It seems silly, but any change Labour take Finchley and Golders Green? I seem to recall the initial projection in 2017 showed it as a Labour gain, but of course they did not manage it, although the majority is down below 2000, and might not Berger see a big LD increase at the expense of Tories as much as Labour? It seems like all options - Con Hold, LD Gain, Lab Gain - are technically possible.
Why on earth has Labour not yet chucked out Keith Vaz? Are they really of the view that someone suspended from the Commons for six months for offering to buy drugs for sex workers and failing to cooperate with an investigation is fit to be the party's candidate in Leicester East?
Dr Foxy tells us he is very popular locally, which I totally believe, but given the party will win the seat whoever they put up there why they cannot just ditch him I do not know.
I think it will be down to the local party, but I think he is likely to stand down voluntarily.
I have met him a few times, his pork-barrelling of Leicester West has been pretty extensive. Perhaps the most egregious was the large Merlyn Vaz Health and Social Care Centre, named for his mother.
It seems silly, but any change Labour take Finchley and Golders Green? I seem to recall the initial projection in 2017 showed it as a Labour gain, but of course they did not manage it, although the majority is down below 2000, and might not Berger see a big LD increase at the expense of Tories as much as Labour? It seems like all options - Con Hold, LD Gain, Lab Gain - are technically possible.
Possible, but there's a 20% Jewish population, which means that's nearly 20% of the voters who aren't going to vote Labour under any circumstances.
I see Trump criticising Boris's deal is presently the main headline on the BBC news. I assume they alternated leading with the criticism of Corbyn, that way both can be satisfied that Trump criticised them (to some degree), which both probably prefer to praise.
This graphic confuses me, simply because Boris is referred to as Johnson and Corbyn as Jeremy, the opposite to how I'd expect. Not that it likely means anything, but given how some moan about the supposed chumminess of using a first name, it struck me as curious https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1190014688907673613
This graphic confuses me, simply because Boris is referred to as Johnson and Corbyn as Jeremy, the opposite to how I'd expect. Not that it likely means anything, but given how some moan about the supposed chumminess of using a first name, it struck me as curious https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1190014688907673613
Again, what does she actually expect? If you say you're going to cancel democracy, voters will get very very very angry. It's truly sad, and (for the delicate types on here) of course I regret this coarsening and brutalising of our discourse - but it is entirely predictable, and people like Soubry have stoked it, and made it worse.
First, nobody is saying they are "going to cancel democracy". I appreciate you are interpreting having another referendum as cancelling democracy but it simply isn't. At worst it could be classed as ignoring the voters wishes, although if voters wish it that much a binding 2nd ref would allow those wishes to be fulfilled.
Secondly, most voters are are not "very very very angry". Only a very few are outraged. No one has any excuse for making voilent threats.
No. Soubry has gone beyond calling for another referendum, she has several times called for Revoke. That is the very definition of cancelling democracy. It literally means overturning a vote you don't like.
Over a hundred tory MPs voted against the Scotland Act to establish the Scottish Parliament. After a referendum that was won by a margin of 49 percentage points.
Were they cancelling democracy? Would they have been justifiable targets for very, very, very angry people?
Many of them are still in parliament today.
I can't find a division list for third reading for the Scotland Act (1998) in Hansard, though they are there for divisions on some of the amendments. Did it go through third reading on the nod? Do you have a link to the division list? Maybe one of the amendments was effectively the substantive vote on the motion as it was for second reading.
I did notice Liam Fox moving some amendments to the Bill that were heavily defeated.
Also interesting to note that third reading was on the 19th May after Second Reading on 13th January. A bit more than three days.
There was a division on an amendment to second reading that basically made the same argument Labour have made about all of the Tory withdrawal agreements - yes we respect the referendum, but not in this way. That had 148 votes for it. Including such notables as: John Bercow William Cash Ken Clarke Theresa May Iain Duncan Smith Michael Fabricant Owen Paterson Liam Fox John Redwood and... Graham Brady
Again, what does she actually expect? If you say you're going to cancel democracy, voters will get very very very angry. It's truly sad, and (for the delicate types on here) of course I regret this coarsening and brutalising of our discourse - but it is entirely predictable, and people like Soubry have stoked it, and made it worse.
First, nobody is saying they are "going to cancel democracy". I appreciate you are interpreting having another referendum as cancelling democracy but it simply isn't. At worst it could be classed as ignoring the voters wishes, although if voters wish it that much a binding 2nd ref would allow those wishes to be fulfilled.
Secondly, most voters are are not "very very very angry". Only a very few are outraged. No one has any excuse for making voilent threats.
No. Soubry has gone beyond calling for another referendum, she has several times called for Revoke. That is the very definition of cancelling democracy. It literally means overturning a vote you don't like.
Over a hundred tory MPs voted against the Scotland Act to establish the Scottish Parliament. After a referendum that was won by a margin of 49 percentage points.
Were they cancelling democracy? Would they have been justifiable targets for very, very, very angry people?
Many of them are still in parliament today.
Let's switch this around. Imagine that you won the Scottish indy referendum. Imagine YES was victorious.
Now imagine that a NO dominated Scottish parliament had, since that vote, apparently conspired to prevent independence being enacted, and that several prominent Scottish Tories had demanded that the YES vote be simply annulled, and revoked, so that Scotland could return to its place in the UK.
What do you think would happen to those bold Scots Tories calling for revocation of the victorious YES vote?
Well, exactly.
Next.
But there's no referendum on Scottish independence in that scenario because there's no majority for it in the Parliament. That's where we went wrong. When the next Scottish independence referendum is held there will be a majority for independence in the Scottish Parliament, so your scenario does not apply.
Yes. Bercow finally went over the top and disgraced himself there. You can see why these bullying allegations exist. There's a properly nasty side to his character.
One of the telling moments is Bercow continuing to throw a tantrum at Bridgen even just engaging in passive aggressive thanks, when saying 'thank you mr speaker for that etc etc' is pretty much default opening language in the chamber.
But there's no referendum on Scottish independence in that scenario because there's no majority for it in the Parliament. That's where we went wrong. When the next Scottish independence referendum is held there will be a majority for independence in the Scottish Parliament, so your scenario does not apply.
A majority in the Scottish Parliament but no majority in the UK Parliament and remember its obviously not possible to leave a political union without a deal - and that deal has to be the exact terms the major party demands. So Westminster can impose impossible demands in deal negotiations and Scotland has no choice but to accept that as it couldn't possibly leave without a deal. Right?
But there's no referendum on Scottish independence in that scenario because there's no majority for it in the Parliament. That's where we went wrong. When the next Scottish independence referendum is held there will be a majority for independence in the Scottish Parliament, so your scenario does not apply.
A majority in the Scottish Parliament but no majority in the UK Parliament and remember its obviously not possible to leave a political union without a deal - and that deal has to be the exact terms the major party demands. So Westminster can impose impossible demands in deal negotiations and Scotland has no choice but to accept that as it couldn't possibly leave without a deal. Right?
I don't quite follow the point you are making. The EU has agreed two different deals with the UK, so clearly there is some flexibility from the larger party in the negotiations. Also Scotland does not have any quasi-colonial possessions in the way that the UK does that would require the same sort of difficult compromise as Northern Ireland. There's no Good Friday Agreement for Gretna.
But there's no referendum on Scottish independence in that scenario because there's no majority for it in the Parliament. That's where we went wrong. When the next Scottish independence referendum is held there will be a majority for independence in the Scottish Parliament, so your scenario does not apply.
A majority in the Scottish Parliament but no majority in the UK Parliament and remember its obviously not possible to leave a political union without a deal - and that deal has to be the exact terms the major party demands. So Westminster can impose impossible demands in deal negotiations and Scotland has no choice but to accept that as it couldn't possibly leave without a deal. Right?
There is no counterparty to such a deal until Scotland becomes sovereign. The UK isn’t a membership organisation like the EU.
1) name four popular statistical software packages beginning with S. SPSS, um... 2) if you are building a model in python, what technique would you be most likely to use? I would build a model in Fortran, but that's because when I hear "model" I think of partial differential equations, which is probably not what you are thinking of. 3) Why is python thriving and R not? It's a lot easier to share and re-use code in Python than in R. Also, scientists use Python. Also the graphical plotting in Python is prettier by default than in R. 4) when is a generalised linear model preferable to linear regression? I'm afraid I don't recall (but I'm suitably wary of both). 5) what is the difference between linear and logistic regression? I could guess, but that would be silly. 6) name a modelling package used in financial departments Don't know 7) name a modelling package used in actuarial departments 8) name a modelling package used in a statistical department 9) how would you prevent overfitting? A proper treatment of uncertainty is required, but often neglected. 10) describe forward and backward selection 11) why is item response theory preferable to classic test theory when measuring opinions about extreme events? 12) what distribution would you use to model the frequency of an event? If I understand the question correctly then I would say a Gaussian distribution. 13) what distribution would you use to model the severity of an event? I would have thought Poisson. 14) what is the distribution of bus times? Poisson. I'm sure there's a good song that could be written about it. Interestingly the distribution of rainfall is also poisson. (I am on a train. I hate trains)
But there's no referendum on Scottish independence in that scenario because there's no majority for it in the Parliament. That's where we went wrong. When the next Scottish independence referendum is held there will be a majority for independence in the Scottish Parliament, so your scenario does not apply.
A majority in the Scottish Parliament but no majority in the UK Parliament and remember its obviously not possible to leave a political union without a deal - and that deal has to be the exact terms the major party demands. So Westminster can impose impossible demands in deal negotiations and Scotland has no choice but to accept that as it couldn't possibly leave without a deal. Right?
I don't quite follow the point you are making. The EU has agreed two different deals with the UK, so clearly there is some flexibility from the larger party in the negotiations. Also Scotland does not have any quasi-colonial possessions in the way that the UK does that would require the same sort of difficult compromise as Northern Ireland. There's no Good Friday Agreement for Gretna.
Scotland exports more to England than the UK does to the EU, Scotland would need a trade deal even more once we have left the single market if it voted for independence
But there's no referendum on Scottish independence in that scenario because there's no majority for it in the Parliament. That's where we went wrong. When the next Scottish independence referendum is held there will be a majority for independence in the Scottish Parliament, so your scenario does not apply.
A majority in the Scottish Parliament but no majority in the UK Parliament and remember its obviously not possible to leave a political union without a deal - and that deal has to be the exact terms the major party demands. So Westminster can impose impossible demands in deal negotiations and Scotland has no choice but to accept that as it couldn't possibly leave without a deal. Right?
I don't quite follow the point you are making. The EU has agreed two different deals with the UK, so clearly there is some flexibility from the larger party in the negotiations. Also Scotland does not have any quasi-colonial possessions in the way that the UK does that would require the same sort of difficult compromise as Northern Ireland. There's no Good Friday Agreement for Gretna.
Scotland exports more to England than the UK does to the EU, Scotland would need a trade deal even more once we have left the single market if it voted for independence
England doesn’t even have a Parliament. Who would speak for England in this negotiation between one bit of the UK and another?
It seems silly, but any change Labour take Finchley and Golders Green? I seem to recall the initial projection in 2017 showed it as a Labour gain, but of course they did not manage it, although the majority is down below 2000, and might not Berger see a big LD increase at the expense of Tories as much as Labour? It seems like all options - Con Hold, LD Gain, Lab Gain - are technically possible.
Yes. Huge chance. Lots of Jews who won't vote Labour, but might be persuaded to vote for Luciana Berger. Who of course has almost no chance of winning herself, given the baseline (wasn't a good seat for the LDs even in 2010, and they don't have much in the way of organisation in place), but her presence puts Labour back in the game.
Despite all the slagging off it's been getting, it's pretty good.
No doubt someone with a couple of hours to spare will go through all the MRP projections.
Edit: for some reason there's no recommendations in Scotland. "The leading parties in all Scotland's seats are all pro-European" is an odd claim, since I assume that includes the Tories.
Why on earth has Labour not yet chucked out Keith Vaz? Are they really of the view that someone suspended from the Commons for six months for offering to buy drugs for sex workers and failing to cooperate with an investigation is fit to be the party's candidate in Leicester East?
The Commons is free to impose its own rules and punishments, even if Vaz is not facing criminal charges over the allegations. I'm not sure the Labour Party outside of Parliament has quite the same freedom, and might be leaving themselves open to litigation if they chucked him out of the party, especially if his own CLP has supported his candidature. I remember it got quite complicated when Labour were getting rid of Simon Danczuk, who also threatened litigation.
Lindsay Hoyle looks home and hosed based on that. Chris Bryant is available at 20/1 with Shadsy which would look long if there were each-way betting. Hoyle is a best-priced 30/100 with Bet365.
Lindsay Hoyle looks home and hosed based on that. Chris Bryant is available at 20/1 with Shadsy which would look long if there were each-way betting. Hoyle is a best-priced 30/100 with Bet365.
It would be nice if this generally useless Parliament finally got one thing right!
It seems silly, but any change Labour take Finchley and Golders Green? I seem to recall the initial projection in 2017 showed it as a Labour gain, but of course they did not manage it, although the majority is down below 2000, and might not Berger see a big LD increase at the expense of Tories as much as Labour? It seems like all options - Con Hold, LD Gain, Lab Gain - are technically possible.
I knew the late Labour MP, who was a nice and independent guy. He also had a hollow leg. If you opened a bottle of wine, then you'd have had to open the second bottle before you'd finished your first glass.
With the right candidate, Labour could win it. The LDs, after all, don't have much of a historic presence there. 35% could well be all that's needed.
Your regular reminder that multi-millionaire Boris Johnson once claimed expenses of £16.50 for a Remembrance Day wreath. And he claimed expenses of £237 for a 7 mile taxi ride.
That’s 7 miles in a taxi for the price of a weekend break in Europe.
That's interesting.
Taxi is weird but what’s wrong with claiming back a wreath? If you’re mayor, and you never do, it could easily cost you hundreds or thousands.
I don’t know the taxi case but I suspect he had a car booked for half a day (day @ £60 per hour for 4 hours) and then used it less than expected
So not really a “taxi” - I will sometimes book a car to wait while I’m travelling as it means the difference between 3 and 4 meetings in a single day trip
Lindsay Hoyle looks home and hosed based on that. Chris Bryant is available at 20/1 with Shadsy which would look long if there were each-way betting. Hoyle is a best-priced 30/100 with Bet365.
It would be nice if this generally useless Parliament finally got one thing right!
Especially if it means we can stop discussing John Bercow.
I suspect the arguments against moving from a six day week to a five and a half day week, and then to a five day week, were similar if not the same as moving from a five day week to a four. Spurious. Thin. There is nothing in the laws of physics that says Friday has to be a working day.
Everyone should be free to work the hours they choose on the days they choose (subject to safety limits where applicable). The government should incentivise companies and employees to have a good work/life balance.
Of course but you need some guidance, hence the cultural acceptance that Saturday and Sunday are weekends for office staff. Adding Friday isn’t a bad idea: I feel we’d be more productive.
We dont need guidance, guidance is actually bad! Too many people commute to arrive at 8 or 9 because that is the guidance, for a lot of companies it would make little difference if they arrived at 7 or 1 instead as long as they did the hours and got the work done. The commutes would then be cheaper, more comfortable and quicker.
Let the working week become more diverse and flexible, we dont need government guidance.
Yahoo is a good case study
When they abolished flexible working productivity went through the roof
Talking of amusing spin from political parties, if you want a good cynical laugh take a gander at the website of the Runnymede and Weybridge Conservatives. It's like something out of the Soviet Union under Stalin: every single mention of he-who-shall-not-be-named-but-who-until-last-month-was-their-distinguished-Tory-MP-and-Cabinet-minister has been ruthlessly airbrushed out of existence:
For my part, this is the acid test. Given the belated conversion of Boris to avoiding crashing out in chaos, I could consider voting Conservative again, especially since the LibDems are pretty dire. But there is no way I'll vote for a party which hasn't got room for Phil Hammond, David Gauke etc, and which indeed is waging some kind of vindictive vendetta against them, and for that matter against Amber Rudd who doesn't even want to stand again.
They were warned in advance that if they did something they would lose the whip
They did that and lost the whip
They were offered a path back
They rejected it
For the whip to mean something it has to mean something
According to the article cited we have already lost 2.5% of growth over the last 42 months, losing a further 3.5% over the next 120 months seems quite a cautious prediction. No doubt we will see.
I don't expect a Brexit induced economic slump, just a slow grinding corrosive economic stagnation.
I'm curious as to where this 2.5% of extra growth would be.
Certainly not in manufacturing or anything else export oriented as the exchange rate would be less competitive.
I can't see construction being in any more than a boom than it has been and government services would be no different to what they have been.
So that leaves an even bigger consumption bubble - more spending on more imports.
And that together with the absence of the hundreds of billions of extra exports we've had in that period would have led to a monumental balance of payments crisis.
Of course pretty much all large western economies have struggled for growth in the last 18 months so I don't see why the UK would have done better than any of them as is apparently claimed.
Is the relevant article. Fig 2 is the graph in question, so read the surrounding text.
It seems to be rather vague on data and big on casual extrapolations plus I didn't see any mention of how exports have been boosted by the change in sterling value.
I really doubt the increased business investment the report bigs up would have happened - a look at bond yields shows that there is a general malaise in that area.
I suspect the brutal truth is that the western world is in for a long period of low growth.
I agree on stagnation across the West, but it will be worse here because of Brexit. Our main export markets will also be stagnant.
I think the UK's debt fueled consumption economic model is certain to lead to disaster and that we need a system shock and alternative thinking to shift it to something more sustainable.
Whilst a Remain win would have locked in that economic model almost permanently.
No doubt us all moving to Mansfield or similar and renouncing fancy holidays is a key part of the plan.
The UK has had a trade deficit for 22 consecutive years and has seen debt increase to the trillions.
To me those are bad things and are ultimately not sustainable.
I'm curious as to where this 2.5% of extra growth would be.
Certainly not in manufacturing or anything else export oriented as the exchange rate would be less competitive.
I can't see construction being in any more than a boom than it has been and government services would be no different to what they have been.
So that leaves an even bigger consumption bubble - more spending on more imports.
And that together with the absence of the hundreds of billions of extra exports we've had in that period would have led to a monumental balance of payments crisis.
Of course pretty much all large western economies have struggled for growth in the last 18 months so I don't see why the UK would have done better than any of them as is apparently claimed.
Is the relevant article. Fig 2 is the graph in question, so read the surrounding text.
It seems to be rather vague on data and big on casual extrapolations plus I didn't see any mention of how exports have been boosted by the change in sterling value.
I really doubt the increased business investment the report bigs up would have happened - a look at bond yields shows that there is a general malaise in that area.
I suspect the brutal truth is that the western world is in for a long period of low growth.
I agree on stagnation across the West, but it will be worse here because of Brexit. Our main export markets will also be stagnant.
I think the UK's debt fueled consumption economic model is certain to lead to disaster and that we need a system shock and alternative thinking to shift it to something more sustainable.
Whilst a Remain win would have locked in that economic model almost permanently.
I assume you’re volunteering to take the hit and lose your house and job?
I'm already doing the living within my means and creating some wealth bit so I get a pass
During the 2008 to 2010 period I had to take more than my fair share of chances and I likely will again when the next recession comes.
You have no mortgage then? Of course, you probably don’t, having earned your house in Mansfield brick by brick.
Firstly I don't live in Mansfield and secondly my mortgage has been paid off - that's what you are able to do if you live within your means
Despite all the slagging off it's been getting, it's pretty good.
No doubt someone with a couple of hours to spare will go through all the MRP projections.
Edit: for some reason there's no recommendations in Scotland. "The leading parties in all Scotland's seats are all pro-European" is an odd claim, since I assume that includes the Tories.
Re. edit, I can't work out whether that's cos they're dumb or just can't be arsed getting into the different circumstances that pertain.
Why on earth has Labour not yet chucked out Keith Vaz? Are they really of the view that someone suspended from the Commons for six months for offering to buy drugs for sex workers and failing to cooperate with an investigation is fit to be the party's candidate in Leicester East?
Dr Foxy tells us he is very popular locally, which I totally believe, but given the party will win the seat whoever they put up there why they cannot just ditch him I do not know.
I think it will be down to the local party, but I think he is likely to stand down voluntarily.
I have met him a few times, his pork-barrelling of Leicester West has been pretty extensive. Perhaps the most egregious was the large Merlyn Vaz Health and Social Care Centre, named for his mother.
It seems silly, but any change Labour take Finchley and Golders Green? I seem to recall the initial projection in 2017 showed it as a Labour gain, but of course they did not manage it, although the majority is down below 2000, and might not Berger see a big LD increase at the expense of Tories as much as Labour? It seems like all options - Con Hold, LD Gain, Lab Gain - are technically possible.
Yes. Huge chance. Lots of Jews who won't vote Labour, but might be persuaded to vote for Luciana Berger. Who of course has almost no chance of winning herself, given the baseline (wasn't a good seat for the LDs even in 2010, and they don't have much in the way of organisation in place), but her presence puts Labour back in the game.
Complete nonsense. I am not a fan of constituency polls commissioned by parties, but the recent one from Survation, commissioned by the LDs, showed them well ahead and the Conservatives in 2nd. This poll did not have the dodgy question in the poll for Rees Mogg's seat, and (for Labour) had the Labour candidate named as the 2017 PPC, Jeremy Newmark (because the Labour PPC was unknown at the time). Newmark would have lifted the Labour vote as an ex CEO of the Jewish Leadership Council.
Labour have no more chance in Finchley than the SNP. The question is whether the Berger and London effect will be enough for the LDs.
Comments
That is an apocalyptic collapse in the Labour vote.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1190014688907673613
I did notice Liam Fox moving some amendments to the Bill that were heavily defeated.
Also interesting to note that third reading was on the 19th May after Second Reading on 13th January. A bit more than three days.
There was a division on an amendment to second reading that basically made the same argument Labour have made about all of the Tory withdrawal agreements - yes we respect the referendum, but not in this way. That had 148 votes for it. Including such notables as:
John Bercow
William Cash
Ken Clarke
Theresa May
Iain Duncan Smith
Michael Fabricant
Owen Paterson
Liam Fox
John Redwood
and...
Graham Brady
Titters.
https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1189936559564439552?s=20
https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1190054554445979648?s=20
https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1189928814719184896?s=20
UGH
This is not ok.
Things were good initially, but then everyone fucked off around 1030. I've spared the worst of it.
Despite all the slagging off it's been getting, it's pretty good.
No doubt someone with a couple of hours to spare will go through all the MRP projections.
Edit: for some reason there's no recommendations in Scotland. "The leading parties in all Scotland's seats are all pro-European" is an odd claim, since I assume that includes the Tories.
With the right candidate, Labour could win it. The LDs, after all, don't have much of a historic presence there. 35% could well be all that's needed.
So not really a “taxi” - I will sometimes book a car to wait while I’m travelling as it means the difference between 3 and 4 meetings in a single day trip
When they abolished flexible working productivity went through the roof
They did that and lost the whip
They were offered a path back
They rejected it
For the whip to mean something it has to mean something
But even so you have Tories holding steady and meaningful L>LD shift
To me those are bad things and are ultimately not sustainable.
Clearly you think different.
Labour have no more chance in Finchley than the SNP. The question is whether the Berger and London effect will be enough for the LDs.