Just watched the State Opening..It seems to me that the entire thing is overdone..We need to get rid of the Diamonds, gold, uniforms, hangers on and get the old girl up there in her best frock, say her bit and then she can go and take the dogs fp a walk..she has as much influence on the running of the country as one of the cleaning ladies in the HOC..
If that's your criterion, have the ceremony at Rothschild's Bank instead!
I notice the poor kids are all up in arms at the horrid and beastly GCSE Biology exam. I would like to add my voice of complaint...the questions sounded far too easy to me.
Have you got a link to the paper, or the questions. The Mail article was astonishingly poor in that it didn't identify any of the questions the examinees had concerns over specifically.
I believe it is against the law to show papers etc. But one question was "define an independent company" (and it was in the context of companies who do research) i.e. they were clearly looking for something really straight forward in regards to why their research isn't bias etc because they haven't taken money from an interested party.
The other one everybody is getting their knickers in a twist (including parents screaming blue murder about how dare they mention alcohol) was basically some survey data about under aged drinking habits, and they just had to interpret the survey data.
So basically bullshit easy stuff that if I had been doing those exams I would be embarrassed they asked and been happy to keep quiet as wouldn't want people thinking my GCSE's were a piece of cake.
At college, I had a question on an exam paper which was "Epstein-Barr virus is the Rosetta Stone of human viral oncology. Discuss" I am not sure how many taking the exam knew what the Rosetta Stone was, having not studied either history nor ancient languages since the 3rd form.
PS this was well before the language tuition company Rosetta Stone was in existence
I was once faced with the exam question " Prove that a line joining any point outside a circle on a 2-D surface to any point inside that circle must cross the circle in at least one point". The answer " it's obvious" gets null point. (In 3-D, you can just duck under the circle without crossing it of course). As usual, if you don't understand the nature of the problem, you won't be able to give a useful answer. Applies to a lot of things.
@TSE,you think we will get another chance to vote on the EU in the next ten years,more like 40 years,please stop the wind up.
By then we should have enough EU nationals living here who will have the say we never leave.
Alternatively the EU might evolve over the next 10 years into something more acceptable to the moderate mainstream majority in this country, allowing us to get the option most of us probably want but getting there whilst being on the inside of the tent having helped to shape it. Masters of our destiny - I like that.
Leave in the next 2 years and we won't get that opportunity.
"Stay in - for now" - the motto of the Reluctant Remainer!
Pretty much sums up where I am.
It is entirely possible that the potential departure of one of their biggest economies may concentrate minds and lead people to think 'we don't want to go through that again'. Does anyone doubt the likely reaction of the currency markets for both the £ and € the day of a REMAIN vote?
Of course, those of a more suspicious/prescient (delete as appropriate) disposition may fear we won't be given the option to vote again. How will they stop us?
So 40 years of cajoling and persuading has achieved nothing but straight after we have agreed to stay they are suddenly going to turn round and change?
Not exactly a realistic scenario is it.
Moreover it ignores the need for the Eurozone to unify politically or fail. Faced with that necessity they are not going to go out of their way to agree anything with us.
@TSE,you think we will get another chance to vote on the EU in the next ten years,more like 40 years,please stop the wind up.
By then we should have enough EU nationals living here who will have the say we never leave.
Alternatively the EU might evolve over the next 10 years into something more acceptable to the moderate mainstream majority in this country, allowing us to get the option most of us probably want but getting there whilst being on the inside of the tent having helped to shape it. Masters of our destiny - I like that.
Leave in the next 2 years and we won't get that opportunity.
"Stay in - for now" - the motto of the Reluctant Remainer!
Pretty much sums up where I am.
It is entirely possible that the potential departure of one of their biggest economies may concentrate minds and lead people to think 'we don't want to go through that again'. Does anyone doubt the likely reaction of the currency markets for both the £ and € the day of a REMAIN vote?
Of course, those of a more suspicious/prescient (delete as appropriate) disposition may fear we won't be given the option to vote again. How will they stop us?
So 40 years of cajoling and persuading has achieved nothing but straight after we have agreed to stay they are suddenly going to turn round and change?
Not exactly a realistic scenario is it.
Moreover it ignores the need for the Eurozone to unify politically or fail. Faced with that necessity they are not going to go out of their way to agree anything with us.
Rationalising. Perfect human thing to do to a decision you've taken, that you fear may unravel later, but are too frightened now to do anything about.
Mr. Tyndall, quite agree, but some seem to be comforted by the delusion we can magically make the EU work for us instead of constantly fighting a losing battle not to cede any more powers.
Just watched the State Opening..It seems to me that the entire thing is overdone..We need to get rid of the Diamonds, gold, uniforms, hangers on and get the old girl up there in her best frock, say her bit and then she can go and take the dogs fp a walk..she has as much influence on the running of the country as one of the cleaning ladies in the HOC..
How much income does pomp and circumstance bring to our country?
Back on Topic. I for one have no problem over "loss of sovereignty" to the EU.
The European Parliament is, in fact, far more representative of opinion in this country, taken overall, than Westminster is. Of course, the UK delegation is not, since it is full of UKIP MEPS who hardly ever turn up anyway. And that is the fault of the Labour Party who landed us with the worst system of PR that they could think of.
But overall the European Parliament is very representive of opinion throughout Europe. There is even a good body of Liberals there - even though there is a deficit among the UK representation, again thanks to Labour jiggery-pokery.
In contrast, there is a majority of Conservative MPs in the House of Commons, even though Cameron failed to persuade even 25% of the registered voters to give him their support. The Conservative Government has no mandate for anything, but it gets away with doing whatever it likes.
The people who are concerned with "loss of sovereignty" are presumably Conservative voters, who think that a corrupt minority representing their own interests should decide everything for everybody, and always in their own personal interest.
In case you missed it, at the last GE a majority of the votes were for right of centre parties. If people can't be arsed to vote they don't deserve to be listened to when they whine about the outcome.
I always vote, Mr Tyndall, and I always complain about the result afterwards, both locally and nationally.
If what you say is true - and I have no doubt it is - then there ought to be very many more UKIP MPs at Westminster. And what we ought to have now is a coalition government made up of Tory and UKIP MPs.
But we don`t. What we have is a feeble Conservative government with no real mandate of its own, which goes from one shambles to the next, hoping that their PR expertise will brush aside any recognition of their own incompetence and illegitimacy.
In contrast, in the European Parliament no single group has a majority of MEPs, and every issue has to be thrashed out by a process of negotiation and compromise. (In passing, if I were a UKIP supporter, I would feel cheated, because the UKIP MEPs are distinguished only by their absence.) However, not being UKIP, I am represented in that process. At Westminster my point of view is steamrollered by an unrepresentive minority.
I suspect most Conservative Association Chairman are in favour of reintroduction of the death penalty, but that most Conservative voters oppose it.
I reckon most Tory voters support it. A poll conducted in 2015 showed 48% in favour, but curiously I couldn't find what figure it gave for those who were opposed.
A poll in 2014 gave 45% for, 39% against.
I used to support but am now against. I prefer full life with no possibility of parole. Death by prison. As opposed to death OR prison.
(I don't think politicians are lying duplicitous b*st*rds, btw, but I do think they try to square a lot of circles.)
For my sins, I grew up around politicians and still spend quite a bit of time with them.
I can confirm that they are, actually, lying duplicitous b*st*rds
(They are also charming, amusing, and a lot of fun to be with. Case in point, I had a very nice chat with Frances Osborne on Monday evening about women who have loved or lusted throughout history. While watching her husband dance. Badly.)
Just the man....I've been invited to have dinner at the House of Commons next Tuesday. Should I be worried about predatory SNPers or dressing as smartly as jeremy?
Moreover it ignores the need for the Eurozone to unify politically or fail. Faced with that necessity they are not going to go out of their way to agree anything with us.
Coordination and harmonisation do not necessarily imply unification. The impetus for the Eurozone to become effectively one country is much less that the current consensus here.
The lesson that being part of a currency union imposes fiscal constraints will not be unlearned any time soon. Governments are simply getting better at acting as members of the block without any need for wholesale institutional changes.
@IsabelHardman: This speech is like a metaphor for Corbyn’s leadership - impossible to see how it is going to end while his own MPs look increasingly sad.
I always vote, Mr Tyndall, and I always complain about the result afterwards, both locally and nationally.
If what you say is true - and I have no doubt it is - then there ought to be very many more UKIP MPs at Westminster. And what we ought to have now is a coalition government made up of Tory and UKIP MPs.
But we don`t. What we have is a feeble Conservative government with no real mandate of its own, which goes from one shambles to the next, hoping that their PR expertise will brush aside any recognition of their own incompetence and illegitimacy.
In contrast, in the European Parliament no single group has a majority of MEPs, and every issue has to be thrashed out by a process of negotiation and compromise. (In passing, if I were a UKIP supporter, I would feel cheated, because the UKIP MEPs are distinguished only by their absence.) However, not being UKIP, I am represented in that process. At Westminster my point of view is steamrollered by an unrepresentive minority.
I prefer the European Parliament to Westminster.
You may do but I don't. I and would suggest you are in a very tiny minority. Nothing wrong with that of course. I am in a tiny minority for many other views.
But the idea that a legislative chamber where almost every issue is stitched up before it is ever voted on - and where the power rests with the party groupings rather than the individual representatives - is in any way democratic is laughable.
(I don't think politicians are lying duplicitous b*st*rds, btw, but I do think they try to square a lot of circles.)
For my sins, I grew up around politicians and still spend quite a bit of time with them.
I can confirm that they are, actually, lying duplicitous b*st*rds
(They are also charming, amusing, and a lot of fun to be with. Case in point, I had a very nice chat with Frances Osborne on Monday evening about women who have loved or lusted throughout history. While watching her husband dance. Badly.)
Just the man....I've been invited to have dinner at the House of Commons next Tuesday. Should I be worried about predatory SNPers or dressing as smartly as jeremy?
Just don't dance Strip the Willow with George...
Was it the do at Temple Place on Monday? It sounded rather good as we passed.
Back on Topic. I for one have no problem over "loss of sovereignty" to the EU.
The European Parliament is, in fact, far more representative of opinion in this country, taken overall, than Westminster is. Of course, the UK delegation is not, since it is full of UKIP MEPS who hardly ever turn up anyway. And that is the fault of the Labour Party who landed us with the worst system of PR that they could think of.
But overall the European Parliament is very representive of opinion throughout Europe. There is even a good body of Liberals there - even though there is a deficit among the UK representation, again thanks to Labour jiggery-pokery.
In contrast, there is a majority of Conservative MPs in the House of Commons, even though Cameron failed to persuade even 25% of the registered voters to give him their support. The Conservative Government has no mandate for anything, but it gets away with doing whatever it likes.
The people who are concerned with "loss of sovereignty" are presumably Conservative voters, who think that a corrupt minority representing their own interests should decide everything for everybody, and always in their own personal interest.
If you are arguing that the European Parliament is a paragon of representative democracy then that's certainly a brave perspective to take.
I think that even a fair numbers of Remainers would disagree with that.
Of course the European Parliament is not "paragon of representative democracy ", Mr Royale. It could hardly be that when the UK delegation is so badly distorted by the wretched voting system that Labour imposed on us.
That said, it is infinitely more representative of the various viewpoints in Europe, including the various viewpoints of the UK.
Moreover it ignores the need for the Eurozone to unify politically or fail. Faced with that necessity they are not going to go out of their way to agree anything with us.
Coordination and harmonisation do not necessarily imply unification. The impetus for the Eurozone to become effectively one country is much less that the current consensus here.
The lesson that being part of a currency union imposes fiscal constraints will not be unlearned any time soon. Governments are simply getting better at acting as members of the block without any need for wholesale institutional changes.
No it isn't. It is a political necessity even if some of the members would do it only reluctantly. The current series of Euro crisis are a perfect example of why economic union without political union cannot work in the EU.
'Alternatively the EU might evolve over the next 10 years into something more acceptable to the moderate mainstream majority in this country, allowing us to get the option most of us probably want but getting there whilst being on the inside of the tent having helped to shape it. Masters of our destiny - I like that.'
Yes, we've being hearing that for at least twenty years,any idea why it hasn't happened ?
Nothing to do with every EU problem requiring more EU ?
Back on Topic. I for one have no problem over "loss of sovereignty" to the EU.
The European Parliament is, in fact, far more representative of opinion in this country, taken overall, than Westminster is. Of course, the UK delegation is not, since it is full of UKIP MEPS who hardly ever turn up anyway. And that is the fault of the Labour Party who landed us with the worst system of PR that they could think of.
But overall the European Parliament is very representive of opinion throughout Europe. There is even a good body of Liberals there - even though there is a deficit among the UK representation, again thanks to Labour jiggery-pokery.
In contrast, there is a majority of Conservative MPs in the House of Commons, even though Cameron failed to persuade even 25% of the registered voters to give him their support. The Conservative Government has no mandate for anything, but it gets away with doing whatever it likes.
The people who are concerned with "loss of sovereignty" are presumably Conservative voters, who think that a corrupt minority representing their own interests should decide everything for everybody, and always in their own personal interest.
If you are arguing that the European Parliament is a paragon of representative democracy then that's certainly a brave perspective to take.
I think that even a fair numbers of Remainers would disagree with that.
Of course the European Parliament is not "paragon of representative democracy ", Mr Royale. It could hardly be that when the UK delegation is so badly distorted by the wretched voting system that Labour imposed on us.
That said, it is infinitely more representative of the various viewpoints in Europe, including the various viewpoints of the UK.
It's turnout is dire and the electorates across the EU treat it with contempt.
I'm afraid we may have to agree to disagree on this.
@gabyhinsliff: Not sure I have ever heard the house cheer like it did when Corbyn finally finished.
Trendy media types like Gabby don't like Corbyn because he is different and doesn't play by their rules... But this country needs a shake up and whatever else he might do (and I accept he'd probably bring us to ruins within a few years) he'd certainly shake things up...
Trendy media types like Gabby don't like Corbyn because he is different and doesn't play by their rules... But this country needs a shake up and whatever else he might do (and I accept he'd probably bring us to ruins within a few years) he'd certainly shake things up...
@JohnRentoul: It's not the uselessness that gets to them. It's the hope that Labour MPs couldn't bear. Sparkling start from Corbyn ended in despair.
(I don't think politicians are lying duplicitous b*st*rds, btw, but I do think they try to square a lot of circles.)
For my sins, I grew up around politicians and still spend quite a bit of time with them.
I can confirm that they are, actually, lying duplicitous b*st*rds
(They are also charming, amusing, and a lot of fun to be with. Case in point, I had a very nice chat with Frances Osborne on Monday evening about women who have loved or lusted throughout history. While watching her husband dance. Badly.)
Just the man....I've been invited to have dinner at the House of Commons next Tuesday. Should I be worried about predatory SNPers or dressing as smartly as jeremy?
Just don't dance Strip the Willow with George...
Was it the do at Temple Place on Monday? It sounded rather good as we passed.
That was it. I suspect you would have rather liked the company, but @Richard_Tyndall would have been fulminating at the assorted reprobates.
(I particularly liked the bit when the hostesses son said that she had been a great mother in the early 1990s, despite the fact that she was "basically running the country". Forgetting that John Major was sitting at the same table...)
Trendy media types like Gabby don't like Corbyn because he is different and doesn't play by their rules... But this country needs a shake up and whatever else he might do (and I accept he'd probably bring us to ruins within a few years) he'd certainly shake things up...
@JohnRentoul: It's not the uselessness that gets to them. It's the hope that Labour MPs couldn't bear. Sparkling start from Corbyn ended in despair.
Rentoul is still died in the wool Blairite like he'd say anything different. Same with Dan Hodges, etc...
I note the ORB poll with a 15% brexit lead sampled a whopping 800 people. The IPSOS/Mori 1002.
The BES poll which we await a breathless article on sampled a tiny sample of er... 22,000 and had Leave ahead 43% to 40.5%
Hmm
Anyone complaining about the lack of a BES thread, can they also post a link to the detailed data please, which includes the methodology and full breakdown. Ta.
It might just have come across as more objective if something like the above, noting the existence of the BES one but saying no data is yet available had been in the main article.
Omitting any mention of BES places the site in danger of looking like remain shills when the whole point of the site is to give reasonably objective inveatment advice for turf accountant investments.
This is a betting site, a thread based on not knowing all the info can skew things.
We're not even sure if it is GB/UK wide or England only poll.
Between 1,000 and 22,000 people there is almost no improvement in MoE.
Finally, at last, Absolutely 100% correct. Thank you
(I particularly liked the bit when the hostesses son said that she had been a great mother in the early 1990s, despite the fact that she was "basically running the country". Forgetting that John Major was sitting at the same table...)
Just watched the State Opening..It seems to me that the entire thing is overdone..We need to get rid of the Diamonds, gold, uniforms, hangers on and get the old girl up there in her best frock, say her bit and then she can go and take the dogs fp a walk..she has as much influence on the running of the country as one of the cleaning ladies in the HOC..
Do the cleaning ladies meet with Cameron to advise and warn on a regular basis?
I note the ORB poll with a 15% brexit lead sampled a whopping 800 people. The IPSOS/Mori 1002.
The BES poll which we await a breathless article on sampled a tiny sample of er... 22,000 and had Leave ahead 43% to 40.5%
Hmm
Anyone complaining about the lack of a BES thread, can they also post a link to the detailed data please, which includes the methodology and full breakdown. Ta.
Thank you TSE.
What was the wording of the BES question? Was it an online poll? When was the fieldwork? If anybody has got that data then please let me know.
If people don't like the way the site is run then they don't have to come here.
The only information I could glean was that polling ended on 4th May.
If the field work ended on 4th May then, to be honest, it's far too out of date to tell us much now.
@gabyhinsliff: Not sure I have ever heard the house cheer like it did when Corbyn finally finished.
Trendy media types like Gabby don't like Corbyn because he is different and doesn't play by their rules... But this country needs a shake up and whatever else he might do (and I accept he'd probably bring us to ruins within a few years) he'd certainly shake things up...
Trendy media types are often a mix of races, colours and sexual orientation. Could it be they don't like Jezza because he is friends with people who want such types dead?
(I don't think politicians are lying duplicitous b*st*rds, btw, but I do think they try to square a lot of circles.)
For my sins, I grew up around politicians and still spend quite a bit of time with them.
I can confirm that they are, actually, lying duplicitous b*st*rds
(They are also charming, amusing, and a lot of fun to be with. Case in point, I had a very nice chat with Frances Osborne on Monday evening about women who have loved or lusted throughout history. While watching her husband dance. Badly.)
Just the man....I've been invited to have dinner at the House of Commons next Tuesday. Should I be worried about predatory SNPers or dressing as smartly as jeremy?
Just don't dance Strip the Willow with George...
Was it the do at Temple Place on Monday? It sounded rather good as we passed.
That was it. I suspect you would have rather liked the company, but @Richard_Tyndall would have been fulminating at the assorted reprobates.
(I particularly liked the bit when the hostesses son said that she had been a great mother in the early 1990s, despite the fact that she was "basically running the country". Forgetting that John Major was sitting at the same table...)
Once you start falling below 2000 it gets more iffy.
Speaking as a mathematician rather than a politician, no, really not. Obviously the more complete and representative sample you have, the better, to the point where you canvass everyone who will vote and if they all tell the truth you have a variation of 0.00%. But it's a logarithmic curve and it flattens out very quickly after 1000. If you imagine picking green and red apples out of a tub, you'll get a very similar result whether you pick 1000 or 2000 or 10000 - what you need is enough to establish the pattern.
Where polls can go hideously wrong is in their sampling and assumptions, and since we're all scrabbling to decide how to predict differential turnout in the referendum, it makes good sense to look at a variety of polls making different assumptions. If I was a Leaver I certainly wouldn't freak out over one poll. But the sample size isn't really the issue.
Moreover it ignores the need for the Eurozone to unify politically or fail. Faced with that necessity they are not going to go out of their way to agree anything with us.
Coordination and harmonisation do not necessarily imply unification. The impetus for the Eurozone to become effectively one country is much less that the current consensus here.
The lesson that being part of a currency union imposes fiscal constraints will not be unlearned any time soon. Governments are simply getting better at acting as members of the block without any need for wholesale institutional changes.
No it isn't. It is a political necessity even if some of the members would do it only reluctantly. The current series of Euro crisis are a perfect example of why economic union without political union cannot work in the EU.
But they're not 'Euro crises' as such, just classic sovereign debt crises. Membership of a currency union just means that the fundamental issues can't be evaded through devaluation.
Moreover it ignores the need for the Eurozone to unify politically or fail. Faced with that necessity they are not going to go out of their way to agree anything with us.
Coordination and harmonisation do not necessarily imply unification. The impetus for the Eurozone to become effectively one country is much less that the current consensus here.
The lesson that being part of a currency union imposes fiscal constraints will not be unlearned any time soon. Governments are simply getting better at acting as members of the block without any need for wholesale institutional changes.
No it isn't. It is a political necessity even if some of the members would do it only reluctantly. The current series of Euro crisis are a perfect example of why economic union without political union cannot work in the EU.
But they're not 'Euro crises' as such, just classic sovereign debt crises. Membership of a currency union just means that the fundamental issues can't be evaded through devaluation.
Which is why ordinary Greeks are so keen to stay in the Eurozone.
Back on Topic. I for one have no problem over "loss of sovereignty" to the EU.
The European Parliament is, in fact, far more representative of opinion in this country, taken overall, than Westminster is. Of course, the UK delegation is not, since it is full of UKIP MEPS who hardly ever turn up anyway. And that is the fault of the Labour Party who landed us with the worst system of PR that they could think of.
But overall the European Parliament is very representive of opinion throughout Europe. There is even a good body of Liberals there - even though there is a deficit among the UK representation, again thanks to Labour jiggery-pokery.
In contrast, there is a majority of Conservative MPs in the House of Commons, even though Cameron failed to persuade even 25% of the registered voters to give him their support. The Conservative Government has no mandate for anything, but it gets away with doing whatever it likes.
The people who are concerned with "loss of sovereignty" are presumably Conservative voters, who think that a corrupt minority representing their own interests should decide everything for everybody, and always in their own personal interest.
If you are arguing that the European Parliament is a paragon of representative democracy then that's certainly a brave perspective to take.
I think that even a fair numbers of Remainers would disagree with that.
Of course the European Parliament is not a "paragon of representative democracy ", Mr Royale. It could hardly be that when the UK delegation is so badly distorted by the wretched voting system that Labour imposed on us.
That said, it is infinitely more representative of the various viewpoints in Europe, including the various viewpoints of the UK.
It's turnout is dire and the electorates across the EU treat it with contempt. I'm afraid we may have to agree to disagree on this.
They probably all read the Daily Express, Mr Zims.
Membership of a currency union just means that the fundamental issues can't be evaded through devaluation.
Membership doesn't 'just means ... through devaluation' It also means many other aspects of the economy are impacted, changing the comparative advantages and hence terms of trade.
Also, your wording somehow demeans devaluation. Devaluation is a very useful tool incrementally and frequently to fine tune things that are otherwise next to impossible in practical terms (e.g. addressing wage non-competitiveness through wage reductions).
(I don't think politicians are lying duplicitous b*st*rds, btw, but I do think they try to square a lot of circles.)
For my sins, I grew up around politicians and still spend quite a bit of time with them.
I can confirm that they are, actually, lying duplicitous b*st*rds
(They are also charming, amusing, and a lot of fun to be with. Case in point, I had a very nice chat with Frances Osborne on Monday evening about women who have loved or lusted throughout history. While watching her husband dance. Badly.)
Just the man....I've been invited to have dinner at the House of Commons next Tuesday. Should I be worried about predatory SNPers or dressing as smartly as jeremy?
Just don't dance Strip the Willow with George...
Was it the do at Temple Place on Monday? It sounded rather good as we passed.
That was it. I suspect you would have rather liked the company, but @Richard_Tyndall would have been fulminating at the assorted reprobates.
(I particularly liked the bit when the hostesses son said that she had been a great mother in the early 1990s, despite the fact that she was "basically running the country". Forgetting that John Major was sitting at the same table...)
Back on Topic. I for one have no problem over "loss of sovereignty" to the EU.
The European Parliament is, in fact, far more representative of opinion in this country, taken overall, than Westminster is. Of course, the UK delegation is not, since it is full of UKIP MEPS who hardly ever turn up anyway. And that is the fault of the Labour Party who landed us with the worst system of PR that they could think of.
But overall the European Parliament is very representive of opinion throughout Europe. There is even a good body of Liberals there - even though there is a deficit among the UK representation, again thanks to Labour jiggery-pokery.
In contrast, there is a majority of Conservative MPs in the House of Commons, even though Cameron failed to persuade even 25% of the registered voters to give him their support. The Conservative Government has no mandate for anything, but it gets away with doing whatever it likes.
The people who are concerned with "loss of sovereignty" are presumably Conservative voters, who think that a corrupt minority representing their own interests should decide everything for everybody, and always in their own personal interest.
If you are arguing that the European Parliament is a paragon of representative democracy then that's certainly a brave perspective to take.
I think that even a fair numbers of Remainers would disagree with that.
Of course the European Parliament is not a "paragon of representative democracy ", Mr Royale. It could hardly be that when the UK delegation is so badly distorted by the wretched voting system that Labour imposed on us.
That said, it is infinitely more representative of the various viewpoints in Europe, including the various viewpoints of the UK.
It's turnout is dire and the electorates across the EU treat it with contempt. I'm afraid we may have to agree to disagree on this.
They probably all read the Daily Express, Mr Zims.
Mr. Wanderer, feels like halfway through a race. Half of the pit stops are done, the first lap madness is over. Still time for bad strategy or reliability failures to bugger things up, though.
Devaluation is a very useful tool incrementally and frequently to fine tune things that are otherwise next to impossible in practical terms (e.g. addressing wage non-competitiveness through wage reductions).
That's a good example of something where the normal assumptions in economics of what is practically possible will need drastically overhauling to cope with the disruptive impact of technology on how economic life is organised. Deflation need not be an evil to be feared at all costs.
On topic: starting to look like it's all over bar the fighting (according to Nigel, anyway).
Although we said the same thing in February, March and April last year.
Remain remaining smug. Leave leaving the land of credibility.
I'm still waiting for the frothing to stop & get onto the rational sensible honest arguments from both sides....I have a feeling I might be waiting a long time.
' And that is the fault of the Labour Party who landed us with the worst system of PR that they could think of. '
FPTP wrong,Alternative vote wrong and when the Lib Dems get decimated in the Euro elections it's the wrong type of PR ! Do you work for Network Rail by any chance ?
No,Mr Zims. I prefer not to work for anybody else. No point in working just to make them rich.
The last time I looked, there were over 200 different voting systems alive and kicking somewhere in the world. Some, inevitably, are better than others. Depending on your point of view, of course.
FPTP is best is you want to grab power with minimal support. Tories and Labour like this.
AV is best if you want to seem progressive, in favour of change and fairness. Milliband put this into the Labour Party manifesto, and then wrecked the AV referendum (see above).
The party list syetem (as for Euro elections) is best if you want the party to keep control, while giving the semblance of proportionality. This is what Labour went for when it was forced by the EU to adopt some kind of proportional system.
STV is best when you want to give ordinary people some say over who gets elected.
Once you start falling below 2000 it gets more iffy.
Speaking as a mathematician rather than a politician, no, really not. Obviously the more complete and representative sample you have, the better, to the point where you canvass everyone who will vote and if they all tell the truth you have a variation of 0.00%. But it's a logarithmic curve and it flattens out very quickly after 1000. If you imagine picking green and red apples out of a tub, you'll get a very similar result whether you pick 1000 or 2000 or 10000 - what you need is enough to establish the pattern.
Where polls can go hideously wrong is in their sampling and assumptions, and since we're all scrabbling to decide how to predict differential turnout in the referendum, it makes good sense to look at a variety of polls making different assumptions. If I was a Leaver I certainly wouldn't freak out over one poll. But the sample size isn't really the issue.
I came to this site initially because of my work in public health, estimating demand for certain treatments on the base of population based studies.
Size of a study is no substitute for getting an accurate sample, and the way we measure that is participation rate. So if I arrange a random sample of the population and screen them for diabetes, then the utility of my answer is based on whether the sample is truly representative and what the participation rate is. It is fairly straightforward to calculate the standard error and confidence intervals. The size of the sample helps reduce this as Nick says, though with diminishing returns.
The equivalent figure for a telephone poll would be the percentage of contacts that participate, a figure that we rarely see cited. This is because non-participants are intrinsically different to participants and no amount of statistical jiggery pokery can make up for a biased sample.
Devaluation is a very useful tool incrementally and frequently to fine tune things that are otherwise next to impossible in practical terms (e.g. addressing wage non-competitiveness through wage reductions).
That's a good example of something where the normal assumptions in economics of what is practically possible will need drastically overhauling to cope with the disruptive impact of technology on how economic life is organised. Deflation need not be an evil to be feared at all costs.
I should have added that devaluation is about the cheapest tax to collect ...
As a matter of interest, was the call automated or was there a person at the end of the line? Also, roughly what time and day did they call?
Can't speak for ScrapHeap But IpsosMori polled me before by phone, it was some comfortable hour of Saturday afternoon, and it was a human (with a Scottish lilt).
On topic: starting to look like it's all over bar the fighting (according to Nigel, anyway).
Although we said the same thing in February, March and April last year.
Remain remaining smug. Leave leaving the land of credibility.
I'm still waiting for the frothing to stop & get onto the rational sensible honest arguments from both sides....I have a feeling I might be waiting a long time.
I think most of the rational arguments have been out there so long and have been stated so many times that they are no longer being made and, if they are, they are being made so infrequently that they are lost in the froth
@TSE,you think we will get another chance to vote on the EU in the next ten years,more like 40 years,please stop the wind up.
By then we should have enough EU nationals living here who will have the say we never leave.
Alternatively the EU might evolve over the next 10 years into something more acceptable to the moderate mainstream majority in this country, allowing us to get the option most of us probably want but getting there whilst being on the inside of the tent having helped to shape it. Masters of our destiny - I like that.
Leave in the next 2 years and we won't get that opportunity.
"Stay in - for now" - the motto of the Reluctant Remainer!
Pretty much sums up where I am.
It is entirely possible that the potential departure of one of their biggest economies may concentrate minds and lead people to think 'we don't want to go through that again'. Does anyone doubt the likely reaction of the currency markets for both the £ and € the day of a REMAIN vote?
Of course, those of a more suspicious/prescient (delete as appropriate) disposition may fear we won't be given the option to vote again. How will they stop us?
So 40 years of cajoling and persuading has achieved nothing but straight after we have agreed to stay they are suddenly going to turn round and change?
Not exactly a realistic scenario is it.
Moreover it ignores the need for the Eurozone to unify politically or fail. Faced with that necessity they are not going to go out of their way to agree anything with us.
All of that may be true.
Or not.
Of course, one of the major 'failures' of 40 years of cajoling & persuading has been the single market. Not bad for a 'failure'....
And if the Eurozone does integrate in ways that become inimical to our national interest, what's to stop us having another referendum & leaving?
As a matter of interest, was the call automated or was there a person at the end of the line? Also, roughly what time and day did they call?
Can't speak for ScrapHeap But IpsosMori polled me before by phone, it was some comfortable hour of Saturday afternoon, and it was a human (with a Scottish lilt).
My best (current) prediction of the EU ref result is as follows:
(1) About 10-15% remain undecided (not 4 or 5%) (2) Leave are on about 40% (3) Remain are on 45%-50%
The undecideds will break 60/40 for Remain and a good chunk won't vote, say half, so assuming a meaty non differential turnout we'll get a result like:
My best (current) prediction of the EU ref result is as follows:
(1) About 10-15% remain undecided (not 4 or 5%) (2) Leave are on about 40% (3) Remain are on 45%-50%
The undecideds will break 60/40 for Remain and a good chunk won't vote, say half, so assuming a meaty non differential turnout we'll get a result like:
Leave 44-46% to Remain 54-56%
I thank you.
Do you have an older relative called Jack something?
My best (current) prediction of the EU ref result is as follows:
(1) About 10-15% remain undecided (not 4 or 5%) (2) Leave are on about 40% (3) Remain are on 45%-50%
The undecideds will break 60/40 for Remain and a good chunk won't vote, say half, so assuming a meaty non differential turnout we'll get a result like:
Leave 44-46% to Remain 54-56%
I thank you.
Do you have an older relative called Jack something?
My best (current) prediction of the EU ref result is as follows:
(1) About 10-15% remain undecided (not 4 or 5%) (2) Leave are on about 40% (3) Remain are on 45%-50%
The undecideds will break 60/40 for Remain and a good chunk won't vote, say half, so assuming a meaty non differential turnout we'll get a result like:
Leave 44-46% to Remain 54-56%
I thank you.
On the current Leave/Remain gap you are giving more weight to the phone as opposed to online polls?
My best (current) prediction of the EU ref result is as follows:
(1) About 10-15% remain undecided (not 4 or 5%) (2) Leave are on about 40% (3) Remain are on 45%-50%
The undecideds will break 60/40 for Remain and a good chunk won't vote, say half, so assuming a meaty non differential turnout we'll get a result like:
Leave 44-46% to Remain 54-56%
I thank you.
Do you have an older relative called Jack something?
My best (current) prediction of the EU ref result is as follows:
(1) About 10-15% remain undecided (not 4 or 5%) (2) Leave are on about 40% (3) Remain are on 45%-50%
The undecideds will break 60/40 for Remain and a good chunk won't vote, say half, so assuming a meaty non differential turnout we'll get a result like:
Leave 44-46% to Remain 54-56%
I thank you.
Do you have an older relative called Jack something?
My best (current) prediction of the EU ref result is as follows:
(1) About 10-15% remain undecided (not 4 or 5%) (2) Leave are on about 40% (3) Remain are on 45%-50%
The undecideds will break 60/40 for Remain and a good chunk won't vote, say half, so assuming a meaty non differential turnout we'll get a result like:
Leave 44-46% to Remain 54-56%
I thank you.
Do you have an older relative called Jack something?
Are we going to have a PB competition?
Didn't we already?
Erm, maybe?
I'm also not entirely sure. Could be false memory.
As someone not bothered by polls and who doesn't live from one meaningless sub-sample to the next, I don't really care. I shall vote how I want even if I was the only one so doing.
What then of politics on and after 24/6 in the event of a comfortable REMAIN win ? As there isn't a REMAIN BUT option on the ballot paper, it may seem a complete vindication of the Cameron negotiation package but time and events will be the Devil in that particular bit of detail.
For UKIP, perversely, a REMAIN win may be quite a good thing. The minority favouring a withdrawal from the EU will need a political voice and UKIP offers that. The Conservative Party may or may not head toward LEAVE with its next leader but a REMAIN win strengthens Cameron continuity in the form of Osborne and May over the likes of Gove and Johnson so UKIP as the refuge.
If REMAIN wins, we remain as we have always been - arguing for reform which will never happen, accepting opt-outs which get progressively weakened and watered down and periodic flounces which, post-Referendum, will be more symbolic than actual.
But it's what we will have voted for so we can't really complain.
Comments
Not exactly a realistic scenario is it.
Moreover it ignores the need for the Eurozone to unify politically or fail. Faced with that necessity they are not going to go out of their way to agree anything with us.
@PolhomeEditor: Cheers across the Commons chamber as Alex Salmond walks out during Jeremy Corbyn's (rather long) speech.
If what you say is true - and I have no doubt it is - then there ought to be very many more UKIP MPs at Westminster. And what we ought to have now is a coalition government made up of Tory and UKIP MPs.
But we don`t. What we have is a feeble Conservative government with no real mandate of its own, which goes from one shambles to the next, hoping that their PR expertise will brush aside any recognition of their own incompetence and illegitimacy.
In contrast, in the European Parliament no single group has a majority of MEPs, and every issue has to be thrashed out by a process of negotiation and compromise. (In passing, if I were a UKIP supporter, I would feel cheated, because the UKIP MEPs are distinguished only by their absence.) However, not being UKIP, I am represented in that process. At Westminster my point of view is steamrollered by an unrepresentive minority.
I prefer the European Parliament to Westminster.
The lesson that being part of a currency union imposes fiscal constraints will not be unlearned any time soon. Governments are simply getting better at acting as members of the block without any need for wholesale institutional changes.
But the idea that a legislative chamber where almost every issue is stitched up before it is ever voted on - and where the power rests with the party groupings rather than the individual representatives - is in any way democratic is laughable.
That's me that is.... well a small bit.
That said, it is infinitely more representative of the various viewpoints in Europe, including the various viewpoints of the UK.
'Alternatively the EU might evolve over the next 10 years into something more acceptable to the moderate mainstream majority in this country, allowing us to get the option most of us probably want but getting there whilst being on the inside of the tent having helped to shape it. Masters of our destiny - I like that.'
Yes, we've being hearing that for at least twenty years,any idea why it hasn't happened ?
Nothing to do with every EU problem requiring more EU ?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/business/hiring-hurdle-finding-workers-who-can-pass-a-drug-test.html
I'm afraid we may have to agree to disagree on this.
' And that is the fault of the Labour Party who landed us with the worst system of PR that they could think of. '
FPTP wrong,Alternative vote wrong and when the Lib Dems get decimated in the Euro elections it's the wrong type of PR !
Do you work for Network Rail by any chance ?
(I particularly liked the bit when the hostesses son said that she had been a great mother in the early 1990s, despite the fact that she was "basically running the country". Forgetting that John Major was sitting at the same table...)
Corbyns speech was fine.
Faisal Islam @faisalislam
PM jokes he will predict "plague of locusts" in next speech on Europe. I think it was joke...
http://uk.businessinsider.com/britains-economy-is-facing-a-coming-storm-2016-5
Where polls can go hideously wrong is in their sampling and assumptions, and since we're all scrabbling to decide how to predict differential turnout in the referendum, it makes good sense to look at a variety of polls making different assumptions. If I was a Leaver I certainly wouldn't freak out over one poll. But the sample size isn't really the issue.
Especially as they've promised the EU will deliver us to a new Jerusalem...
Although we said the same thing in February, March and April last year.
Remain remaining smug.
Leave leaving the land of credibility.
Also, your wording somehow demeans devaluation. Devaluation is a very useful tool incrementally and frequently to fine tune things that are otherwise next to impossible in practical terms (e.g. addressing wage non-competitiveness through wage reductions).
John Major
Matthew Paris...
who would be top of your sh1t list?
The last time I looked, there were over 200 different voting systems alive and kicking somewhere in the world. Some, inevitably, are better than others. Depending on your point of view, of course.
FPTP is best is you want to grab power with minimal support. Tories and Labour like this.
AV is best if you want to seem progressive, in favour of change and fairness. Milliband put this into the Labour Party manifesto, and then wrecked the AV referendum (see above).
The party list syetem (as for Euro elections) is best if you want the party to keep control, while giving the semblance of proportionality. This is what Labour went for when it was forced by the EU to adopt some kind of proportional system.
STV is best when you want to give ordinary people some say over who gets elected.
Size of a study is no substitute for getting an accurate sample, and the way we measure that is participation rate. So if I arrange a random sample of the population and screen them for diabetes, then the utility of my answer is based on whether the sample is truly representative and what the participation rate is. It is fairly straightforward to calculate the standard error and confidence intervals. The size of the sample helps reduce this as Nick says, though with diminishing returns.
The equivalent figure for a telephone poll would be the percentage of contacts that participate, a figure that we rarely see cited. This is because non-participants are intrinsically different to participants and no amount of statistical jiggery pokery can make up for a biased sample.
Of course we hold some of that back - so it is probably just shy of £1 million net. - or the wages of 25 nurses for a year.
I think we will see some sort of mild contraction at some point this year irrespective of the referendum.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/18/how-will-you-be-affected-by-the-strikes-in-france
If I say every quarter that there will be a recession the next quarter, I shall have a sensitivity of 100%, but my predictions will still be useless.
PS Robert - sorry, read your post too quickly. Of course, you are making the same point as me. Sorry face.
All of that may be true.
Or not.
Of course, one of the major 'failures' of 40 years of cajoling & persuading has been the single market. Not bad for a 'failure'....
And if the Eurozone does integrate in ways that become inimical to our national interest, what's to stop us having another referendum & leaving?
(1) About 10-15% remain undecided (not 4 or 5%)
(2) Leave are on about 40%
(3) Remain are on 45%-50%
The undecideds will break 60/40 for Remain and a good chunk won't vote, say half, so assuming a meaty non differential turnout we'll get a result like:
Leave 44-46% to Remain 54-56%
I thank you.
@sarah_bloch: All junior docs will move onto new terms between August 16 and September 17 subject to approval by junior docs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/36324249
Bad news for Ferrari. Probably not enough pace to trouble Mercedes.
On twisty tracks, Ferrari may be third only. Red Bull will probably still be a bit behind on power circuits.
As someone not bothered by polls and who doesn't live from one meaningless sub-sample to the next, I don't really care. I shall vote how I want even if I was the only one so doing.
What then of politics on and after 24/6 in the event of a comfortable REMAIN win ? As there isn't a REMAIN BUT option on the ballot paper, it may seem a complete vindication of the Cameron negotiation package but time and events will be the Devil in that particular bit of detail.
For UKIP, perversely, a REMAIN win may be quite a good thing. The minority favouring a withdrawal from the EU will need a political voice and UKIP offers that. The Conservative Party may or may not head toward LEAVE with its next leader but a REMAIN win strengthens Cameron continuity in the form of Osborne and May over the likes of Gove and Johnson so UKIP as the refuge.
If REMAIN wins, we remain as we have always been - arguing for reform which will never happen, accepting opt-outs which get progressively weakened and watered down and periodic flounces which, post-Referendum, will be more symbolic than actual.
But it's what we will have voted for so we can't really complain.