"‘Data scientists’ are gradually replacing those grand ‘pollsters’ who used to offer confident insights with a neat turn of phrase. These new number nerds are likely to be under 30 and might well know nothing about politics. Instead of simple surveys and uniform national swings, they are using complex statistical models. For people whose bread and butter relies on being seen as a savvy political ‘expert’, all this amounts to an existential threat.
The most powerful data modelling technique in politics at the moment, is something called MRP. It stands for “multilevel regression with post-stratification” — not exactly catchy — and the number of people who fully understand it in the UK can be counted on two hands."
Oh, bollocks. MRP can be understood by any computer science undergrad or maths/stats undergrad in the country and can be run by any 18yr old with a laptop and the ability to download and run R or Python. Hell, I cold do it if pushed. This is one of those "everybody panic and get the new skill" moments, isn't it?. It's not bloody magic.
God there are far too many non-STEM grads in politics.
In line with my model, which has it as a solid Tory gain, all the projected vote shares well within the CIs shown in the chart. Model shows Con Maj of 62.
My model has it as
CON 42.4% LAB 35.9% L DEM 13.1% BREXIT 8.5%
But it does not take account of leave/remain differential swing, or the Brexit party standing down anywhere.
All very much like the others now. Labour on 22-24% was always nonsense. Labour nearer 30%, Tories appear to be through the 40% mark seems to be the real situation.
If you want Brexit to happen, you're gonna have to vote for Boris. If you don't want any risk of coalitions headed by Corbyn, you're gonna have to vote for Boris. That's what the polls are all telling us. And mid-forties want Brexit/don't want Corbyn. Possibly still a way to go.....
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
If the allegations prove to be true, it seems hard to believe that Nicola would not have been aware of his behaviour.
I know it's an obvious statement but with 10 different accusers it's got to be highly unlikely that none of them are true.
Why on earth do parties still produce manifestos in long text form, rather than a slide deck so that the text can be accompanied/supplemented with images and graphics? It would make them much more readable and digestible by the public. As it is, I assume most people who read them are already 100% sure who they're voting for.
An exec summary highlighting the key policy announcements from each section would help greatly as well.
Newsflash: no one reads party manifestos apart from politics geeks.
Yes. Because they're unreadable! Make them readable, and see what happens.
It DOES cause it. Legalisation would be madness. All my friends and I did cannabis (and in every case it led to taking stronger drugs) as teenagers, and for some the damage was irreversible, for many it led to anxiety and depression, for others, alcohol dependency. Now we are mostly parents ourselves, the thought of the kids going through what we did is unthinkable.
Drugs are already legal anyway. You dont get nicked for possession. If drug users were pursued by police in the way other criminals are, City bars would be raided every Friday night, but they aren't, because they aren't. Middle class folk can enjoy a joint or a line as they wish with no fear of prosecution.
Since drug use isn't prosecuted what is the point of keeping the drugs illegal?
It isn't drug consumption the current laws affect as you say it is the supply of drugs that current drug laws affect. We are not debating Singaporean-style prosecution of drug consumption.
So on the supply side: Is it better to have drugs supplied by deadly criminal gangs and criminal enterprises? Or is it better to have drugs supplied by legitimate businesses that are taxed and regulated?
"Labour will scrap Universal Credit. During the period while we design our replacement social security system we will stop the rollout of Universal Credit (UC) and reform it to fix its worst flaws." (Labour)
Our bureaucracy will be better than your bureaucracy
And UC actually works quite well. You can play with the period of time needed to apply, but the shift to four weekly and to let it work with temporary employment much better is a massive improvement on what it replaced.
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
If the allegations prove to be true, it seems hard to believe that Nicola would not have been aware of his behaviour.
I know it's an obvious statement but with 10 different accusers it's got to be highly unlikely that none of them are true.
"Labour will restore public sector pay to at least pre-financial crisis levels (in real terms), by delivering year-on-year above-inflation pay rises, starting with a 5% increase"
They better fire up the printing presses, as there is going to need to create a hell of a lot of money out of nowhere for all of this. This is absolute f##k all way this is all "fully costed", just by bashing a few billionaires.
It DOES cause it. Legalisation would be madness. All my friends and I did cannabis (and in every case it led to taking stronger drugs) as teenagers, and for some the damage was irreversible, for many it led to anxiety and depression, for others, alcohol dependency. Now we are mostly parents ourselves, the thought of the kids going through what we did is unthinkable.
Drugs are already legal anyway. You dont get nicked for possession. If drug users were pursued by police in the way other criminals are, City bars would be raided every Friday night, but they aren't, because they aren't. Middle class folk can enjoy a joint or a line as they wish with no fear of prosecution.
Since drug use isn't prosecuted what is the point of keeping the drugs illegal?
It isn't drug consumption the current laws affect as you say it is the supply of drugs that current drug laws affect. We are not debating Singaporean-style prosecution of drug consumption.
So on the supply side: Is it better to have drugs supplied by deadly criminal gangs and criminal enterprises? Or is it better to have drugs supplied by legitimate businesses that are taxed and regulated?
Well, I think they should be prosecuted, so legalising it is the complete reverse of what I want.
On the supply side, better to prosecute the criminal gangs and sentence them harshly to deter others from following their path.
It could well be the northern Labour vote is way more leavey than Election_Data model suggests if he's used straight linear programming transition models and assumed a homogeneity of the broad labour tapestry across the nation, changed by the remain/leave vote within constituencies. I think the baseline northern Tory vote actually might be more remain than assumed too - the switchers are definitely heavy leave but pre-existing vote (2015) is heavily heavily correlated with wealth/deprivation rather than anything to do with leave or remain.
tl dr - This probably isn't great news for Labour at this election.
Labour's fully costed grey book just helpfully misses out,
Labour’s £400 billion ‘national transformation fund’ – including a £250 billion Green Transformation Fund and a £150 Social Transformation Fund Their 4-day working week – estimated to cost £17 billion a year in public sector wages All Labour’s nationalisation programmes, including water, rail, energy and the royal mail – estimated by the CBI to cost £196 billion
Alex Salmond charged with offences against 10 different women.
14 sexual charges altogether
In sex cases prosecutors talk of the power of 3. If you have 3 complainers alleging similar conduct then even if one of them proves to be a bit suspect juries convict. 10 ? Jeez.
10 is also a lot of women to put through the ordeal of giving evidence against a powerful man with expensive lawyers. If Salmond knows he is guilty of at least some of these charges, pleading not guilty to them is a despicable thing to inflict.
Pointless of me to point out, I suppose, that he is innocent until proved guilty and is entitled to put the prosecution to proof. If, say, “Not Guilty” turns out to be the verdict, it is also pretty despicable - though I would not use the term - for him to have been put through this ordeal.
He has been charged. There will be a trial. It will be an ordeal for all involved because that is the nature of trials, however well prepared or well conducted they are. Let the prosecution put their case. And let him use all lawful means to defend himself.
Quite. Wishing things would not be such an ordeal is not a good reason to wish due process and even ability to defend should not be taken up.
It could well be the northern Labour vote is way more leavey than Election_Data model suggests. If he's used straight linear programming transition models and assumed a homogeneity of the broad labour tapestry across the nation, changed by the remain/leave vote within constituencies. I think the baseline northern Tory vote actually might be more remain than assumed too - the switchers are definitely heavy leave but pre-existing vote (2015) is heavily heavily correlated with wealth/deprivation rather than anything to do with leave or remain.
tl dr - This probably isn't great news for Labour at this election.
What do you reckon is the low end projection for Labour seats now?
It DOES cause it. Legalisation would be madness. All my friends and I did cannabis (and in every case it led to taking stronger drugs) as teenagers, and for some the damage was irreversible, for many it led to anxiety and depression, for others, alcohol dependency. Now we are mostly parents ourselves, the thought of the kids going through what we did is unthinkable.
Drugs are already legal anyway. You dont get nicked for possession. If drug users were pursued by police in the way other criminals are, City bars would be raided every Friday night, but they aren't, because they aren't. Middle class folk can enjoy a joint or a line as they wish with no fear of prosecution.
Since drug use isn't prosecuted what is the point of keeping the drugs illegal?
It isn't drug consumption the current laws affect as you say it is the supply of drugs that current drug laws affect. We are not debating Singaporean-style prosecution of drug consumption.
So on the supply side: Is it better to have drugs supplied by deadly criminal gangs and criminal enterprises? Or is it better to have drugs supplied by legitimate businesses that are taxed and regulated?
Well, I think they should be prosecuted, so legalising it is the complete reverse of what I want.
On the supply side, better to prosecute the criminal gangs and sentence them harshly to deter others from following their path.
We do prosecute criminal gangs but that just generally leds to groomed pawns low in the gang getting caught or stabbing people and the wealthy gangsters get away with it and make a fortune. Do you seriously think we can win the war on drugs?
We know tobacco is awful for you but we can tax, regulate and educate with that and that is leading to consumption rates falling. And we don't get people stabbing each other on the streets due to tobacco. Why not follow the evidence and do what works - the evidence is that consumption rates FALL with proper education and legalisation and that criminality falls with legalisation.
All very much like the others now. Labour on 22-24% was always nonsense. Labour nearer 30%, Tories appear to be through the 40% mark seems to be the real situation.
If you want Brexit to happen, you're gonna have to vote for Boris. If you don't want any risk of coalitions headed by Corbyn, you're gonna have to vote for Boris. That's what the polls are all telling us. And mid-forties want Brexit/don't want Corbyn. Possibly still a way to go.....
The more I see of JS, the more I see her as a liability. I don't know who that helps most, probably Labour which is definitely more Remainy than the Tories and the other fringe parties are vote wasters.
Why on earth do parties still produce manifestos in long text form, rather than a slide deck so that the text can be accompanied/supplemented with images and graphics? It would make them much more readable and digestible by the public. As it is, I assume most people who read them are already 100% sure who they're voting for.
An exec summary highlighting the key policy announcements from each section would help greatly as well.
If it was something easy to navigate you might find out what their policies are and think about it :-).
Just listening to the Corbyn performance.
Apparently it is outrageous that rail now gets more total subsidy than under BR. Yes, Jeremy - passengers have nearly trebled.
And the water companies have an awful leak performance because they are privatised. Yes Jeremy, the worst leak performance is in Scotland where it is *not* privatised.
At this point I gave up.
It’s not true, rail subsidy is now below privatisation and has been since about 2014.
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
If the allegations prove to be true, it seems hard to believe that Nicola would not have been aware of his behaviour.
I know it's an obvious statement but with 10 different accusers it's got to be highly unlikely that none of them are true.
(You're assuming independence)
Salmond's problem is that he wrongly assumed independence.
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
If the allegations prove to be true, it seems hard to believe that Nicola would not have been aware of his behaviour.
I know it's an obvious statement but with 10 different accusers it's got to be highly unlikely that none of them are true.
Hopefully their identities are kept under wraps.
Was thinking about that earlier. For the accusers, there's a non-zero possibility that their life gets turned upside-down despite the laws in place on identification. Hope they're getting counselling.
The advantage of legalisation over decriminalisation is that it puts the street dealers out of business. They are the ones that are beyond the reach of the state to regulate, who up the strength for bigger and bigger hits, who sell to children, who push their customers onto harder drugs. If the bulk of informed, adult, casual users instead go through legal channels, they will not have the demand to cover their fixed costs.
I also cannot see the "Right to Buy" for Private Tenants in the manifesto, either.
And the planned attack on Independent Schools seems to have been watered down.
But the Financial Transactions Tax seems to have rocket boosters attached. I think that's the one that the EU forecast would lose money overall.
There was a lot of modelling around in 11/12 when the EU proposed it. Basically it’s easily avoided and just loses you cash. You don’t do it to raise cash, you do it to close certain businesses in the U.K. Of course they just go elsewhere.
PBers may not have noticed, but the 2 largest UK LL organisations have merged and the NRLA now has nearly 100k members. No idea whether they will be more combative in legal strategy - need to follow the model of Great Jumping Jolyon, but win.
It could well be the northern Labour vote is way more leavey than Election_Data model suggests. If he's used straight linear programming transition models and assumed a homogeneity of the broad labour tapestry across the nation, changed by the remain/leave vote within constituencies. I think the baseline northern Tory vote actually might be more remain than assumed too - the switchers are definitely heavy leave but pre-existing vote (2015) is heavily heavily correlated with wealth/deprivation rather than anything to do with leave or remain.
tl dr - This probably isn't great news for Labour at this election.
What do you reckon is the low end projection for Labour seats now?
I'm not sure, my model has them at 183 at the moment. It also has the Lib Dems at err... 2.
Is it know what stage the impeachment process will have reached when Trump visits London a week before the election?
If the house votes for articles then it might be in front of the Senate for full trial, I think that will probably be the week after the GE though......
"‘Data scientists’ are gradually replacing those grand ‘pollsters’ who used to offer confident insights with a neat turn of phrase. These new number nerds are likely to be under 30 and might well know nothing about politics. Instead of simple surveys and uniform national swings, they are using complex statistical models. For people whose bread and butter relies on being seen as a savvy political ‘expert’, all this amounts to an existential threat.
The most powerful data modelling technique in politics at the moment, is something called MRP. It stands for “multilevel regression with post-stratification” — not exactly catchy — and the number of people who fully understand it in the UK can be counted on two hands."
Oh, bollocks. MRP can be understood by any computer science undergrad or maths/stats undergrad in the country and can be run by any 18yr old with a laptop and the ability to download and run R or Python. Hell, I cold do it if pushed. This is one of those "everybody panic and get the new skill" moments, isn't it?. It's not bloody magic.
God there are far too many non-STEM grads in politics.
Sorry, I'm whiny today...
Like the original source, you are over exaggerating, but mainly because the undergrads haven't learnt enough material to get to grips with the details yet.
So lets say, the best CompSci or Maths/Stats undergraduates could learn these methods if they put their mind to it. An average Masters student could and most PhD students in a suitable field could understand the details of MRP. I agree that the MRP can be run on affordable hardware and the software is free.
This does not mean "and the number of people who fully understand it in the UK can be counted on two hands" is per se false as "fully understand" and the present tense play a role.
Anyway MRP is not really where the cutting edge machine learning models are at. The latter are using massive amounts of data scraped from our use of smartphone apps etc.
They can always roll back the pledge when reality if difficult bureaucracy hits. The key is to be clear in how much they hatexitcdo people who hate it know they are on the right side.
Cons have snapped up the web address https://www.labourmanifesto.co.uk/ -- which is actually the Tories having a pop at Labour. That said, they do make that clear on the front page of the site.
That has to be the worst piece of web design I've ever seen.
I believe that is the point...apparently....according to all the online social media gurus.
It's the same principle as that famous clip of boris saying it's a good tactic to given the Impression you are pretending you dont know what's going on as the the truth may be you dont but people cannot tell.
It means anything poor can be doubleguessed as part of a plan.
So bizarre Corbyn's policy of taking questions in 3 rather than just answering the question and moving to the next one.
That's standard at almost every public meeting I've been involved in for years, political and non-political. The idea is supposedly to give a sense of more audience involvement than having the speaker jumping in after every question/comment.
And gives the speaker an opportunity to only answer 2 of the questions and ignore the one that is too hard!
2017 Labour launched on 17th May, Tory on 18th May (I think).
Question is was it a positive response to Labour or negative to Tory? Did Labour rise or Tory sink, as the effect (assuming direct transfer of floaters) is the same.
Why on earth do parties still produce manifestos in long text form, rather than a slide deck so that the text can be accompanied/supplemented with images and graphics? It would make them much more readable and digestible by the public. As it is, I assume most people who read them are already 100% sure who they're voting for.
An exec summary highlighting the key policy announcements from each section would help greatly as well.
Newsflash: no one reads party manifestos apart from politics geeks.
"Labour will restore public sector pay to at least pre-financial crisis levels (in real terms), by delivering year-on-year above-inflation pay rises, starting with a 5% increase"
They better fire up the printing presses, as there is going to need to create a hell of a lot of money out of nowhere for all of this. This is absolute f##k all way this is all "fully costed", just by bashing a few billionaires.
I know. Fiscal irresponsibility. Tsk. How terrible. Lucky we have a fiscally conservative Conservative Party, isn't it. Lucky us...
That's not right. Own occupation is a mandatory ground under Section 8 and does not rely on a section 21 notice.
BUT abolishing section 21 would still be a quiet resolution - remember a lot of Landlords prefer to give a "no fault" two months than bother arguing breach is Court. Do we really want Courts to face may three or four times as many section 8 cases?
And there you see why BXP is as much as a problem for Labour as the Tories...
Brexit won't get 17% there, UKIP were massively overstated in consistuency polls in 2015 in seats like these. But the fundamental Lab-Con swing looks very plausible.
Why on earth do parties still produce manifestos in long text form, rather than a slide deck so that the text can be accompanied/supplemented with images and graphics? It would make them much more readable and digestible by the public. As it is, I assume most people who read them are already 100% sure who they're voting for.
An exec summary highlighting the key policy announcements from each section would help greatly as well.
I cannot read the labour one now but the better ones do have exec summaries, and the LDs site was preparing easy read and audio versions. I would imagine labour will too.
"Labour will restore public sector pay to at least pre-financial crisis levels (in real terms), by delivering year-on-year above-inflation pay rises, starting with a 5% increase"
They better fire up the printing presses, as there is going to need to create a hell of a lot of money out of nowhere for all of this. This is absolute f##k all way this is all "fully costed", just by bashing a few billionaires.
I know. Fiscal irresponsibility. Tsk. How terrible. Lucky we have a fiscally conservative Conservative Party, isn't it. Lucky us...
(Sobs quietly)
The Tories appear to have found a magic money tree to harvest, Labour are proposing to dig up an Amazon forest worth of them They aren't including over £600 billion of extra spending in their "fully costed" grey book.
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
If the allegations prove to be true, it seems hard to believe that Nicola would not have been aware of his behaviour.
I know it's an obvious statement but with 10 different accusers it's got to be highly unlikely that none of them are true.
It DOES cause it. Legalisation would be madness. All my friends and I did cannabis (and in every case it led to taking stronger drugs) as teenagers, and for some the damage was irreversible, for many it led to anxiety and depression, for others, alcohol dependency. Now we are mostly parents ourselves, the thought of the kids going through what we did is unthinkable.
Drugs are already legal anyway. You dont get nicked for possession. If drug users were pursued by police in the way other criminals are, City bars would be raided every Friday night, but they aren't, because they aren't. Middle class folk can enjoy a joint or a line as they wish with no fear of prosecution.
Since drug use isn't prosecuted what is the point of keeping the drugs illegal?
It isn't drug consumption the current laws affect as you say it is the supply of drugs that current drug laws affect. We are not debating Singaporean-style prosecution of drug consumption.
So on the supply side: Is it better to have drugs supplied by deadly criminal gangs and criminal enterprises? Or is it better to have drugs supplied by legitimate businesses that are taxed and regulated?
Well, I think they should be prosecuted, so legalising it is the complete reverse of what I want.
On the supply side, better to prosecute the criminal gangs and sentence them harshly to deter others from following their path.
We do prosecute criminal gangs but that just generally leds to groomed pawns low in the gang getting caught or stabbing people and the wealthy gangsters get away with it and make a fortune. Do you seriously think we can win the war on drugs?
We know tobacco is awful for you but we can tax, regulate and educate with that and that is leading to consumption rates falling. And we don't get people stabbing each other on the streets due to tobacco. Why not follow the evidence and do what works - the evidence is that consumption rates FALL with proper education and legalisation and that criminality falls with legalisation.
We know NOW that tobacco is awful for you, and have been clamping down on the places is can be used, its sale and advertisement as a result. Now fewer people smoke. We look back in amazement that it was ever advertised and that smoking was permitted in pubs, on planes and tubes. We already know that cannabis is a dangerous drug, so why allow its promotion?
"‘Data scientists’ are gradually replacing those grand ‘pollsters’ who used to offer confident insights with a neat turn of phrase. These new number nerds are likely to be under 30 and might well know nothing about politics. Instead of simple surveys and uniform national swings, they are using complex statistical models. For people whose bread and butter relies on being seen as a savvy political ‘expert’, all this amounts to an existential threat.
The most powerful data modelling technique in politics at the moment, is something called MRP. It stands for “multilevel regression with post-stratification” — not exactly catchy — and the number of people who fully understand it in the UK can be counted on two hands."
Oh, bollocks. MRP can be understood by any computer science undergrad or maths/stats undergrad in the country and can be run by any 18yr old with a laptop and the ability to download and run R or Python. Hell, I cold do it if pushed. This is one of those "everybody panic and get the new skill" moments, isn't it?. It's not bloody magic.
God there are far too many non-STEM grads in politics.
Sorry, I'm whiny today...
Like the original source, you are over exaggerating, but mainly because the undergrads haven't learnt enough material to get to grips with the details yet.
Are youpu sure about that? The open source stuff had been around since the Noughties, MRPs been written up since 2010, it was used in 2017 and undergrads learn fast. I seriously doubt the number of people who could do it is in single figures, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were hundreds?
2017 Labour launched on 17th May, Tory on 18th May (I think).
Question is was it a positive response to Labour or negative to Tory? Did Labour rise or Tory sink, as the effect (assuming direct transfer of floaters) is the same.
IIRC, the Labour poll rating was a steady increase, with few bumps.
The gap closed markedly when the Tories share slumped.
It DOES cause it. Legalisation would be madness. All my friends and I did cannabis (and in every case it led to taking stronger drugs) as teenagers, and for some the damage was irreversible, for many it led to anxiety and depression, for others, alcohol dependency. Now we are mostly parents ourselves, the thought of the kids going through what we did is unthinkable.
Drugs are already legal anyway. You dont get nicked for possession. If drug users were pursued by police in the way other criminals are, City bars would be raided every Friday night, but they aren't, because they aren't. Middle class folk can enjoy a joint or a line as they wish with no fear of prosecution.
Since drug use isn't prosecuted what is the point of keeping the drugs illegal?
It isn't drug consumption the current laws affect as you say it is the supply of drugs that current drug laws affect. We are not debating Singaporean-style prosecution of drug consumption.
So on the supply side: Is it better to have drugs supplied by deadly criminal gangs and criminal enterprises? Or is it better to have drugs supplied by legitimate businesses that are taxed and regulated?
Well, I think they should be prosecuted, so legalising it is the complete reverse of what I want.
On the supply side, better to prosecute the criminal gangs and sentence them harshly to deter others from following their path.
We do prosecute criminal gangs but that just generally leds to groomed pawns low in the gang getting caught or stabbing people and the wealthy gangsters get away with it and make a fortune. Do you seriously think we can win the war on drugs?
We know tobacco is awful for you but we can tax, regulate and educate with that and that is leading to consumption rates falling. And we don't get people stabbing each other on the streets due to tobacco. Why not follow the evidence and do what works - the evidence is that consumption rates FALL with proper education and legalisation and that criminality falls with legalisation.
We know NOW that tobacco is awful for you, and have been clamping down on the places is can be used, its sale and advertisement as a result. Now fewer people smoke. We look back in amazement that it was ever advertised and that smoking was permitted in pubs, on planes and tubes. We already know that cannabis is a dangerous drug, so why allow its promotion?
Because the negatives from lmaking it illegal out weigh the negatives from making it legal.
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
If the allegations prove to be true, it seems hard to believe that Nicola would not have been aware of his behaviour.
I know it's an obvious statement but with 10 different accusers it's got to be highly unlikely that none of them are true.
(You're assuming independence)
Salmond's problem is that he wrongly assumed independence.
We do prosecute criminal gangs but that just generally leds to groomed pawns low in the gang getting caught or stabbing people and the wealthy gangsters get away with it and make a fortune. Do you seriously think we can win the war on drugs?
We know tobacco is awful for you but we can tax, regulate and educate with that and that is leading to consumption rates falling. And we don't get people stabbing each other on the streets due to tobacco. Why not follow the evidence and do what works - the evidence is that consumption rates FALL with proper education and legalisation and that criminality falls with legalisation.
We know NOW that tobacco is awful for you, and have been clamping down on the places is can be used, its sale and advertisement as a result. Now fewer people smoke. We look back in amazement that it was ever advertised and that smoking was permitted in pubs, on planes and tubes. We already know that cannabis is a dangerous drug, so why allow its promotion?
Who is saying allow its promotion?
I would make cannabis like tobacco. Promoting it would be illegal, efforts to educate and discourage people from purchasing it, help to those who need it to quit taking it. Tax it and use that tax to discourage consumption and mitigate its harm.
But crucially if people want to get it despite it being harmful they can get it from legal sources and not from knife wielding gangs.
Meanwhile, a separate YouGov poll for The Times found that Mr Corbyn's plans to nationalise broadband were opposed by 41 per cent of people with 29 per cent in favour.
A seperate poll shows wide scepticism about the 4 day week and other policies proposed by Labour.
2017 Labour launched on 17th May, Tory on 18th May (I think).
Question is was it a positive response to Labour or negative to Tory? Did Labour rise or Tory sink, as the effect (assuming direct transfer of floaters) is the same.
IIRC, the Labour poll rating was a steady increase, with few bumps.
The gap closed markedly when the Tories share slumped.
Someone had a great rolling graph of it.
Indeed we need @RobD to update his graph with today's new polls.
So the Tories will gain Great Grimsby then thanks to Labour voters voting Brexit Party
Well perhaps. But I would argue most of those voters aren't going back to Lab now in the absence of BXP. Most likely, they won't vote, or willdraw a cock and balls on the ballot paper.
For reference the swing in Grimsby proposed, if repeated elsewhere, would see Labour losing its first 100 defences, and the Tories pushing their 120th target with up to target 150 or so 'in play' It would be apocalyptic for Labour if this sort of swing occurs and replicates in the North and Midlands Erdington, Edgbaston, Warrington, Workington, Hartlepool, Batley and Spen all gone for example
2017 Labour launched on 17th May, Tory on 18th May (I think).
Question is was it a positive response to Labour or negative to Tory? Did Labour rise or Tory sink, as the effect (assuming direct transfer of floaters) is the same.
IIRC, the Labour poll rating was a steady increase, with few bumps.
The gap closed markedly when the Tories share slumped.
Someone had a great rolling graph of it.
Indeed we need @RobD to update his graph with today's new polls.
We do prosecute criminal gangs but that just generally leds to groomed pawns low in the gang getting caught or stabbing people and the wealthy gangsters get away with it and make a fortune. Do you seriously think we can win the war on drugs?
We know tobacco is awful for you but we can tax, regulate and educate with that and that is leading to consumption rates falling. And we don't get people stabbing each other on the streets due to tobacco. Why not follow the evidence and do what works - the evidence is that consumption rates FALL with proper education and legalisation and that criminality falls with legalisation.
We know NOW that tobacco is awful for you, and have been clamping down on the places is can be used, its sale and advertisement as a result. Now fewer people smoke. We look back in amazement that it was ever advertised and that smoking was permitted in pubs, on planes and tubes. We already know that cannabis is a dangerous drug, so why allow its promotion?
Tabacco is legal and controlled. If canabis were legal it wuold be controlled, which it is not at the moment. Making it legal does not mean that companies will be able to promote it like Tabacco in the 60s and 70s.
The prohibition of alcohol in the USA was a huge disaster. I just can't see why people are not able to see the same disaster with the prohibition of narcotics.
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
If the allegations prove to be true, it seems hard to believe that Nicola would not have been aware of his behaviour.
I know it's an obvious statement but with 10 different accusers it's got to be highly unlikely that none of them are true.
Comments
God there are far too many non-STEM grads in politics.
Sorry, I'm whiny today...
CON 42.4%
LAB 35.9%
L DEM 13.1%
BREXIT 8.5%
But it does not take account of leave/remain differential swing, or the Brexit party standing down anywhere.
"Good luck with that."
edit yes, they did
https://vote.conservatives.com/our-priorities
It isn't drug consumption the current laws affect as you say it is the supply of drugs that current drug laws affect. We are not debating Singaporean-style prosecution of drug consumption.
So on the supply side: Is it better to have drugs supplied by deadly criminal gangs and criminal enterprises? Or is it better to have drugs supplied by legitimate businesses that are taxed and regulated?
CON: 44% (+2)
LAB: 31% (-18)
BREX: 17% (+17)
LDEM: 4% (+1)
GRN: 3% (+3)
via @Survation, 14 - 15 Nov
Chgs. w/ GE2017
https://t.co/qCOXtmzY49
They better fire up the printing presses, as there is going to need to create a hell of a lot of money out of nowhere for all of this. This is absolute f##k all way this is all "fully costed", just by bashing a few billionaires.
Expect inveterate whinging just like the "Tory Fact Check", but that game was played both ways last time.
On the supply side, better to prosecute the criminal gangs and sentence them harshly to deter others from following their path.
I think the baseline northern Tory vote actually might be more remain than assumed too - the switchers are definitely heavy leave but pre-existing vote (2015) is heavily heavily correlated with wealth/deprivation rather than anything to do with leave or remain.
tl dr - This probably isn't great news for Labour at this election.
Labour’s £400 billion ‘national transformation fund’ – including a £250 billion Green Transformation Fund and a £150 Social Transformation Fund
Their 4-day working week – estimated to cost £17 billion a year in public sector wages
All Labour’s nationalisation programmes, including water, rail, energy and the royal mail – estimated by the CBI to cost £196 billion
Just minor things like that.
We know tobacco is awful for you but we can tax, regulate and educate with that and that is leading to consumption rates falling. And we don't get people stabbing each other on the streets due to tobacco. Why not follow the evidence and do what works - the evidence is that consumption rates FALL with proper education and legalisation and that criminality falls with legalisation.
Coldplay to pause touring until concerts are 'environmentally beneficial'
And the planned attack on Independent Schools seems to have been watered down.
But the Financial Transactions Tax seems to have rocket boosters attached. I think that's the one that the EU forecast would lose money overall.
LOL the new 'Super Rich tax rate' after £125,000pa. I am an ordinary working class person from London and I have earned in excess of that!
It also has the Lib Dems at err... 2.
One landlord I know must have 100's of children.
So lets say, the best CompSci or Maths/Stats undergraduates could learn these methods if they put their mind to it. An average Masters student could and most PhD students in a suitable field could understand the details of MRP. I agree that the MRP can be run on affordable hardware and the software is free.
This does not mean "and the number of people who fully understand it in the UK can be counted on two hands" is per se false as "fully understand" and the present tense play a role.
Anyway MRP is not really where the cutting edge machine learning models are at. The latter are using massive amounts of data scraped from our use of smartphone apps etc.
It means anything poor can be doubleguessed as part of a plan.
Question is was it a positive response to Labour or negative to Tory? Did Labour rise or Tory sink, as the effect (assuming direct transfer of floaters) is the same.
(Sobs quietly)
BUT abolishing section 21 would still be a quiet resolution - remember a lot of Landlords prefer to give a "no fault" two months than bother arguing breach is Court. Do we really want Courts to face may three or four times as many section 8 cases?
We want Boris and Brexit not your green investment shit
I do hope they get taken to task for it this time
Just my opinion.
But the fundamental Lab-Con swing looks very plausible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark
"I know it's an obvious statement but with 10 different accusers it's got to be highly unlikely that none of them are true."
No - this doesn`t follow - see "where there`s smoke there`s fire" fallacy.
The gap closed markedly when the Tories share slumped.
Someone had a great rolling graph of it.
Food processing is Grimsby's mainstay now.
"I have now got the 'Funding for Changes' document
LOL the new 'Super Rich tax rate' after £125,000pa. I am an ordinary working class person from London and I have earned in excess of that!"
Same here - yet only one of my kids has a pony!
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1197494831142060032?s=20
I would make cannabis like tobacco. Promoting it would be illegal, efforts to educate and discourage people from purchasing it, help to those who need it to quit taking it. Tax it and use that tax to discourage consumption and mitigate its harm.
But crucially if people want to get it despite it being harmful they can get it from legal sources and not from knife wielding gangs.
Meanwhile, a separate YouGov poll for The Times found that Mr Corbyn's plans to nationalise broadband were opposed by 41 per cent of people with 29 per cent in favour.
A seperate poll shows wide scepticism about the 4 day week and other policies proposed by Labour.
Like no mention of the £0.4 trillion ‘national transformation fund’!
Or their nationalisation programmes, including water, rail, energy and the royal mail – another £0.2 trillion or so.
Part of a trillion here, part of a trillion there - you're soon talking serious money...
Supporting kids and wife with various health problems is expensive Labour and you certainly ain't going to pay for it
Labour - work hard and we will screw you for it and take the inheritance you want to provide your kids.
Thanks Labour!
It would be apocalyptic for Labour if this sort of swing occurs and replicates in the North and Midlands
Erdington, Edgbaston, Warrington, Workington, Hartlepool, Batley and Spen all gone for example
Last update I could find: https://i.imgur.com/1eWkCUt.png
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/18049217.drunken-ukranian-sailors-court-hearing-delayed-secures-visa-uk/
And the story is exactly as it says - the man was refused entry when flying into the UK to be sentenced.
The only thing I'm not sure about is why on earth was he flying back in to be sentenced?
If canabis were legal it wuold be controlled, which it is not at the moment.
Making it legal does not mean that companies will be able to promote it like Tabacco in the 60s and 70s.
The prohibition of alcohol in the USA was a huge disaster. I just can't see why people are not able to see the same disaster with the prohibition of narcotics.