but I thought Jeremy Corbyn was good at these things.
One of the 50 cent crew told me so just yesterday.
Did you watch the video? He handled it very well.
The problem is 3 weeks out from the last election he was drawing huge crowds, he had a stadium in Birkenhead chanting his name. 4 weeks to go this time and he's being heckled on a daily basis and his campaign is tired and lethargic while his vibrant young support from 2017 seem shy.
It may be partly the effect of a December election but if in a week's time there is no sign of the 2017 Corbyn campaign magic then Labour will really begin to panic.
Corbyn looks like a tired old man in the interviews I've seen him in. Those appalling stage managed q&a sessions, the Momentum fanatics seem to be subdued. Despite the increasingly spurious and desperate attempts to compare things with 2017, this campaign is nothing of the sort.
Every vote cast is equal. Parties can say whatever they want but every candidate starts with zero votes each election and it takes tens of thousands of votes to win a seat normally. If you can convince a plurality to vote for you then you can take seats away from the other parties - just as the SNP did when they got a clean sweep nearly across Scotland. Almost every single seat in Scotland has changed hands this decade - so much for so-called "safe" seats.
Four million Ukip voters say you're wrong. But in all seriousness, you're half right. All votes are equal at a constituency level, but they become very unequal at a national level. You can argue for either being fairer, but you who believe in constituencies as a fundamental unit do have to keep to that when you talk about national politics. Anyone who thinks like you do has no place complaining about individual MPs "respecting" a national vote.
I must have missed the seats UKIP won a plurality in that shows me to be wrong. UKIP voters had their votes counted. They lost. That's fair enough.
If a football team loses a match 2 - 1 then they got a third of the goals scored so are they entitled to one point in your world or does the winning team get all 3 points? Liverpool have won 4 games so far this Premier League season on a 2-1 scoreline and won all 12 possible points from those games - should we dock them 3 points because the losers got a goal?
As far as the national referendum was concerned we were part of one constituency called the United Kingdom for that referendum, but even if you look at local constituencies Leave won still.
You'll note I addressed the point in my original reply. But I'll say it again. All votes are equal at a constituency level. At a constituency level, them not winning owt was fair. At an aggregate level the number of votes cast for a particular party do not give a fair result in parliament. You are choosing one fairness over another. That's your prerogative, I'm just bringing it all out into the open so people can see that.
We don't vote aggregate we vote in constituencies. Those constituency MPs then meet up. Aggregate means nothing.
Except for what the population purported to being represented might actually be wanting.
Every single MP without fail under our great system was chosen by their local population deciding who they wanted.
Yes even those I can't stand like Abbott and Corbyn are the choice of their voters.
Re the discussions on the iht/lifetime gift tax. Once we start getting into discussion of the mechanics we forget the simple 'dementia tax' aspect of it. Labour are coming for your childhood home once mum and dad pass away. That's how it will be framed, and that's how it will be despised.
There are plenty more problems with it:-
1. Does it apply to all money gifts? Pocket money? Birthday money? The tooth fairy? Money for passing exams? 2. What about loans which don’t get repaid and are, in reality, gifts eg money for university, rent etc? 3. What about payments for important life events - weddings, birth of children etc? Or payment for a family holiday? 4. What about benefits in kind e.g paying the rent yourself for a property lived in by a child or providing free child care? Or not charging a market rent for an adult child living at home? 5. What about gifts which are not money e.g. family jewellery or furniture etc? It saves the recipient money and is the same in economic terms as receiving a gift of cash. 6. What about provision for disabled children?
Depending on how long a person lives and how generous they are the amount left over when it comes to family property could be well below the £125k limit and therefore hit many more people than simply those owning a property worth above that level.
If non-cash or other life events are excluded then avoiding it will be relatively easy.
It would be better to have a low level of CGT above, say, a tax free limit, on the sale of your home and a much much lower level of IHT (well below 40%) with fewer exemptions.
A Neil reads out Matt Hancocks response to worst ever NHS figures in incredulity.
"These figures show why we need to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street .... "
Many will agree. Labour barely leads on the NHS.
A Neil thought it was a ridiculous way to respond to the worst NHS numbers in history. Try recruiting some staff to the 150,000 vacancies or resolving the pension tax that's stopping Consultants working extra hours.
It's what the voters think that matters.
A&E Performance
"Performance is worse in Wales and Northern Ireland than it is in England and Scotland".
Say hello Welsh Labour.....
In addition:
"Despite the challenges being faced by the NHS, the majority of the public say they are satisfied with services.
The British Social Attitudes poll of nearly 3,000 people found 53% of people in England, Scotland and Wales were satisfied with services in 2018"
Aggregate is no more democratic than local and breaks the link with having local MP take responsibility for each local area in the country.
Yes aggregate members across the country choose to pass or fail, which means aggregate locations across the country must be saying yes not just an overwhelming majority of one place overwhelming others. There is plenty of evidence that the concerns of the cities are not the concerns of the shires, the concerns of the North are not the concerns of the South, the concerns of the Scots are not the concerns of the English so I don't see why we should break the one-constituency one-MP link.
If the "link" you speak if is really that important to you, there are halfway houses. When I lived in Scotland I had several MSPs, because of the regional lists. In my experience, the balance was reasonably fair at the regional level, and at the national level, and I had individuals I could approach who were "my" MSPs. In fact, the choice made me feel quite good in that if one of them was useless, or suspended or even dead, I'd still have representation.
Bollocks. The way to prevent a no deal Brexit is for Johnson not to get a majority.
LAB has lost between a quarter and a third of its GE2017 vote because it has stuck with an unelectable leader,
Or you could both accept democracy and accept that we voted to Leave.
Controversial suggestion I'm sure, what am I thinking?
As usual you are not thinking (or reading properly) at all. That is the stupidest thing I have ever read. You are replying to a post seeking to persuade people how to vote to avoid no deal (not avoid Brexit altogether) by saying they should vote to respect the 2016 referendum. You are thus implicitly suggesting that anyone who votes anything but Tory (or presumably TBP) is not accepting democracy. Either that or you are suggesting political parties should base their democratic platforms on a past vote, or they are not respecting democracy. Either way some participant in this election, be they voters or parties, does not accept democracy. Which is it? And how?
Implicitly? I thought I was explicitly saying it.
Only the Conservatives are respecting the 2016 vote.
While the SNP are not respecting either the 2014 or the 2016 vote.
And Labour are tacitly not respecting either then 2014 or the 2016 vote.
Cousin was sister at a large A&E unit. There used to be an arrangement at times where patients were kept in ambulances in the car park, as the 4 hour clock didn't start until the patient actually gets to A&E. The metrics obsession is driving all kinds of suboptimal behaviour.
A Neil reads out Matt Hancocks response to worst ever NHS figures in incredulity.
"These figures show why we need to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street .... "
How many people watch Politics live and Corbyn does not have an advantage in public opinion over the NHS.
Recent polls Boris 40% Corbyn 34% and latest Boris and Corbyn both on 27%
£20 charity bet that Corbyn is ahead on NHS by polling day?
Sorry BJO but I have nevered bet and never will
However, Corbyn will not be ahead on polling day on any measure
Well that's complete nonsense he is already ahead on things like "knowing concerns of people like me" and a few other measures and will be ahead on lots by polling day
There's a jet aircraft circling at a reasonably high altitude in a reasonably large but accurate circle over Edinburgh. It's not on the flight radar website. It's not the British Meteorological research aircraft.
Monumentally stupid to base your vote on a straight Lab/Con choice. Your approach would gift Guildford to the Conservatives.
The choice is a Labour PM or a Conservative PM. Nobody is gifting anyone anything voting with that knowledge. The reason there was a Tory MP in Guildford previously is not because of somebodies "gift" but because over 30k Guildford voters voted for a Tory MP. Do those voters want Corbyn as Prime Minister or Johnson?
I can assure you a majority of voters want neither as PM, yet one of them will be. A sure sign that our democracy is broken...
Boris Johnson has by far the best net favourable rating of any of the parties leaders. So our democracy seems to be working as intended.
If working you mean someone gain get total and absolute power with 35% of the vote then it is but it’s a shit system that claims to be democratic.
Tony Blair, 2005. 35% of the vote. 66 seat majority.
As was suggested last night he will fight all labour seats but only proactively in about 40. He will concentrate resources on those and it will be interesting to see which seats he actively campaigns in himself
A Neil reads out Matt Hancocks response to worst ever NHS figures in incredulity.
"These figures show why we need to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street .... "
Many will agree. Labour barely leads on the NHS.
A Neil thought it was a ridiculous way to respond to the worst NHS numbers in history. Try recruiting some staff to the 150,000 vacancies or resolving the pension tax that's stopping Consultants working extra hours.
Only 60 000 vacancies, I think.
The obvious question though is that with these unfilled vacancies, how can we recruit the extra posts promised?
Jon Ashworth was good on this yesterday, he spoke thoughtfully about staff retention, which is in many ways better than recruitment.
Every vote cast is equal. Parties can say whatever they want but every candidate starts with zero votes each election and it takes tens of thousands of votes to win a seat normally. If you can convince a plurality to vote for you then you can take seats away from the other parties - just as the SNP did when they got a clean sweep nearly across Scotland. Almost every single seat in Scotland has changed hands this decade - so much for so-called "safe" seats.
Four million Ukip voters say you're wrong. But in all seriousness, you're half right. All votes are equal at a constituency level, but they become very unequal at a national level. You can argue for either being fairer, but you who believe in constituencies as a fundamental unit do have to keep to that when you talk about national politics. Anyone who thinks like you do has no place complaining about individual MPs "respecting" a national vote.
I must have missed the seats UKIP won a plurality in that shows me to be wrong. UKIP voters had their votes counted. They lost. That's fair enough.
If a football team loses a match 2 - 1 then they got a third of the goals scored so are they entitled to one point in your world or does the winning team get all 3 points? Liverpool have won 4 games so far this Premier League season on a 2-1 scoreline and won all 12 possible points from those games - should we dock them 3 points because the losers got a goal?
As far as the national referendum was concerned we were part of one constituency called the United Kingdom for that referendum, but even if you look at local constituencies Leave won still.
Making a football league based on goal difference rather than games won would be fun. Rugby has bonus points and cricket seems largely based on actual scores and wickets. It would change the nature of the game though. And I think the same thing is true of alternative voting systems. Many of its supporters assume that it would lead to a permanent “progressive alliance” style government. Italy has PR: it didn’t stop Berlisconi (sp?) becoming PM. Boris on his own might not be good (in fact if he wasn’t facing Corbyn I might be trying to make him lose) but think how much worse a Johnson-Farage government would be.
A Neil reads out Matt Hancocks response to worst ever NHS figures in incredulity.
"These figures show why we need to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street .... "
Many will agree. Labour barely leads on the NHS.
A Neil thought it was a ridiculous way to respond to the worst NHS numbers in history. Try recruiting some staff to the 150,000 vacancies or resolving the pension tax that's stopping Consultants working extra hours.
Only 60 000 vacancies, I think.
The obvious question though is that with these unfilled vacancies, how can we recruit the extra posts promised?
Jon Ashworth was good on this yesterday, he spoke thoughtfully about staff retention, which is in many ways better than recruitment.
There's a jet aircraft circling at a reasonably high altitude in a reasonably large but accurate circle over Edinburgh. It's not on the flight radar website. It's not the British Meteorological research aircraft.
Anyone have a guess what it might be?
We get a couple of dark blue Dassault that fly over Dartmouth - I'm told they are packed with electronics that can simulate an attack on a warship for training purposes. Don't know if that might fit?
Monumentally stupid to base your vote on a straight Lab/Con choice. Your approach would gift Guildford to the Conservatives.
The choice is a Labour PM or a Conservative PM. Nobody is gifting anyone anything voting with that knowledge. The reason there was a Tory MP in Guildford previously is not because of somebodies "gift" but because over 30k Guildford voters voted for a Tory MP. Do those voters want Corbyn as Prime Minister or Johnson?
I can assure you a majority of voters want neither as PM, yet one of them will be. A sure sign that our democracy is broken...
Boris Johnson has by far the best net favourable rating of any of the parties leaders. So our democracy seems to be working as intended.
If working you mean someone gain get total and absolute power with 35% of the vote then it is but it’s a shit system that claims to be democratic.
Tony Blair, 2005. 35% of the vote. 66 seat majority.
A Neil reads out Matt Hancocks response to worst ever NHS figures in incredulity.
"These figures show why we need to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street .... "
How many people watch Politics live and Corbyn does not have an advantage in public opinion over the NHS.
Recent polls Boris 40% Corbyn 34% and latest Boris and Corbyn both on 27%
£20 charity bet that Corbyn is ahead on NHS by polling day?
Sorry BJO but I have nevered bet and never will
However, Corbyn will not be ahead on polling day on any measure
Well that's complete nonsense he is already ahead on things like "knowing concerns of people like me" and a few other measures and will be ahead on lots by polling day
I think that non-Labour voters have already made up their minds about Jeremy Corbyn.
Every vote cast is equal. Parties can say whatever they want but every candidate starts with zero votes each election and it takes tens of thousands of votes to win a seat normally. If you can convince a plurality to vote for you then you can take seats away from the other parties - just as the SNP did when they got a clean sweep nearly across Scotland. Almost every single seat in Scotland has changed hands this decade - so much for so-called "safe" seats.
Four million Ukip voters say you're wrong. But in all seriousness, you're half right. All votes are equal at a constituency level, but they become very unequal at a national level. You can argue for either being fairer, but you who believe in constituencies as a fundamental unit do have to keep to that when you talk about national politics. Anyone who thinks like you do has no place complaining about individual MPs "respecting" a national vote.
I must have missed the seats UKIP won a plurality in that shows me to be wrong. UKIP voters had their votes counted. They lost. That's fair enough.
If a football team loses a match 2 - 1 then they got a third of the goals scored so are they entitled to one point in your world or does the winning team get all 3 points? Liverpool have won 4 games so far this Premier League season on a 2-1 scoreline and won all 12 possible points from those games - should we dock them 3 points because the losers got a goal?
As far as the national referendum was concerned we were part of one constituency called the United Kingdom for that referendum, but even if you look at local constituencies Leave won still.
So if, say, 6 parties stood in every seat, and in all those seats party x got 16.6% and won every one by 1 vote, despite the fact 83% of the population voted against that party, you'd say it is fine they got 100% of the representation? I understand that is the way the current system works, but are you saying you think that is a healthy, well functioning, democratic system?
Luck defines where you start, talent and hard work can determine where you end up
Yes of course. But the question is "biggest single determinant" so one has to think carefully about it and then choose.
I find that choice really difficult - does that mean I'm a centrist? ;-)
Seriously though, does luck include who your parents are? If so, single biggest determinant (obviously if they are rich, but also what they put into you, even if not. My parents were relatively poor, but their outlook, intelligence - they don't consider themselves intelligent and left education at 14/15, but they are - and putting their children first gave me the motivation and opportunities to be relatively well off). From birth onwards, talent and hard work are more important than luck, I think, although luck also matters. But if you're born in the right circumstances it's very hard to really suffer materially and if you're born in the wrong circumstances you have to be really quite special to succeed.
Read 'The Black Swan'. It's by an author who understands probabilities and randomness, i.e. very far from alternating heads and tails.
Much of what's routinely attributed to talent or hard work is due to sheer luck in who one meets, who one knows... or who daddy knows. The ups and downs in my own life reflect these influences, including applied randomness.
But hopefully on a betting website most people do understand randomness ...
That's probably fair. I'm only in my current branch of academia because I took a temporary research post I heard about through a friend who was the son of the prof running the project and got hooked on that area of research (although I'd probably be earning more if I'd stayed in my earlier field!)
Of all the stupid criticisms of Johnson possible, accusing him of not sufficiently quoting obscure historical figures has to be the dumbest. He literally does all the bloody time, and gets routinely criticised for it.
Exactly. I dislike the man, but that criticism really is either knowingly phoney or truly a sign that people are letting their dislike lead them to ridiculousness.
Either way its very lame.
Nothing wrong with Tusks comments particularly as he is standing down. I imagine the upset is the impression he wasnt working to get a deal but to delay so we changed our minds, but if wed wanted we could have left ages ago, it's on our parliamentarians that we didnt.
Until Boris replaced May we could have only left without a deal, or with a despicably terrible deal. The EU did not negotiate with May in good faith.
That they negotiated at all was a miracle. When I tore up my RAC Membership Card they didn't offer me a thing.
If you timed it right you’d have got £42k from the sale of their operating business
Aggregate is no more democratic than local and breaks the link with having local MP take responsibility for each local area in the country.
Yes aggregate members across the country choose to pass or fail, which means aggregate locations across the country must be saying yes not just an overwhelming majority of one place overwhelming others. There is plenty of evidence that the concerns of the cities are not the concerns of the shires, the concerns of the North are not the concerns of the South, the concerns of the Scots are not the concerns of the English so I don't see why we should break the one-constituency one-MP link.
If the "link" you speak if is really that important to you, there are halfway houses. When I lived in Scotland I had several MSPs, because of the regional lists. In my experience, the balance was reasonably fair at the regional level, and at the national level, and I had individuals I could approach who were "my" MSPs. In fact, the choice made me feel quite good in that if one of them was useless, or suspended or even dead, I'd still have representation.
I think constituency is better than regional. Regional can lead to eg paying huge attention to the large population centers of the region [the big city/cities of the region] while ignoring elsewhere. If you talk about regional regarding the North West for instance then there is a tremendous imbalance towards paying attention to the needs of Manchester, Liverpool etc over and above towns like Warrington, whereas on a constituency level Warrington has 2 dedicated MPs for the North and South of the town who can pay attention to local concerns.
As an example of a specific local concern: Central government decisions led to a new bridge across the River Mersey between Widnes and Runcorn [the Mersey Gateway Bridge] but as a toll bridge and also took the decision to make the pre-existing Runcorn-Widnes bridge was never tolled in the past also become a toll bridge. The tunnels at Liverpool are also tolled meaning the first 'free' point to cross the Mersey is now driving through Warrington Town Centre. Congestion in town is bad enough and was horrendous whenever the Runcorn-Widnes bridge had issues or there's an accident on the M6, M62 or M56 - if vehicles choose to divert through Warrington to avoid tolls that would make traffic even worse.
Our local MP lobbied for and got action to deal with our own congestion. Residents of Liverpool may not care about that, residents of the rest of the region may not care about that, residents of Warrington certainly do.
Politics is not all aggregated nationally or even regionally.
Every vote cast is equal. Parties can say whatever they want but every candidate starts with zero votes each election and it takes tens of thousands of votes to win a seat normally. If you can convince a plurality to vote for you then you can take seats away from the other parties - just as the SNP did when they got a clean sweep nearly across Scotland. Almost every single seat in Scotland has changed hands this decade - so much for so-called "safe" seats.
Four million Ukip voters say you're wrong. But in all seriousness, you're half right. All votes are equal at a constituency level, but they become very unequal at a national level. You can argue for either being fairer, but you who believe in constituencies as a fundamental unit do have to keep to that when you talk about national politics. Anyone who thinks like you do has no place complaining about individual MPs "respecting" a national vote.
I must have missed the seats UKIP won a plurality in that shows me to be wrong. UKIP voters had their votes counted. They lost. That's fair enough.
If a football team loses a match 2 - 1 then they got a third of the goals scored so are they entitled to one point in your world or does the winning team get all 3 points? Liverpool have won 4 games so far this Premier League season on a 2-1 scoreline and won all 12 possible points from those games - should we dock them 3 points because the losers got a goal?
As far as the national referendum was concerned we were part of one constituency called the United Kingdom for that referendum, but even if you look at local constituencies Leave won still.
So if, say, 6 parties stood in every seat, and in all those seats party x got 16.6% and won every one by 1 vote, despite the fact 83% of the population voted against that party, you'd say it is fine they got 100% of the representation? I understand that is the way the current system works, but are you saying you think that is a healthy, well functioning, democratic system?
Yes.
Okay. I don't. Why do you think it is?
Why do I think you're against the winner winning each constituency? Hard question to answer. Is it because you're not a democrat? Is it because you don't see the constituencies as distict? I don't know.
Or why do I think it is fair? Because each constituency is represented by the MP they chose.
A Neil reads out Matt Hancocks response to worst ever NHS figures in incredulity.
"These figures show why we need to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street .... "
Many will agree. Labour barely leads on the NHS.
A Neil thought it was a ridiculous way to respond to the worst NHS numbers in history. Try recruiting some staff to the 150,000 vacancies or resolving the pension tax that's stopping Consultants working extra hours.
Only 60 000 vacancies, I think.
The obvious question though is that with these unfilled vacancies, how can we recruit the extra posts promised?
Jon Ashworth was good on this yesterday, he spoke thoughtfully about staff retention, which is in many ways better than recruitment.
I must have missed the seats UKIP won a plurality in that shows me to be wrong. UKIP voters had their votes counted. They lost. That's fair enough.
If a football team loses a match 2 - 1 then they got a third of the goals scored so are they entitled to one point in your world or does the winning team get all 3 points? Liverpool have won 4 games so far this Premier League season on a 2-1 scoreline and won all 12 possible points from those games - should we dock them 3 points because the losers got a goal?
As far as the national referendum was concerned we were part of one constituency called the United Kingdom for that referendum, but even if you look at local constituencies Leave won still.
Making a football league based on goal difference rather than games won would be fun. Rugby has bonus points and cricket seems largely based on actual scores and wickets. It would change the nature of the game though. And I think the same thing is true of alternative voting systems. Many of its supporters assume that it would lead to a permanent “progressive alliance” style government. Italy has PR: it didn’t stop Berlisconi (sp?) becoming PM. Boris on his own might not be good (in fact if he wasn’t facing Corbyn I might be trying to make him lose) but think how much worse a Johnson-Farage government would be.
Choosing a voting system isn't about fixing the outcome it's about choosing a system that enables voters to accurately make their democratic opinion on the political debate heard. Our system doesn't do that. If a better system led to a Johnson/Farage coalition then that would be more honest and the voters could decide if that's what they really wanted at the subsequent election.
Maybe "progressives" would have to get better at winning the political debate instead of thinking they could use tactical voting arguments to avoid having to do so.
Aggregate is no more democratic than local and breaks the link with having local MP take responsibility for each local area in the country.
Yes aggregate members across the country choose to pass or fail, which means aggregate locations across the country must be saying yes not just an overwhelming majority of one place overwhelming others. There is plenty of evidence that the concerns of the cities are not the concerns of the shires, the concerns of the North are not the concerns of the South, the concerns of the Scots are not the concerns of the English so I don't see why we should break the one-constituency one-MP link.
If the "link" you speak if is really that important to you, there are halfway houses. When I lived in Scotland I had several MSPs, because of the regional lists. In my experience, the balance was reasonably fair at the regional level, and at the national level, and I had individuals I could approach who were "my" MSPs. In fact, the choice made me feel quite good in that if one of them was useless, or suspended or even dead, I'd still have representation.
I think constituency is better than regional. Regional can lead to eg paying huge attention to the large population centers of the region [the big city/cities of the region] while ignoring elsewhere. If you talk about regional regarding the North West for instance then there is a tremendous imbalance towards paying attention to the needs of Manchester, Liverpool etc over and above towns like Warrington, whereas on a constituency level Warrington has 2 dedicated MPs for the North and South of the town who can pay attention to local concerns.
As an example of a specific local concern: Central government decisions led to a new bridge across the River Mersey between Widnes and Runcorn [the Mersey Gateway Bridge] but as a toll bridge and also took the decision to make the pre-existing Runcorn-Widnes bridge was never tolled in the past also become a toll bridge. The tunnels at Liverpool are also tolled meaning the first 'free' point to cross the Mersey is now driving through Warrington Town Centre. Congestion in town is bad enough and was horrendous whenever the Runcorn-Widnes bridge had issues or there's an accident on the M6, M62 or M56 - if vehicles choose to divert through Warrington to avoid tolls that would make traffic even worse.
Our local MP lobbied for and got action to deal with our own congestion. Residents of Liverpool may not care about that, residents of the rest of the region may not care about that, residents of Warrington certainly do.
Politics is not all aggregated nationally or even regionally.
But individual seats as they are now still have that issue; people in St A complain the MP doesn't care about the villages and only cares about the urbanites etc.
Every vote cast is equal. Parties can say whatever they want but every candidate starts with zero votes each election and it takes tens of thousands of votes to win a seat normally. If you can convince a plurality to vote for you then you can take seats away from the other parties - just as the SNP did when they got a clean sweep nearly across Scotland. Almost every single seat in Scotland has changed hands this decade - so much for so-called "safe" seats.
vote.
rong. UKIP voters had their votes counted. They lost. That's fair enough.
If a football team loses a match 2 - 1 then they got a third of the goals scored so are they entitled to one point in your world or does the winning team get all 3 points? Liverpool have won 4 games so far this Premier League season on a 2-1 scoreline and won all 12 possible points from those games - should we dock them 3 points because the losers got a goal?
As far as the national referendum was concerned we were part of one constituency called the United Kingdom for that referendum, but even if you look at local constituencies Leave won still.
You'll note I addressed the point in my original reply. But I'll say it again. All votes are equal at a constituency level. At a constituency level, them not winning owt was fair. At an aggregate level the number of votes cast for a particular party do not give a fair result in parliament. You are choosing one fairness over another. That's your prerogative, I'm just bringing it all out into the open so people can see that.
We don't vote aggregate we vote in constituencies. Those constituency MPs then meet up. Aggregate means nothing.
Except for what the population purported to being represented might actually be wanting.
Every single MP without fail under our great system was chosen by their local population deciding who they wanted.
Yes even those I can't stand like Abbott and Corbyn are the choice of their voters.
So if in a population of 101, 99 Conservatives of various hues stand and 1 of only 2 Socialist stands. The Socialist would win getting double the vote of any Conservative yet nearly 99% of the population actually want a Conservative. You think that is fair?
In an area that is 49% for party A and 25.5% for parties B & C each, with B having all its vote in the rural area and C all its vote in the town and A's vote spread across the area. The area is split into 2 constituencies down the middle. B & C get an MP each and A nothing even though A has twice the vote of each of the other 2. Still ok?
I don't know but presumably an inanimate object didn't take the photo? Couldn't that be the photographer's own seat and the red box has been placed in the seat while the photographer takes the picture?
Or that it’s not actually unreasonable that the PM have a little bit of space to work while travelling
I agree that as, with the "Dementia Tax", Labour's IHT reform, if it appears, will be ruthlessly misrepresented in the campaign and as a consequence perhaps cost votes out there amongst the ignorami. However, let's not do that here. We're better than that.
Mum dies, leaves house worth £1m to 4 children.
The net of tax inheritance will be HIGHER under the new system.
The extra money for each child will not in any way lessen their grief, of course, they will think about Mum every day of their lives until they themselves pass away, but it is certainly not to be sneezed at.
Every vote cast is equal. Parties can say whatever they want but every candidate starts with zero votes each election and it takes tens of thousands of votes to win a seat normally. If you can convince a plurality to vote for you then you can take seats away from the other parties - just as the SNP did when they got a clean sweep nearly across Scotland. Almost every single seat in Scotland has changed hands this decade - so much for so-called "safe" seats.
Four million Ukip voters say you're wrong. But in all seriousness, you're half right. All votes are equal at a constituency level, but they become very unequal at a national level. You can argue for either being fairer, but you who believe in constituencies as a fundamental unit do have to keep to that when you talk about national politics. Anyone who thinks like you do has no place complaining about individual MPs "respecting" a national vote.
I must have missed the seats UKIP won a plurality in that shows me to be wrong. UKIP voters had their votes counted. They lost. That's fair enough.
If a football team loses a match 2 - 1 then they got a third of the goals scored so are they entitled to one point in your world or does the winning team get all 3 points? Liverpool have won 4 games so far this Premier League season on a 2-1 scoreline and won all 12 possible points from those games - should we dock them 3 points because the losers got a goal?
As far as the national referendum was concerned we were part of one constituency called the United Kingdom for that referendum, but even if you look at local constituencies Leave won still.
Making a football league based on goal difference rather than games won would be fun. Rugby has bonus points and cricket seems largely based on actual scores and wickets. It would change the nature of the game though. And I think the same thing is true of alternative voting systems. Many of its supporters assume that it would lead to a permanent “progressive alliance” style government. Italy has PR: it didn’t stop Berlisconi (sp?) becoming PM. Boris on his own might not be good (in fact if he wasn’t facing Corbyn I might be trying to make him lose) but think how much worse a Johnson-Farage government would be.
I suspect that such a league table wouldn't look much different in practice. Number of points and goal difference are highly correlated over a season, unsurprisingly.
Spurs and Everton would have moved up a place, but very little change overall in 18/19
There's a jet aircraft circling at a reasonably high altitude in a reasonably large but accurate circle over Edinburgh. It's not on the flight radar website. It's not the British Meteorological research aircraft.
Anyone have a guess what it might be?
We get a couple of dark blue Dassault that fly over Dartmouth - I'm told they are packed with electronics that can simulate an attack on a warship for training purposes. Don't know if that might fit?
It's taking about a quarter of an hour for them to complete a circle, so that would make the circumference something like 100 miles. They're more towards the south than over the Forth though.
I'm kind of getting the feeling Corbyn doesn't want to win. I think he's o.k with the Boris brexit deal. Corbyn 2017 wouldn't have said that thing about the ISIS leader.
If he makes another "gaffe" like that, then I'll be sure he doesn't actually want to be PM.
He is not trying to lose - of course not - but I do sometimes sense that Jeremy sees this period of opposition as a great platform for the bigger and better period of opposition to come.
John McDonnell, though, different story. I am sure that he really wants to gain meaningful political power.
For both of them, age wise, this is it. A majority Tory government retires them.
I must have missed the seats UKIP won a plurality in that shows me to be wrong. UKIP voters had their votes counted. They lost. That's fair enough.
If a football team loses a match 2 - 1 then they got a third of the goals scored so are they entitled to one point in your world or does the winning team get all 3 points? Liverpool have won 4 games so far this Premier League season on a 2-1 scoreline and won all 12 possible points from those games - should we dock them 3 points because the losers got a goal?
As far as the national referendum was concerned we were part of one constituency called the United Kingdom for that referendum, but even if you look at local constituencies Leave won still.
Making a football league based on goal difference rather than games won would be fun. Rugby has bonus points and cricket seems largely based on actual scores and wickets. It would change the nature of the game though. And I think the same thing is true of alternative voting systems. Many of its supporters assume that it would lead to a permanent “progressive alliance” style government. Italy has PR: it didn’t stop Berlisconi (sp?) becoming PM. Boris on his own might not be good (in fact if he wasn’t facing Corbyn I might be trying to make him lose) but think how much worse a Johnson-Farage government would be.
Choosing a voting system isn't about fixing the outcome it's about choosing a system that enables voters to accurately make their democratic opinion on the political debate heard. Our system doesn't do that. If a better system led to a Johnson/Farage coalition then that would be more honest and the voters could decide if that's what they really wanted at the subsequent election.
Maybe "progressives" would have to get better at winning the political debate instead of thinking they could use tactical voting arguments to avoid having to do so.
I think it’s a distraction, yes. It has been very easy to characterise the Lib-Dems as being obsessed by the process of politics rather than by the policies they want to enact (although perhaps not so much at the moment). That may be a good thing for them as I seem to remember a radical policy on holding an in/out referendum on Europe about ten years ago. The point I think I’m trying to make (it’s not been a great week for me) is I think when we do move to some form of PR how little politics will actually change.
I agree that as, with the "Dementia Tax", Labour's IHT reform, if it appears, will be ruthlessly misrepresented in the campaign and as a consequence perhaps cost votes out there amongst the ignorami. However, let's not do that here. We're better than that.
Mum dies, leaves house worth £1m to 4 children.
The net of tax inheritance will be HIGHER under the new system.
The extra money for each child will not in any way lessen their grief, of course, they will think about Mum every day of their lives until they themselves pass away, but it is certainly not to be sneezed at.
So if in a population of 101, 99 Conservatives of various hues stand and 1 of only 2 Socialist stands. The Socialist would win getting double the vote of any Conservative yet nearly 99% of the population actually want a Conservative. You think that is fair?
In an area that is 49% for party A and 25.5% for parties B & C each, with B having all its vote in the rural area and C all its vote in the town and A's vote spread across the area. The area is split into 2 constituencies down the middle. B & C get an MP each and A nothing even though A has twice the vote of each of the other 2. Still ok?
Yes. You can try all the hypothetical nonsense you like but the reality is the candidates and voters knew the rules before they stood/voted.
In example one: Why were the Conservatives so unable to work together that they refused to co-operate and stand together rather than against each other? Why did the voters not vote differently? We know who the candidates are and who voted, lets not second-guess second choices the voters made their choice freely and fairly.
In example 2 the system is working as designed. Who does the town want to represent its interests? Party C. Who does the rural area want to represent its interests? Party B. Not just OK but working as designed.
There's a jet aircraft circling at a reasonably high altitude in a reasonably large but accurate circle over Edinburgh. It's not on the flight radar website. It's not the British Meteorological research aircraft.
Anyone have a guess what it might be?
We get a couple of dark blue Dassault that fly over Dartmouth - I'm told they are packed with electronics that can simulate an attack on a warship for training purposes. Don't know if that might fit?
It's taking about a quarter of an hour for them to complete a circle, so that would make the circumference something like 100 miles. They're more towards the south than over the Forth though.
I don't know what the plane is, sorry. But if you find out, it would be nice to let us know.
There's a jet aircraft circling at a reasonably high altitude in a reasonably large but accurate circle over Edinburgh. It's not on the flight radar website. It's not the British Meteorological research aircraft.
Anyone have a guess what it might be?
We get a couple of dark blue Dassault that fly over Dartmouth - I'm told they are packed with electronics that can simulate an attack on a warship for training purposes. Don't know if that might fit?
It's taking about a quarter of an hour for them to complete a circle, so that would make the circumference something like 100 miles. They're more towards the south than over the Forth though.
I don't know what the plane is, sorry. But if you find out, it would be nice to let us know.
TARTN41 from Brize Norton going round in circles to the East of Berwick - that one is on Flight Radar.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
John Lewis really know how to tug at the heart strings, don't they? Me and my missus shared a tear after watching this
I shed a tear when I see what Tories have done to the disabled the terminally ill and those without food....
I shed a tear when the little robot is left watering the plants at the end of "Silent Running". BECAUSE HES A LITTLE ROBOT! AND ITS THE LAST TREES LEFT! AND (runs from room sobbing)
Every vote cast is equal. Parties can say whatever they want but every candidate starts with zero votes each election and it takes tens of thousands of votes to win a seat normally. If you can convince a plurality to vote for you then you can take seats away from the other parties - just as the SNP did when they got a clean sweep nearly across Scotland. Almost every single seat in Scotland has changed hands this decade - so much for so-called "safe" seats.
Four million Ukip voters say you're wrong. But in all seriousness, you're half right. All votes are equal at a constituency level, but they become very unequal at a national level. You can argue for either being fairer, but you who believe in constituencies as a fundamental unit do have to keep to that when you talk about national politics. Anyone who thinks like you do has no place complaining about individual MPs "respecting" a national vote.
I must have missed the seats UKIP won a plurality in that shows me to be wrong. UKIP voters had their votes counted. They lost. That's fair enough.
If a football team loses a match 2 - 1 then they got a third of the goals scored so are they entitled to one point in your world or does the winning team get all 3 points? Liverpool have won 4 games so far this Premier League season on a 2-1 scoreline and won all 12 possible points from those games - should we dock them 3 points because the losers got a goal?
As far as the national referendum was concerned we were part of one constituency called the United Kingdom for that referendum, but even if you look at local constituencies Leave won still.
You'll note I addressed the point in my original reply. But I'll say it again. All votes are equal at a constituency level. At a constituency level, them not winning owt was fair. At an aggregate level the number of votes cast for a particular party do not give a fair result in parliament. You are choosing one fairness over another. That's your prerogative, I'm just bringing it all out into the open so people can see that.
We don't vote aggregate we vote in constituencies. Those constituency MPs then meet up. Aggregate means nothing.
Except for what the population purported to being represented might actually be wanting.
Every single MP without fail under our great system was chosen by their local population deciding who they wanted.
Yes even those I can't stand like Abbott and Corbyn are the choice of their voters.
Generally they are chosen as the least hated option of 2 or sometimes 3 parties. Very very rarely a personal choice
Monumentally stupid to base your vote on a straight Lab/Con choice. Your approach would gift Guildford to the Conservatives.
The choice is a Labour PM or a Conservative PM. Nobody is gifting anyone anything voting with that knowledge. The reason there was a Tory MP in Guildford previously is not because of somebodies "gift" but because over 30k Guildford voters voted for a Tory MP. Do those voters want Corbyn as Prime Minister or Johnson?
I can assure you a majority of voters want neither as PM, yet one of them will be. A sure sign that our democracy is broken...
Boris Johnson has by far the best net favourable rating of any of the parties leaders. So our democracy seems to be working as intended.
If working you mean someone gain get total and absolute power with 35% of the vote then it is but it’s a shit system that claims to be democratic.
Tony Blair, 2005. 35% of the vote. 66 seat majority.
Were you bleating then?
He only got that majority on that vote because he had about 400 Labour MP incumbents seeking re-election. If he had say 280 MPs seeking re-election like BJ does I suspect the result would have been different. I even doubt BJ can get a single party majority on 35% if Labour get around 30%. Obviously if Labour go below 30% seats come into play the Tories might have a chance of winning but I doubt it Labour will do worse than 2010, when they got 29%!
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
If you ever to A&E (I haven't been in one since I was 10, but know other people who have been quite recently), there are plenty of people there who really ought not to be there.
Every vote cast is equal. Parties can say whatever they want but every candidate starts with zero votes each election and it takes tens of thousands of votes to win a seat normally. If you can convince a plurality to vote for you then you can take seats away from the other parties - just as the SNP did when they got a clean sweep nearly across Scotland. Almost every single seat in Scotland has changed hands this decade - so much for so-called "safe" seats.
Four million Ukip voters say you're wrong. individual MPs "respecting" a national vote.
I must have missed the seats UKIP won a plurality in that shows me to be wrong. UKIP voters had their votes counted. They lost. That's fair enough.
If a football team loses a match 2 - 1 then they got a third of the goals scored so are they entitled to one point in your world or does the winning team get all 3 points? Liverpool have won 4 games so far this Premier League season on a 2-1 scoreline and won all 12 possible points from those games - should we dock them 3 points because the losers got a goal?
As far as the national referendum was concerned we were part of one constituency called the United Kingdom for that referendum, but even if you look at local constituencies Leave won still.
Making a football league based on goal difference rather than games won would be fun. Rugby has bonus points and cricket seems largely based on actual scores and wickets. It would change the nature of the game though. And I think the same thing is true of alternative voting systems. Many of its supporters assume that it would lead to a permanent “progressive alliance” style government. Italy has PR: it didn’t stop Berlisconi (sp?) becoming PM. Boris on his own might not be good (in fact if he wasn’t facing Corbyn I might be trying to make him lose) but think how much worse a Johnson-Farage government would be.
I suspect that such a league table wouldn't look much different in practice. Number of points and goal difference are highly correlated over a season, unsurprisingly.
Spurs and Everton would have moved up a place, but very little change overall in 18/19
This is why I keep coming back to this site: I knew that someone would willing and able to do what I can’t with only a phone! Do you think that teams would play differently if the rules were changed or is football not really sophisticated enough? (Can you tell I’m a rugby fan?)
Overwhelmingly, the main driver for success is having wealthy parents.
A lot of people make the bad choice of having poor parents.
LOL.
If you look at this on a macro level I think LUCK wins hands down over merit and I that this is objectively undeniable.
For example, a person who is very clever and works their way up from nothing in the UK to be rich. One of the relatively few who manage this. Great.
But if they had been one of the billions born in India, China, Brazil etc, and been just as clever, just as hard working, the very short odds are that they would attain a material outcome not even equal to the average in the UK.
There's a jet aircraft circling at a reasonably high altitude in a reasonably large but accurate circle over Edinburgh. It's not on the flight radar website. It's not the British Meteorological research aircraft.
Anyone have a guess what it might be?
Civil or military?
It could be a fuelling tanker or some sort of surveillance / AWACS aircraft. If they are military they may have their transponder off
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
If you ever to A&E (I haven't been in one since I was 10, but know other people who have been quite recently), there are plenty of people there who really ought not to be there.
How do you define "people who really ought not to be there?". I have huge experience of going to A & E. People who are there need medical assistance they cannot get immediatly elsewhere, you may not think it is important until it happens to you....
There are so few people in Antarctica that surely SeanT and Byronic have finally met and are now sharing a lunch of freshly cooked seal together....
They realise that the other person exists. They keep making appointments to see each other but something always turns up. They both have the same psychiatrist, who sees them separately and listens to their puzzlement and why they are always tired. The psychiatrist is concerned but since he is being paid twice he is content.
Four million Ukip voters say you're wrong. But in all seriousness, you're half right. All votes are equal at a constituency level, but they become very unequal at a national level. You can argue for either being fairer, but you who believe in constituencies as a fundamental unit do have to keep to that when you talk about national politics. Anyone who thinks like you do has no place complaining about individual MPs "respecting" a national vote.
I must have missed the seats UKIP won a plurality in that shows me to be wrong. UKIP voters had their votes counted. They lost. That's fair enough.
If a football team loses a match 2 - 1 then they got a third of the goals scored so are they entitled to one point in your world or does the winning team get all 3 points? Liverpool have won 4 games so far this Premier League season on a 2-1 scoreline and won all 12 possible points from those games - should we dock them 3 points because the losers got a goal?
As far as the national referendum was concerned we were part of one constituency called the United Kingdom for that referendum, but even if you look at local constituencies Leave won still.
You'll note I addressed the point in my original reply. But I'll say it again. All votes are equal at a constituency level. At a constituency level, them not winning owt was fair. At an aggregate level the number of votes cast for a particular party do not give a fair result in parliament. You are choosing one fairness over another. That's your prerogative, I'm just bringing it all out into the open so people can see that.
We don't vote aggregate we vote in constituencies. Those constituency MPs then meet up. Aggregate means nothing.
Except for what the population purported to being represented might actually be wanting.
Every single MP without fail under our great system was chosen by their local population deciding who they wanted.
Yes even those I can't stand like Abbott and Corbyn are the choice of their voters.
Generally they are chosen as the least hated option of 2 or sometimes 3 parties. Very very rarely a personal choice
The other option is not proportional representation, but at least AV or STV, allowing consensus candidates to win. Sure, we had an AV referendum, it was lost coz it wasn't PR, but it would still be better than FPTP...
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
If you ever to A&E (I haven't been in one since I was 10, but know other people who have been quite recently), there are plenty of people there who really ought not to be there.
How do you define "people who really ought not to be there?". I have huge experience of going to A & E. People who are there need medical assistance they cannot get immediatly elsewhere, you may not think it is important until it happens to you....
The clue is in the name. It's people who go there because they just don't feel well. I remember Evan Davies on Radio 4 asking an NHS person, "if people just want to go and sit in A&E, why not take funding away from GPs and put more money into A&E departments?" - I think he had a point.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
I hope Boris isn't indulging in a bit of dog whistling here - everything would be hunkydory were it not for those bloody foreigners on their health-tourism trips. Surely he wouldn't stoop so low.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
Actually, if for a moment people could stop trying to score silly partisan points and try instead to understand what is going on (I know, I know...), they would do well to ponder the second graph in this article:
As you can see, the number of attendances at A & E has gone up from around 1.7 million in a typical month in 2011 to around 2.1 million now. That's a pretty extraordinary increase, which puts the increase in waiting times into context.
The drivers of that increase in attendances are no doubt complex, but they certainly won't all be the 'fault' of the government.
There's a jet aircraft circling at a reasonably high altitude in a reasonably large but accurate circle over Edinburgh. It's not on the flight radar website. It's not the British Meteorological research aircraft.
Anyone have a guess what it might be?
We get a couple of dark blue Dassault that fly over Dartmouth - I'm told they are packed with electronics that can simulate an attack on a warship for training purposes. Don't know if that might fit?
It's taking about a quarter of an hour for them to complete a circle, so that would make the circumference something like 100 miles. They're more towards the south than over the Forth though.
I don't know what the plane is, sorry. But if you find out, it would be nice to let us know.
TARTN41 from Brize Norton going round in circles to the East of Berwick - that one is on Flight Radar.
20000ft, A330.
Same operation?
That flight track would look like a circle from this direction, maybe it's about the right distance away. I assumed it would have to be closer.
There's a jet aircraft circling at a reasonably high altitude in a reasonably large but accurate circle over Edinburgh. It's not on the flight radar website. It's not the British Meteorological research aircraft.
Anyone have a guess what it might be?
Civil or military?
It could be a fuelling tanker or some sort of surveillance / AWACS aircraft. If they are military they may have their transponder off
Slightly to the south of Edinburgh you say.
Is it undertaking a comprehensive photographic survey of all Scottish Labour holds?
There's a jet aircraft circling at a reasonably high altitude in a reasonably large but accurate circle over Edinburgh. It's not on the flight radar website. It's not the British Meteorological research aircraft.
Anyone have a guess what it might be?
Civil or military?
It could be a fuelling tanker or some sort of surveillance / AWACS aircraft. If they are military they may have their transponder off
Aren't military aircraft supposed to leave their transponders on, in order to avoid @Dura_Ace's mates shooting them down in a tragic friendly-fire incident (as famously happened at the start of WW2 in the Battle of Barking Creek)?
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
If you ever to A&E (I haven't been in one since I was 10, but know other people who have been quite recently), there are plenty of people there who really ought not to be there.
How do you define "people who really ought not to be there?". I have huge experience of going to A & E. People who are there need medical assistance they cannot get immediatly elsewhere, you may not think it is important until it happens to you....
If you need it immediately then that is what A&E is for. The problem is the amount of people who go there who really should have booked an appointment with their GP and just think spending 4h waiting is better than booking an appointment with their GP.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
If you ever to A&E (I haven't been in one since I was 10, but know other people who have been quite recently), there are plenty of people there who really ought not to be there.
I have. Last five years. Unpleasant circumstances. It is not easy to say who is malingering and who is not. Top tip: if you need to go, best do it around 3am. It's still staffed and the queues are much shorter.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
Actually, if for a moment people could stop trying to score silly partisan points and try instead to understand what is going on (I know, I know...), they would do well to ponder the second graph in this article:
As you can see, the number of attendances at A & E has gone up from around 1.7 million in a typical month in 2011 to around 2.1 million now. That's a pretty extraordinary increase, which puts the increase in waiting times into context.
The drivers of that increase in attendances are no doubt complex, but they certainly won't all be the 'fault' of the government.
Folk unable to get a GP appointment, because there are not enough GPs, is certainly a big factor. And that is down to the government.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
If you ever to A&E (I haven't been in one since I was 10, but know other people who have been quite recently), there are plenty of people there who really ought not to be there.
How do you define "people who really ought not to be there?". I have huge experience of going to A & E. People who are there need medical assistance they cannot get immediatly elsewhere, you may not think it is important until it happens to you....
If you need it immediately then that is what A&E is for. The problem is the amount of people who go there who really should have booked an appointment with their GP and just think spending 4h waiting is better than booking an appointment with their GP.
You can't get an immediate appointment with a GP unless certain circs. The waiting time is three weeks. That's why people go to A&E.
Four million Ukip voters say you're wrong. But in all seriousness, you're half right. All votes are equal at a constituency level, but they become very unequal at a national level. You can argue for either being fairer, but you who believe in constituencies as a fundamental unit do have to keep to that when you talk about national politics. Anyone who thinks like you do has no place complaining about individual MPs "respecting" a national vote.l.
You'll note I addressed the point in my original reply. But I'll say it again. All votes are equal at a constituency level. At a constituency level, them not winning owt was fair. At an aggregate level the number of votes cast for a particular party do not give a fair result in parliament. You are choosing one fairness over another. That's your prerogative, I'm just bringing it all out into the open so people can see that.
We don't vote aggregate we vote in constituencies. Those constituency MPs then meet up. Aggregate means nothing.
Except for what the population purported to being represented might actually be wanting.
Every single MP without fail under our great system was chosen by their local population deciding who they wanted.
Yes even those I can't stand like Abbott and Corbyn are the choice of their voters.
Generally they are chosen as the least hated option of 2 or sometimes 3 parties. Very very rarely a personal choice
The other option is not proportional representation, but at least AV or STV, allowing consensus candidates to win. Sure, we had an AV referendum, it was lost coz it wasn't PR, but it would still be better than FPTP...
Certainly. FPTP is becoming more and more unrepresentative imv. For instance, I suspect the LDs would be probably fighting for top spot nationally at present with BXP and Greens both much higher in the polls. However most people see a two horse race and they generally hate the Conservatives or Labour so vote for whoever appears able to beat them.
Overwhelmingly, the main driver for success is having wealthy parents.
A lot of people make the bad choice of having poor parents.
LOL.
If you look at this on a macro level I think LUCK wins hands down over merit and I that this is objectively undeniable.
For example, a person who is very clever and works their way up from nothing in the UK to be rich. One of the relatively few who manage this. Great.
But if they had been one of the billions born in India, China, Brazil etc, and been just as clever, just as hard working, the very short odds are that they would attain a material outcome not even equal to the average in the UK.
I believe studies have suggested that relative success is driven by the intelligence of the child's mother.
There's a jet aircraft circling at a reasonably high altitude in a reasonably large but accurate circle over Edinburgh. It's not on the flight radar website. It's not the British Meteorological research aircraft.
Anyone have a guess what it might be?
We get a couple of dark blue Dassault that fly over Dartmouth - I'm told they are packed with electronics that can simulate an attack on a warship for training purposes. Don't know if that might fit?
It's taking about a quarter of an hour for them to complete a circle, so that would make the circumference something like 100 miles. They're more towards the south than over the Forth though.
I don't know what the plane is, sorry. But if you find out, it would be nice to let us know.
TARTN41 from Brize Norton going round in circles to the East of Berwick - that one is on Flight Radar.
20000ft, A330.
Same operation?
That flight track would look like a circle from this direction, maybe it's about the right distance away. I assumed it would have to be closer.
That is a KC2 refuelling aricraft. I checked todays NOTAMs for anything unusual, areas, to avoid, airspace closures etc and nothing really stood out.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
If you ever to A&E (I haven't been in one since I was 10, but know other people who have been quite recently), there are plenty of people there who really ought not to be there.
How do you define "people who really ought not to be there?". I have huge experience of going to A & E. People who are there need medical assistance they cannot get immediatly elsewhere, you may not think it is important until it happens to you....
If you need it immediately then that is what A&E is for. The problem is the amount of people who go there who really should have booked an appointment with their GP and just think spending 4h waiting is better than booking an appointment with their GP.
You can spend 4 hours just trying to book an appointment with your GP.
And if you think that is bad, try getting through to book an appointment for physiotherapy.
There's a jet aircraft circling at a reasonably high altitude in a reasonably large but accurate circle over Edinburgh. It's not on the flight radar website. It's not the British Meteorological research aircraft.
Anyone have a guess what it might be?
We get a couple of dark blue Dassault that fly over Dartmouth - I'm told they are packed with electronics that can simulate an attack on a warship for training purposes. Don't know if that might fit?
It's taking about a quarter of an hour for them to complete a circle, so that would make the circumference something like 100 miles. They're more towards the south than over the Forth though.
I don't know what the plane is, sorry. But if you find out, it would be nice to let us know.
TARTN41 from Brize Norton going round in circles to the East of Berwick - that one is on Flight Radar.
20000ft, A330.
Same operation?
That flight track would look like a circle from this direction, maybe it's about the right distance away. I assumed it would have to be closer.
I'm not suggesting it is the same plane, just that perhaps it has similar purpose. 20000ft altitude at that distance probably not visible unless you are currently atop Arthur's Seat. I can track the 35000ft ones (DUB-JFK and similar) till they are just about over the Irish Sea from my office in Manchester.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
If you ever to A&E (I haven't been in one since I was 10, but know other people who have been quite recently), there are plenty of people there who really ought not to be there.
I have. Last five years. Unpleasant circumstances. It is not easy to say who is malingering and who is not. Top tip: if you need to go, best do it around 3am. It's still staffed and the queues are much shorter.
Same top tip for the Christmas shopping....go to the supermarket at 3-4am. Fully stocked shelves with all the freshest stuff and nobody in there.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
Actually, if for a moment people could stop trying to score silly partisan points and try instead to understand what is going on (I know, I know...), they would do well to ponder the second graph in this article:
As you can see, the number of attendances at A & E has gone up from around 1.7 million in a typical month in 2011 to around 2.1 million now. That's a pretty extraordinary increase, which puts the increase in waiting times into context.
The drivers of that increase in attendances are no doubt complex, but they certainly won't all be the 'fault' of the government.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
Actually, if for a moment people could stop trying to score silly partisan points and try instead to understand what is going on (I know, I know...), they would do well to ponder the second graph in this article:
As you can see, the number of attendances at A & E has gone up from around 1.7 million in a typical month in 2011 to around 2.1 million now. That's a pretty extraordinary increase, which puts the increase in waiting times into context.
The drivers of that increase in attendances are no doubt complex, but they certainly won't all be the 'fault' of the government.
Folk unable to get a GP appointment, because there are not enough GPs, is certainly a big factor. And that is down to the government.
Good try, but the number of GP appointments has also slightly increased.
BBC: Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the BBC the A&E waiting time figures released today- which are the worst since records began -“is basically caused by the huge demand that there is on the NHS".
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
If you ever to A&E (I haven't been in one since I was 10, but know other people who have been quite recently), there are plenty of people there who really ought not to be there.
How do you define "people who really ought not to be there?". I have huge experience of going to A & E. People who are there need medical assistance they cannot get immediatly elsewhere, you may not think it is important until it happens to you....
The clue is in the name. It's people who go there because they just don't feel well. I remember Evan Davies on Radio 4 asking an NHS person, "if people just want to go and sit in A&E, why not take funding away from GPs and put more money into A&E departments?" - I think he had a point.
Just because someone in A & E does not have a leg missing or blood gushing from them does not mean they have nothing wrong with them! I am classed as being severely dissabled but on your criterion, there is nothing wrong with me.
Lord Ashcroft nearly died of sepsis and no doubt felt unwell, should he of not sort medical advice? (It saved his life - Indeed he was flown to the US, which is something you dont get on the nhs). I actually find your comment depressing and based on ignorance...
Comments
Yes even those I can't stand like Abbott and Corbyn are the choice of their voters.
1. Does it apply to all money gifts? Pocket money? Birthday money? The tooth fairy? Money for passing exams?
2. What about loans which don’t get repaid and are, in reality, gifts eg money for university, rent etc?
3. What about payments for important life events - weddings, birth of children etc? Or payment for a family holiday?
4. What about benefits in kind e.g paying the rent yourself for a property lived in by a child or providing free child care? Or not charging a market rent for an adult child living at home?
5. What about gifts which are not money e.g. family jewellery or furniture etc? It saves the recipient money and is the same in economic terms as receiving a gift of cash.
6. What about provision for disabled children?
Depending on how long a person lives and how generous they are the amount left over when it comes to family property could be well below the £125k limit and therefore hit many more people than simply those owning a property worth above that level.
If non-cash or other life events are excluded then avoiding it will be relatively easy.
It would be better to have a low level of CGT above, say, a tax free limit, on the sale of your home and a much much lower level of IHT (well below 40%) with fewer exemptions.
Wouldn't be surprised if a big announcement was pulled at the last minute.
"Performance is worse in Wales and Northern Ireland than it is in England and Scotland".
Say hello Welsh Labour.....
In addition:
"Despite the challenges being faced by the NHS, the majority of the public say they are satisfied with services.
The British Social Attitudes poll of nearly 3,000 people found 53% of people in England, Scotland and Wales were satisfied with services in 2018"
However, Corbyn will not be ahead on polling day on any measure
When I lived in Scotland I had several MSPs, because of the regional lists. In my experience, the balance was reasonably fair at the regional level, and at the national level, and I had individuals I could approach who were "my" MSPs. In fact, the choice made me feel quite good in that if one of them was useless, or suspended or even dead, I'd still have representation.
Only the Conservatives are respecting the 2016 vote.
While the SNP are not respecting either the 2014 or the 2016 vote.
And Labour are tacitly not respecting either then 2014 or the 2016 vote.
Not difficult.
Anyone have a guess what it might be?
Were you bleating then?
The obvious question though is that with these unfilled vacancies, how can we recruit the extra posts promised?
Jon Ashworth was good on this yesterday, he spoke thoughtfully about staff retention, which is in many ways better than recruitment.
I still remain extremely skeptical that come the GE the flat cap northern working class vote will be piling in for the Tories.
It would change the nature of the game though. And I think the same thing is true of alternative voting systems. Many of its supporters assume that it would lead to a permanent “progressive alliance” style government. Italy has PR: it didn’t stop Berlisconi (sp?) becoming PM. Boris on his own might not be good (in fact if he wasn’t facing Corbyn I might be trying to make him lose) but think how much worse a Johnson-Farage government would be.
Bleating would be more your style, though.
As an example of a specific local concern: Central government decisions led to a new bridge across the River Mersey between Widnes and Runcorn [the Mersey Gateway Bridge] but as a toll bridge and also took the decision to make the pre-existing Runcorn-Widnes bridge was never tolled in the past also become a toll bridge. The tunnels at Liverpool are also tolled meaning the first 'free' point to cross the Mersey is now driving through Warrington Town Centre. Congestion in town is bad enough and was horrendous whenever the Runcorn-Widnes bridge had issues or there's an accident on the M6, M62 or M56 - if vehicles choose to divert through Warrington to avoid tolls that would make traffic even worse.
Our local MP lobbied for and got action to deal with our own congestion. Residents of Liverpool may not care about that, residents of the rest of the region may not care about that, residents of Warrington certainly do.
Politics is not all aggregated nationally or even regionally.
John Lewis really know how to tug at the heart strings, don't they? Me and my missus shared a tear after watching this
LibDems - party for the Bosses!
Labour - party for the Anti-semites!
I appear to have woken in a parallel universe.....
Or why do I think it is fair? Because each constituency is represented by the MP they chose.
Maybe "progressives" would have to get better at winning the political debate instead of thinking they could use tactical voting arguments to avoid having to do so.
In an area that is 49% for party A and 25.5% for parties B & C each, with B having all its vote in the rural area and C all its vote in the town and A's vote spread across the area. The area is split into 2 constituencies down the middle. B & C get an MP each and A nothing even though A has twice the vote of each of the other 2. Still ok?
https://twitter.com/moonlighter1872/status/1194867633826516992?s=20
Spurs and Everton would have moved up a place, but very little change overall in 18/19
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2018–19_Premier_League_table
Difference between a Socialist and a Tory I suppose.
John McDonnell, though, different story. I am sure that he really wants to gain meaningful political power.
For both of them, age wise, this is it. A majority Tory government retires them.
The point I think I’m trying to make (it’s not been a great week for me) is I think when we do move to some form of PR how little politics will actually change.
In example one: Why were the Conservatives so unable to work together that they refused to co-operate and stand together rather than against each other? Why did the voters not vote differently? We know who the candidates are and who voted, lets not second-guess second choices the voters made their choice freely and fairly.
In example 2 the system is working as designed. Who does the town want to represent its interests? Party C. Who does the rural area want to represent its interests? Party B. Not just OK but working as designed.
20000ft, A330.
Same operation?
So it is our fault for daring to have accidents and encounter medical emergencies.
Do you think that teams would play differently if the rules were changed or is football not really sophisticated enough? (Can you tell I’m a rugby fan?)
If you look at this on a macro level I think LUCK wins hands down over merit and I that this is objectively undeniable.
For example, a person who is very clever and works their way up from nothing in the UK to be rich. One of the relatively few who manage this. Great.
But if they had been one of the billions born in India, China, Brazil etc, and been just as clever, just as hard working, the very short odds are that they would attain a material outcome not even equal to the average in the UK.
It could be a fuelling tanker or some sort of surveillance / AWACS aircraft. If they are military they may have their transponder off
SeanT will blame his disapperence on some bad-ass penguins....
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/14/ae-waiting-times-in-england-hit-worst-ever-level
As you can see, the number of attendances at A & E has gone up from around 1.7 million in a typical month in 2011 to around 2.1 million now. That's a pretty extraordinary increase, which puts the increase in waiting times into context.
The drivers of that increase in attendances are no doubt complex, but they certainly won't all be the 'fault' of the government.
Is it undertaking a comprehensive photographic survey of all Scottish Labour holds?
And if you think that is bad, try getting through to book an appointment for physiotherapy.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1194946428235321344?s=20
Lord Ashcroft nearly died of sepsis and no doubt felt unwell, should he of not sort medical advice? (It saved his life - Indeed he was flown to the US, which is something you dont get on the nhs). I actually find your comment depressing and based on ignorance...
https://notaminfo.com/explain?id=1180474