The German polls are showing something of a revival of the Left (ex-communists) who have been divided and in the doldrums for ages - in the latest poll they've overtaken the Greens again. There remains an almost precise left-right split, making a grand coalition still a strong possibility. AfD and pirates are not close to the 5% hurdle.
Another point is that the official result is the one written on the sheet of paper held by the returning officer at the declaration. That means if they accidentally make a mistake when announcing the result, that isn't the official result, it's still what's written, not spoken. But obviously a lot of news organisations assume what has been read out is correct.
The most recent example of this was the Rotherham by-election. The returning officer very definitely read out the Labour figure as 9,866 but the figure on the official council website is 9,966:
16% agree with a hung parliament after the next general election with the Liberal Democrats holding the balance of power could be a good thing, 60% disagree
So there's another political failure for Nick Clegg to add to all the others.
It makes me laugh how many people (The Spectator) were keen to say how Nick Clegg had 'transformed' British politics in 2010. Clegg's whole strategy was based on making coalition government acceptable to the British people.
Thanks MBE. I'll look into your points as soon as possible tomorrow. I was mainly using the Times Guide to the House of Commons, although I was aware of a few errors in there before I started.
Another point is that the official result is the one written on the sheet of paper held by the returning officer at the declaration. That means if they accidentally make a mistake when announcing the result, that isn't the official result, it's still what's written, not spoken. But obviously a lot of news organisations assume what has been read out is correct.
The most recent example of this was the Rotherham by-election. The returning officer very definitely read out the Labour figure as 9,866 but the figure on the official council website is 9,966:
I have found similar discrepancies e.g. between the BBC election results site (and the parliamentary site for the MP) and the result on the council website for Worcestershire West, with the Lib Dems being ±50. I have no idea how to clear up which is "correct".
As far as votes are concerned, Bercow's result shouldn't be counted as Conservative votes. But in terms of seats he had to be counted as a Conservative on election night.
The reason is that the three deputy speakers are counted as party candidates and so you have to do the same with the Speaker to avoid an imbalance.
There are also two prominent examples of where many people think a serious counting error took place on election night.
These are:
Chertsey and Walton, 1979
Staffordshire South East, 1987
A lot of people interested in these things believe a few thousand Tory votes were placed in the Liberal pile in the former case, and a few thousand Labour votes in the SDP pile in the latter.
The 5,191 respondents, three times the size of a normal YouGov poll, put Labour on 39 per cent, the Tories on 33 per cent, the Lib Dems on 8 per cent and UKIP on 12 per cent.
Exactly the same result as usual, but quite a small margin of error there.
Doesn't four parties increase the margin of error?
"...the margins of error associated with multi-candidate races are assumed to be quite high, as there is evidence that such races are quite volatile."
What actually appeared on the ballot paper in Buckingham? I think Bercow was listed as "The Speaker" but I'm not sure.
What happens if Bercow decides to stop being speaker? I am sure this operates by convention, and the last couple of speakers have also resigned as MPs, but is there anything to stop him retaking the Conservative whip?
What actually appeared on the ballot paper in Buckingham? I think Bercow was listed as "The Speaker" but I'm not sure.
What happens if Bercow decides to stop being speaker? I am sure this operates by convention, and the last couple of speakers have also resigned as MPs, but is there anything to stop him retaking the Conservative whip?
Any MP can take the Conservative whip if both they and the Tories agree to it.
16% agree with a hung parliament after the next general election with the Liberal Democrats holding the balance of power could be a good thing, 60% disagree
So there's another political failure for Nick Clegg to add to all the others.
It makes me laugh how many people (The Spectator) were keen to say how Nick Clegg had 'transformed' British politics in 2010. Clegg's whole strategy was based on making coalition government acceptable to the British people.
It may still be right, though. The British people don't get to decide whether they have a coalition government. They only get to decide which candidate they prefer, then the voting system turns that into a Hung Parliament or not depending on a bunch of factors that have nothing to do with sense or logic.
I reckon the basic design Clegg / Hague design of a coalition, tied together by mutually unpopular short-term policies and a fixed-term parliament, is probably going to hold.
This is a reminder of what happened in the rest of Surrey in 1979: 1.Dorking: C+10.8%, Lib-7.8%, Lab-3.0% 2.Epsom & Ewell: C+7.8, Lib-6.4%, Lab-1.4% 3.Esher: C+9.2%, Lib-5.4%, Lab-3.8% 4.Farnham: C+8.4%, Lib-6.2%, Lab-2.9% 5.Guildford: C+8.0%, Lib-7.0%, Lab-1.4% 6.Reigate: C+9.1%, Lib-4.7%, Lab-3.9% 7.Spelthorne: C+12.7%, Lib-5.9%, Lab-5.4% 8.Surrey E: C+10.4%, Lib-9.5%, Lab-1.9% 9.Surrey NW: C+11.5%, Lib-7.3%, Lab-5.6% 10.Woking: C+11.0%, Lib-10.4%, Lab +0.3% The worst Tory performance was +7.8% in Epsom and Ewell. The best Liberal performance was -4.7% in Reigate. That means the official Chertsey & Walton result for the Tories was 9.5% worse than their worst result elsewhere in the county; for the Liberals, their result in C&W was supposedly 12.4% better than elsewhere in the county. Another point: if Chertsey and Walton was one of the first results (if not the first) from Surrey to be declared in 1979, that would make it much more likely that nothing strange was thought of the result."
A serious counting error was almost made in Dudley North in 2010.
Just before the result was announced the Conservative candidate discovered that a few thousand of his votes had been placed in the UKIP pile. The result was delayed by about 8 hours while they sorted it out.
16% agree with a hung parliament after the next general election with the Liberal Democrats holding the balance of power could be a good thing, 60% disagree
So there's another political failure for Nick Clegg to add to all the others.
It makes me laugh how many people (The Spectator) were keen to say how Nick Clegg had 'transformed' British politics in 2010. Clegg's whole strategy was based on making coalition government acceptable to the British people.
It may still be right, though. The British people don't get to decide whether they have a coalition government. They only get to decide which candidate they prefer, then the voting system turns that into a Hung Parliament or not depending on a bunch of factors that have nothing to do with sense or logic.
If hung parliaments are unpopular though, it should work against the LD candidate, to the benefit of their Con/Lab rival.
Ecole Normale Superieur: 28th (beaten by Toronto and Australian!)
and Heidelberg: 50th. How on earth did Germany manage to mess up its universities so comprehensively?
By Not Speaking English. The world's great universities, by DEFINITION, now all speak English. It really is the Latin de nos jours. A university, say, in rural Romania could be f8cking amazing but no one cares, and no one will attend, and no one will rate it, if they don't talka de Inglish.
Cf the Dutch, French and German Unis now teaching in English.
My worry is that we will squander this enormous natural advantage; this is why is it good the Oxbridge duo face VERY serious domestic competitors in London.
So true.
I caught myself saying with incredulity to a Russian girl out here (Thailand where I'm writing book 3): 'you don't speak English?' Afterwards I thought about how much the world has changed. To find a Russian, anyone, travelling the world who doesn't speak English is the exception. As Cameron mentioned to Putin, it's the world's language. Everyone, everywhere, wants to learn it ... even the French.
16% agree with a hung parliament after the next general election with the Liberal Democrats holding the balance of power could be a good thing, 60% disagree
So there's another political failure for Nick Clegg to add to all the others.
It makes me laugh how many people (The Spectator) were keen to say how Nick Clegg had 'transformed' British politics in 2010. Clegg's whole strategy was based on making coalition government acceptable to the British people.
It may still be right, though. The British people don't get to decide whether they have a coalition government. They only get to decide which candidate they prefer, then the voting system turns that into a Hung Parliament or not depending on a bunch of factors that have nothing to do with sense or logic.
If hung parliaments are unpopular though, it should work against the LD candidate, to the benefit of their Con/Lab rival.
At the margins yes, but that's probably not a big enough factor in the way people vote for or against a particular LibDem incumbent to make a big difference to the number of elected LibDems.
NBC Sports Network ran a 30 minute promo for Rush before the grand prix last sunday, which I have just watched. They bang on about how they have tried to recreate the era, and it looks fantastic.
I have just one question for those who've seen it (it opens here on the 27th) - do you hear Murray Walker's commentary?
Nice cartoon, Marf! Though I suppose it could apply to all of the main parties
FPT I wonder if I've been counted as 'claiming benefit' even though I haven't been eligible since my Income-based JSA ran out nearly two years ago.
On a more positive note, I have two interviews within the next week, and will have had three in the last seven weeks - after eleven months on the trot without any.
Nice cartoon, Marf! Though I suppose it could apply to all of the main parties
FPT I wonder if I've been counted as 'claiming benefit' even though I haven't been eligible since my Income-based JSA ran out nearly two years ago.
On a more positive note, I have two interviews within the next week, and will have had three in the last seven weeks - after eleven months on the trot without any.
Thanks, Fitalass! Once again, thanks to everyone for their best wishes!
The German election should be exciting because the actual counting of votes might be important rather than simply seeing the exit poll and instantly knowing who's won, which is what usually happens.
"Society needs to get over its harmful obsession with labelling us all girls or boys
Germany has announced legislation to allow parents not to record the gender of their newborn - this is just a small step in the long march to equal rights and recognition for intersex, transsexual and transgender people in Europe."
No doubt the LibDem vote will bomb next time, although incumbents may cling on. But I'm saying it will bomb because the voters are narked off with the LibDems, not because they're narked off with the principle of coalitions. They may be narked off with coalitions too, but that won't be the main motivating factor.
To put this another way, if it looks like UKIP are in contention in a seat against Con, people who prefer UKIP to Con aren't going vote Con because they want to avoid a Con/UKIP coalition.
The 5,191 respondents, three times the size of a normal YouGov poll, put Labour on 39 per cent, the Tories on 33 per cent, the Lib Dems on 8 per cent and UKIP on 12 per cent.
Exactly the same result as usual, but quite a small margin of error there.
- Proposed by a Labour Business Secretary ... all three parties which have been in government in living memory agree it should be done.
You're confusing Mandy with the Labour Party. There was a very clear majority in Labour against doing it. Moreover, Mandy was against privatisation too - he wanted a minority shareholding to get benefits of private investment without losing control, and we thought even that was too much. I can see the parcel service being privatised, but the universal letter service is a de facto monopoly (because nobody is going to start a rival universal service), and privatising it is as silly as privatising rail.
If you look at the figures, it can easily be argued that railway privatisation has worked and was far from silly. Certainly, rail usage has rocketed in terms of both passengers and freight (the latter despite a decrease in bulk trainloads such as coal). And increased rail usage is good for a number of reasons.
BR was let down by successive governments in many ways. Renationalisation advocates have to show what problems they are trying to fix, and the consequences of those fixes. In particular, how they will address investment and expanding services.
In the case of RM, what is the way forward, the road plan as it were, for a nationalised RM in a decreasing market?
What about those who have no access to cars? The young, pensioners, or those living in suburbs? Without many rail services, people will be forced to commute into work; think of all the passengers you see on trains and buses in the rush hour (especially into our cities) and imagine them all in individual cars, and the resultant gridlock. Think of the resultant air quality.
Sadly, the only insane approach is the one you propose. I'm sure the road up to Tan Hill Inn in North Yorkshire is not economic in terms of the number of vehicles it carries, or the Applecross road. Would those be closed because they are uneconomic, or do they do some social good? Or are they okay because they are roads?
Brian: the case for subsidised public transport (whether privately or publicly owned) is, briefly: 1. It's evident that cities will grind to a halt without it. Rather than close rail lines, build roads and houses on them, then find that you need them after all, the government anticipates the problem by subsidising them. We pay governments to do this sort of thing - because rail has a 10-20-year timelag, you can't safely just leave it to the market.
2. The way we tax cars wildly distorts usage. You pay lots of tax when you buy a car, and some more when you pay your annual tax disc. The marginal cost of making another trip is low, despite the general belief that petrol taxes are high. By contrast, all the consumer payments for rail are made per trip or per year. So if you leave it to the market, you get a distorted result.
3. Not everyone can drive (children, very elderly people, some disabled people, etc.). It's thought to be in the public interest that the Government should ensure they can still get around.
4. The level of pollution from universal use of cars will be much higher, especially in cities. This would breach our global warming commitments, and even if we didn't care about that it would markedly increase pollution in the cities - hello again, London fog.
You do have to draw the line somewhere, and I don't think there is a human right to live up some remote glen and have a bus run past your door. But if your major cities will grind to a halt without public transport, you do need it, subsidies and all.
As for ownership, I think there's a reasonable case for privatisation where genuine competition results (as with rail freight). I see very little case for it where it's a monopoly and people just bid for the right to extract profit from it. It's certainly true that e.g. nationalised rail suffered from under-investment, but you know who to blame in that case and have a recouurse if you feel strongly - vote them out. What do you do if Deliveries plc decides to stop delivering to you and make you pick up your post at a collection point half a mile away (a perfectly rational economic decision)? Complain? Good luck with that.
Comments
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm
The most recent example of this was the Rotherham by-election. The returning officer very definitely read out the Labour figure as 9,866 but the figure on the official council website is 9,966:
http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/info/1000/elections-results/2411/29_november_2012_constituency_by-election_result
It makes me laugh how many people (The Spectator) were keen to say how Nick Clegg had 'transformed' British politics in 2010. Clegg's whole strategy was based on making coalition government acceptable to the British people.
The reason is that the three deputy speakers are counted as party candidates and so you have to do the same with the Speaker to avoid an imbalance.
Other examples:
Did the Tories poll 26,543 or 25,543 in Exeter in 1992?
Mid Staffs, LD, 1992: 6,432 / 6,420 / 6,402
Beaconsfield, LD, 2001: 9,117 / 9,017
Islwyn, PC, 1992: 1,636 / 1,606
Bassetlaw, 1997: most of the figures are disputed, although only tiny differences.
These are:
Chertsey and Walton, 1979
Staffordshire South East, 1987
A lot of people interested in these things believe a few thousand Tory votes were placed in the Liberal pile in the former case, and a few thousand Labour votes in the SDP pile in the latter.
"...the margins of error associated with multi-candidate races are assumed to be quite high, as there is evidence that such races are quite volatile."
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/methodology/
What happens if Bercow decides to stop being speaker? I am sure this operates by convention, and the last couple of speakers have also resigned as MPs, but is there anything to stop him retaking the Conservative whip?
I reckon the basic design Clegg / Hague design of a coalition, tied together by mutually unpopular short-term policies and a fixed-term parliament, is probably going to hold.
"Chertsey & Walton, 1979:
C: -1.7%
Lib: +7.7%
Lab: -6.7%
This is a reminder of what happened in the rest of Surrey in 1979:
1.Dorking: C+10.8%, Lib-7.8%, Lab-3.0%
2.Epsom & Ewell: C+7.8, Lib-6.4%, Lab-1.4%
3.Esher: C+9.2%, Lib-5.4%, Lab-3.8%
4.Farnham: C+8.4%, Lib-6.2%, Lab-2.9%
5.Guildford: C+8.0%, Lib-7.0%, Lab-1.4%
6.Reigate: C+9.1%, Lib-4.7%, Lab-3.9%
7.Spelthorne: C+12.7%, Lib-5.9%, Lab-5.4%
8.Surrey E: C+10.4%, Lib-9.5%, Lab-1.9%
9.Surrey NW: C+11.5%, Lib-7.3%, Lab-5.6%
10.Woking: C+11.0%, Lib-10.4%, Lab +0.3%
The worst Tory performance was +7.8% in Epsom and Ewell.
The best Liberal performance was -4.7% in Reigate.
That means the official Chertsey & Walton result for the Tories was 9.5% worse than their worst result elsewhere in the county; for the Liberals, their result in C&W was supposedly 12.4% better than elsewhere in the county.
Another point: if Chertsey and Walton was one of the first results (if not the first) from Surrey to be declared in 1979, that would make it much more likely that nothing strange was thought of the result."
Just before the result was announced the Conservative candidate discovered that a few thousand of his votes had been placed in the UKIP pile. The result was delayed by about 8 hours while they sorted it out.
Ladbrokes should give me some freebies, it is by far my worst bookmaker.
I caught myself saying with incredulity to a Russian girl out here (Thailand where I'm writing book 3): 'you don't speak English?' Afterwards I thought about how much the world has changed. To find a Russian, anyone, travelling the world who doesn't speak English is the exception. As Cameron mentioned to Putin, it's the world's language. Everyone, everywhere, wants to learn it ... even the French.
I have just one question for those who've seen it (it opens here on the 27th) - do you hear Murray Walker's commentary?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_42nd_Canadian_federal_election
"Society needs to get over its harmful obsession with labelling us all girls or boys
Germany has announced legislation to allow parents not to record the gender of their newborn - this is just a small step in the long march to equal rights and recognition for intersex, transsexual and transgender people in Europe."
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/08/society-needs-get-over-its-harmful-obsession-labelling-us-all-girls-or-boys
No doubt the LibDem vote will bomb next time, although incumbents may cling on. But I'm saying it will bomb because the voters are narked off with the LibDems, not because they're narked off with the principle of coalitions. They may be narked off with coalitions too, but that won't be the main motivating factor.
To put this another way, if it looks like UKIP are in contention in a seat against Con, people who prefer UKIP to Con aren't going vote Con because they want to avoid a Con/UKIP coalition.
BR was let down by successive governments in many ways. Renationalisation advocates have to show what problems they are trying to fix, and the consequences of those fixes. In particular, how they will address investment and expanding services.
In the case of RM, what is the way forward, the road plan as it were, for a nationalised RM in a decreasing market?
Sadly, the only insane approach is the one you propose. I'm sure the road up to Tan Hill Inn in North Yorkshire is not economic in terms of the number of vehicles it carries, or the Applecross road. Would those be closed because they are uneconomic, or do they do some social good? Or are they okay because they are roads?
1. It's evident that cities will grind to a halt without it. Rather than close rail lines, build roads and houses on them, then find that you need them after all, the government anticipates the problem by subsidising them. We pay governments to do this sort of thing - because rail has a 10-20-year timelag, you can't safely just leave it to the market.
2. The way we tax cars wildly distorts usage. You pay lots of tax when you buy a car, and some more when you pay your annual tax disc. The marginal cost of making another trip is low, despite the general belief that petrol taxes are high. By contrast, all the consumer payments for rail are made per trip or per year. So if you leave it to the market, you get a distorted result.
3. Not everyone can drive (children, very elderly people, some disabled people, etc.). It's thought to be in the public interest that the Government should ensure they can still get around.
4. The level of pollution from universal use of cars will be much higher, especially in cities. This would breach our global warming commitments, and even if we didn't care about that it would markedly increase pollution in the cities - hello again, London fog.
You do have to draw the line somewhere, and I don't think there is a human right to live up some remote glen and have a bus run past your door. But if your major cities will grind to a halt without public transport, you do need it, subsidies and all.
As for ownership, I think there's a reasonable case for privatisation where genuine competition results (as with rail freight). I see very little case for it where it's a monopoly and people just bid for the right to extract profit from it. It's certainly true that e.g. nationalised rail suffered from under-investment, but you know who to blame in that case and have a recouurse if you feel strongly - vote them out. What do you do if Deliveries plc decides to stop delivering to you and make you pick up your post at a collection point half a mile away (a perfectly rational economic decision)? Complain? Good luck with that.