row, when he told a colleague ‘I have it in my pocket’, before managing to get Osborne to abandon moves to taper Universal Credit as his alternative. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/19/the-waugh-zone-march-19-2_n_9504448.html
Why oh why did Osborne not understand the risk of him resigning?
Because Osborne, like Cameron, is an arrogant ***t who cares nothing for anyone or anything except his own ambition?
Not really wisihng to have a poke at Cameron, but this is the second time he;s had a right winger resign on a point of principle ( David Davis was the other ). In both cases he was genuinely confused by it. I think the political animal in him cant quite comprehend that people might hold their values higher than their office.
The David Davis resignation was completely unnecessary and changed nothing except to show that Davis was not fit for high office.
I had forgotten about Dafis winning in 1992 as a effectively a joint Plaid & Green candidate. When the Ceredigion & Pembroke North was created in 1983 Labour voters switched tactically to the LibDems and I suspect that would happen again. I would expect LibDems to win.
As I posted the other day , there are several people on the Vote2012 website trying to draw up proposals for the 29 new Welsh constituencies . Whether they start in the North and work South or South and work North they all end up with a mess and a couple of constituencies Y Gweddillion - and left over bits" The plus/minus 5% limit is too tight for 29 sensible constituencies to be drawn up . .
I'm fully in favour of equalising constituency sizes, but in Wales it seems impossible without some very odd contortions. We're going to end up wth constituencies that contain bits of several towns to meet the +/-5% rule.
Yes the problem is that if say you start off in Cardiff/Glamorgan and have 5 sensible constituencies they are all at the bottom of the Plus/Minus 5% limit and the remaining 24 Welsh constituencies have to meet a tighter limit than plus//minus 5% .
They'll all be much closer than the current massively unbalanced status quo though.
The problem with Wales is that there are two competing desires: near identical sized constituencies, and constituencies that have some commonality. We could get an algorithm to produce 600 absolutely identically sized constituencies, but it would result in them bearing no relation to existing entities such as town, councils, counties and the like.
Yes we can have 600 constituencies numbered 1-600 . Every elector is randomly put into 1 wherever they live . 600 equal sized constituencies and most GEs would have one party winning all 600 of them with FPTP .
No they would not! Standard deviation would prevent that.
A party with a lead of around 6% would win all 600 seats
I'd like to see the maths on that. But it would provide both stable government and an incentive on all parties to come first in the vote. Still better than PR.
Utah North Dakota Wisconsin Colorado Nebraska Oregon Washington Montana New Mexico South Dakota and just the 1 he already has in Wyoming
and take the nomination on the first ballot, comfortably. He's not likely to take that path, simply for what it implies, but that's the reality of the situation.
I have a sizable position at about 1.8 on no contest convention. 1.33 (PP) on no second round is even safer and some unbound delegates will go for Trump.
Yet ever since 2010, he has fought with Osborne over repeated attempts to take big lumps out of the welfare budget. Every Budget and Autumn Statement saw the Treasury pirates, knives in their mouths, ready to board the good ship DWP and raid its treasure. Many times, Captain Smithy saw them off as Downing Street’s Admiral of the Fleet hoved into view to sort out yet another skirmish, I know of at least two - and there are rumoured to be four in total - resignation letters IDS had written to Cameron before yesterday, each a protest over cuts plans that had the effect of Osborne and No.10 backing off. The last time was at the height of the tax credits cuts row, when he told a colleague ‘I have it in my pocket’, before managing to get Osborne to abandon moves to taper Universal Credit as his alternative. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/19/the-waugh-zone-march-19-2_n_9504448.html
Why oh why did Osborne not understand the risk of him resigning?
Because Osborne, like Cameron, is an arrogant ***t who cares nothing for anyone or anything except his own ambition?
Not really wisihng to have a poke at Cameron, but this is the second time he;s had a right winger resign on a point of principle ( David Davis was the other ). In both cases he was genuinely confused by it. I think the political animal in him cant quite comprehend that people might hold their values higher than their office.
Davis resigned to conduct a one-man crusade to restore the British rights enshrined in Magna Carta. Of course, it came to nothing. I was full of praise for him at the time but now look back with embarrassment. I let myself get carried away by what was in essence an individual's neurotic event.
My current prediction is for Trump to get 1,332 (viable range, c. 1,182 to 1,382, excluding any Rubio switchers outside Alaska. He gets a majority in California, and I have assumed only a slight effect of that fact afterwards.
My predictions are for zero delegates in Utah, and wins in Arizona and American Samoa.
Then: minority positions in North Dakota, Wisconsin, Colorado and Wyoming.
Then a big surge, comprehensive victories (assisted by several WTA states) in:
New York Connecticut Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania Rhode Island
This gets him to over a thousand. Indiana is more difficult in terms of extent, but is very likely a Trump victory.
A loss in Nebraska and a win in West Virginia look near certain at the moment.
I think Trump will gain a small win in Washington and a small loss in Oregon.
That will give him the opportunity to take it all in CA, and he will do well enough.
There is speculation among the NeverTrumps as to when Cruz is going to drop out. Their consensus is that if he loses Wisconsin he will drop out and it will be over, reminds me of the position Santorum was back in 2012 when he also dropped out after losing Wisconsin because the N.E. states were coming at the end of April.
Basically If Trump wins Arizona and Wisconsin he is on safe land.
Yet ever since 2010, he has fought with Osborne over repeated attempts to take big lumps out of the welfare budget. Every Budget and Autumn Statement saw the Treasury pirates, knives in their mouths, ready to board the good ship DWP and raid its treasure. Many times, Captain Smithy saw them off as Downing Street’s Admiral of the Fleet hoved into view to sort out yet another skirmish, I know of at least two - and there are rumoured to be four in total - resignation letters IDS had written to Cameron before yesterday, each a protest over cuts plans that had the effect of Osborne and No.10 backing off. The last time was at the height of the tax credits cuts row, when he told a colleague ‘I have it in my pocket’, before managing to get Osborne to abandon moves to taper Universal Credit as his alternative. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/19/the-waugh-zone-march-19-2_n_9504448.html
Why oh why did Osborne not understand the risk of him resigning?
Because Osborne, like Cameron, is an arrogant ***t who cares nothing for anyone or anything except his own ambition?
Not really wisihng to have a poke at Cameron, but this is the second time he;s had a right winger resign on a point of principle ( David Davis was the other ). In both cases he was genuinely confused by it. I think the political animal in him cant quite comprehend that people might hold their values higher than their office.
The David Davis resignation was completely unnecessary and changed nothing except to show that Davis was not fit for high office.
Indeed I've never before or since seen an opposition minister resign due to opposing a government policy that the opposition were all opposing together. It was inane.
You'd like to think questioning someones religion would be a new low but with Trump he has done it many times before.
What amazes me is how much Trump supporters lap up his obviously fake flattery about returning to Utah or buying a farm in Iowa. It seems like they are sort of people who have to live vicariously through others.
He is just following the same approach lots of other performers take...bands that say it great to be in .... our favourite place...the best crowd....and people lap the crap up.
Youd hope people would be more sceptical when choosing a president than enjoying a night out. Its a very strange theatre to have hero worship in. When people admire him for being "so alpha" it just looks very sad.
Tony Blair....Barack Obama....then they are disappointed when they turn out just to be like any other politician.
In a way, Cameron actually benefits from the fact that few people have that hero worship of him, which sets expectations a lot lower for when he doesn't do what he says.
But even with Blair and Obama it seemed more about the movement or the change they would make. Same with Corbyn and Sanders. With Trump it seems like its all about him as a "Great Man".
It'll be Trump as the Republican runner. Question is who he runs with (can we have Palin and Christie have a swear off? 90 minutes say what you like debate...)
And though I want Sanders it looks like Shillary for the Democrats. Trump is going to tear her apart
Even Trump can't be stupid enough to have Palin as his veep.
Utah North Dakota Wisconsin Colorado Nebraska Oregon Washington Montana New Mexico South Dakota and just the 1 he already has in Wyoming
and take the nomination on the first ballot, comfortably. He's not likely to take that path, simply for what it implies, but that's the reality of the situation.
I have a sizable position at about 1.8 on no contest convention. 1.33 (PP) on no second round is even safer and some unbound delegates will go for Trump.
I have him winning 0 delegates in Utah, N.Dakota, Colorado, Nebraska, Montana and S.Dakota.
And I have him winning Wisconsin, Oregon and Washington, he could lose N.Mexico but he will still get delegates from there.
My current prediction is for Trump to get 1,332 (viable range, c. 1,182 to 1,382, excluding any Rubio switchers outside Alaska. He gets a majority in California, and I have assumed only a slight effect of that fact afterwards.
My predictions are for zero delegates in Utah, and wins in Arizona and American Samoa.
Then: minority positions in North Dakota, Wisconsin, Colorado and Wyoming.
Then a big surge, comprehensive victories (assisted by several WTA states) in:
New York Connecticut Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania Rhode Island
This gets him to over a thousand. Indiana is more difficult in terms of extent, but is very likely a Trump victory.
A loss in Nebraska and a win in West Virginia look near certain at the moment.
I think Trump will gain a small win in Washington and a small loss in Oregon.
That will give him the opportunity to take it all in CA, and he will do well enough.
There is speculation among the NeverTrumps as to when Cruz is going to drop out. Their consensus is that if he loses Wisconsin he will drop out and it will be over, reminds me of the position Santorum was back in 2012 when he also dropped out after losing Wisconsin because the N.E. states were coming at the end of April.
Basically If Trump wins Arizona and Wisconsin he is on safe land.
The only time Trump can be exposed is (a) if he doesn't win Arizona (unlikely) or (b) Kasich beats him in at least some New England states (April 26th). That will open up a glimmer that Trump can be prevented from a majority.
Utah North Dakota Wisconsin Colorado Nebraska Oregon Washington Montana New Mexico South Dakota and just the 1 he already has in Wyoming
and take the nomination on the first ballot, comfortably. He's not likely to take that path, simply for what it implies, but that's the reality of the situation.
I have a sizable position at about 1.8 on no contest convention. 1.33 (PP) on no second round is even safer and some unbound delegates will go for Trump.
I have him winning 0 delegates in Utah, N.Dakota, Colorado, Nebraska, Montana and S.Dakota.
And I have him winning Wisconsin, Oregon and Washington, he could lose N.Mexico but he will still get delegates from there.
Wasn't your central prediction close to mine? If he wins Wisconsin, Oregon and Washington he is fifty up from where I put him, so he must do worse after that in your roadmap comapred to mine.
You'd like to think questioning someones religion would be a new low but with Trump he has done it many times before.
What amazes me is how much Trump supporters lap up his obviously fake flattery about returning to Utah or buying a farm in Iowa. It seems like they are sort of people who have to live vicariously through others.
He is just following the same approach lots of other performers take...bands that say it great to be in .... our favourite place...the best crowd....and people lap the crap up.
Youd hope people would be more sceptical when choosing a president than enjoying a night out. Its a very strange theatre to have hero worship in. When people admire him for being "so alpha" it just looks very sad.
Tony Blair....Barack Obama....then they are disappointed when they turn out just to be like any other politician.
In a way, Cameron actually benefits from the fact that few people have that hero worship of him, which sets expectations a lot lower for when he doesn't do what he says.
But even with Blair and Obama it seemed more about the movement or the change they would make. Same with Corbyn and Sanders. With Trump it seems like its all about him as a "Great Man".
Trump is selling change...totally unrealistic change...but change none the less. That is why he is beating the other GOP candidates, who are selling effectively more of the same with a few tweaks. In many ways he isn't very much different to Sanders i.e. all the manufacturing jobs back to the US, being a political "outsider", etc, but obviously doing it very differently.
Comments
Is the error the same as taking a sample of 100,000 people 600 times over? I mean, that assumes people can be sampled more than once, whereas in our example they are sampled exactly once.
See who wins.
Then rerun the simulation 1,000 times.
Mr. Crosby, shutting down a road is despicable. Trump's an oaf, but you can't (well, shouldn't) just stop people attending a democratic event in a free country because you dislike the individual at the heart of it.
It would not be a safe Conservative seat.
Surprisingly, every party except the Tories have won the Cardiganshire seat in recent times (Lab in 1966, PC in 1992, LibDems in 2005).
My guess is a South Pembrokeshire seat would be very tight between Tories & Labour. Pembrokeshire is one of the areas of Wales gaining population, and I think the demographic changes are favouring the Tories, albeit slowly -- much like in the Gower
I have a great liking for Nikki Haley, maybe both the first female and first sub-continental VP/President of the US. Trump should choose her.
OK: I've started on my script. I'm going to start with two parties: one on 55 and the other on 45, and then 'work inwards', 54-46, etc. and see how it affects the results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsjZ2r9Ygzw
Better than F1 qualifying? Yes.
http://www.ncpolitics.uk/2016/03/corbyn-finally-gets-his-poll-lead.html/
Watching that on a stuttering stream was a bit painful. Parking the bus...
Hope pbers took my advice of laying Chelsea at 1.80
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1HUQ30Y3Ks
Bournmouth are a good side too. Max Gradel to score (ex Leicester player).
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/australia-pre-race.html
Includes one tip.
I know of at least two - and there are rumoured to be four in total - resignation letters IDS had written to Cameron before yesterday, each a protest over cuts plans that had the effect of Osborne and No.10 backing off. The last time was at the height of the tax credits cuts row, when he told a colleague ‘I have it in my pocket’, before managing to get Osborne to abandon moves to taper Universal Credit as his alternative.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/19/the-waugh-zone-march-19-2_n_9504448.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/18/politics/donald-trump-mormon-mitt-romney-utah/
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/03/19/the-waugh-zone-march-19-2_n_9504448.html
https://twitter.com/RollTide061077/status/711238289391378433
1. It means the only EU regulation we sign up to is fixed at time of signing. There can be no new EU rules that we have to sign up to at risk of suspending chapters of free trade.
2. I'm not convinced EEA would reduce immigration much at all. According to Richard Nabavi they would have same benefits rights. Even if they did not, I'm not sure that would change many minds.
What amazes me is how much Trump supporters lap up his obviously fake flattery about returning to Utah or buying a farm in Iowa. It seems like they are sort of people who have to live vicariously through others.
I was never a fan of IDS as Leader, but he has a lot of respect in the membership and I would estimate that he could sway a significant 20%/25% away from Osborne in a future vote. Not smart of Osborne to act in this way.
Trump is their latest charlatan.
We'll see how much of a difference the radio rule changes make in the race.
“I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I’m sorry: I should have analysed the profound changes in the global economy which altered almost everything, but instead I treated the job as a political game. I passed a ridiculous and unenforceable law telling myself that I had to achieve surplus over the cycle, and I then failed to do this. I undermined private pensions. I was tougher on the middle class than on the big boys. I invented the Office of Tax Simplification but added five times more pages to the tax code than the length of the entire document 50 years ago. I wasted my time copying Gordon Brown – trying to wrong-foot the Opposition, planning headlines and building up a system of patronage so that I could become prime minister.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12198214/The-Chancellor-has-little-purpose-beyond-his-own-political-success.html
Not a fan?
What Osborne lacked was perception.
In a way, Cameron actually benefits from the fact that few people have that hero worship of him, which sets expectations a lot lower for when he doesn't do what he says.
My predictions are for zero delegates in Utah, and wins in Arizona and American Samoa.
Then: minority positions in North Dakota, Wisconsin, Colorado and Wyoming.
Then a big surge, comprehensive victories (assisted by several WTA states) in:
New York
Connecticut
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
This gets him to over a thousand. Indiana is more difficult in terms of extent, but is very likely a Trump victory.
A loss in Nebraska and a win in West Virginia look near certain at the moment.
I think Trump will gain a small win in Washington and a small loss in Oregon.
That will give him the opportunity to take it all in CA, and he will do well enough.
http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html
Osborne used to hint that Brown had mental problems of a similar nature.
Also, self-diagnosis tends to overestimate just about every psych problem.
Psychopathology is an interesting condition. Some reckon it came about to the great benefit of mankind, as psychopaths are great leaders. The problem is quite a lot of them do make a habit of murdering people...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1HUQ30Y3Ks
But either way there is something very dark about Osborne, worse than Widdicombe's slur of Michael Howard. Maybe the tabloid stories about his youth were true as SeanT of this parish has hinted. If so may be we are about to read more?
...but you should stop there.
And though I want Sanders it looks like Shillary for the Democrats. Trump is going to tear her apart
I think the only serious complaints I can remember hearing were about the most recent session, when the climax of Q3 had nobody on-track.
Utah
North Dakota
Wisconsin
Colorado
Nebraska
Oregon
Washington
Montana
New Mexico
South Dakota
and just the 1 he already has in Wyoming
and take the nomination on the first ballot, comfortably. He's not likely to take that path, simply for what it implies, but that's the reality of the situation.
I have a sizable position at about 1.8 on no contest convention. 1.33 (PP) on no second round is even safer and some unbound delegates will go for Trump.
Their consensus is that if he loses Wisconsin he will drop out and it will be over, reminds me of the position Santorum was back in 2012 when he also dropped out after losing Wisconsin because the N.E. states were coming at the end of April.
Basically If Trump wins Arizona and Wisconsin he is on safe land.
http://fusion.net/video/231139/donald-trump-wwe-political-rise/
And I have him winning Wisconsin, Oregon and Washington, he could lose N.Mexico but he will still get delegates from there.