If it doesn't deliver a quick positive response from the base (or god forbid provokes a negative response from them) I think any proposals can safely be assumed to not appeal to Boris.
It's like the first cuckoo of spring etc etc. Tory chancellor floats pension relief cut as a flying kite. Within nanoseconds he is brought back to earth.
Still. Points for trying yet again Javid.
I don't know about that. If your position is under threat and you are a tad short of supporters does something like this help?
My understanding is that he was tasked with finding a way of stuffing yet more gold into the mouths of doctors who are blaming pension restrictions for their early retirement, a challenge that makes feeding the average fois gras goose look a dawdle.
Much better than a party winning a landslide on <<50% of the vote!</p>
No, to govern is to choose. If you are choosing between (say) three totally incompatible programmes, you don't get a better result via a parliament where none of them can be implemented.
Yes you do. You get a compromise that satisfies more people
As we saw in the previous parliament?
The previous UK parliament was created by FPTP, in case you hadn't noticed. Countries with sane electoral systems looked on with horror at our MPs' inability to behave like grown-ups, compromise, or, for that matter, count.
This huge cut in pension relief sound like a turd of an idea from Saj
There is a possibility that he is being employed in government as a shit-sponge: any time something distasteful is necessary, he soaks up the blame. Sometimes known as the "Clegg".
Starting to get worried about the Bloomberg shaped hole in my book.
Have you thought about hedging by placing a bet on him winning the Presidential election?
If he wins the nomination I think the nominees odds will shift and I reckon whoever wins the nomination, bar Sanders, will start leading the polls which will see the odds come in further.
"Two separate sources told The Telegraph that ideas to raise more tax from better-off homeowners had been discussed on separate occasions in the past few weeks at the highest levels of the Treasury and No 10."
Don’t make fun of South Bend, Pete Buttigieg says. LEBANON — Amplifying his comments from earlier in the day, Pete Buttigieg took umbrage with some of the attacks on his résumé, painting them as critiques of the “industrial Midwest” he grew up in.
“We’re tired of being reduced to a punchline by Washington politicians who want to see themselves in our stories,” said Mr. Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind.
Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. offered a blunt message on Saturday for anyone thinking that former Mayor Pete Buttigieg resembles another young Democratic politician who once sought the presidency.
“This guy’s not a Barack Obama,” Mr. Biden said at a news conference at a campaign office in Manchester, on a day in which he ramped up his attacks on Mr. Buttigieg.
Seems like the EPL are ruling out creating their own PremFlix for the UK market any time soon. I am surprised they don't just partner with somebody like Amazon for the tech side of things and cut out Sky / BT (and now no EU, they don't have to worry about the whole monopoly provider thing).
Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. offered a blunt message on Saturday for anyone thinking that former Mayor Pete Buttigieg resembles another young Democratic politician who once sought the presidency.
“This guy’s not a Barack Obama,” Mr. Biden said at a news conference at a campaign office in Manchester, on a day in which he ramped up his attacks on Mr. Buttigieg.
The Treasury must have a file that reads 'Let's Cut Pension Relief' on a shelf, which they bring out every Budget. This has being going on since at least the Norman era.
Never happens.
It does, by salami slicing.
My guess is this is deliberate. Javis wants to show he gets Boris's radicalism (and thus avoid a sacking next week) and also test the political boundaries of how far he might be able to go with tax reform.
Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. offered a blunt message on Saturday for anyone thinking that former Mayor Pete Buttigieg resembles another young Democratic politician who once sought the presidency.
“This guy’s not a Barack Obama,” Mr. Biden said at a news conference at a campaign office in Manchester, on a day in which he ramped up his attacks on Mr. Buttigieg.
Obama was less liberal ?
Biden's main theme is he was Obama's Veep. Nothing wrong with that, but I am coming around to OGH's view that he is way past it.
The whole Dem primary is mad. Where are the 50 year olds who can win?
The paper seems to suggest it is a mansion tax being discussed by the politicians, while pension relief changes are only on a list of options drawn up by civil servants.
Starting to get worried about the Bloomberg shaped hole in my book.
Have you thought about hedging by placing a bet on him winning the Presidential election?
If he wins the nomination I think the nominees odds will shift and I reckon whoever wins the nomination, bar Sanders, will start leading the polls which will see the odds come in further.
On Betfair, at least, Bloomberg's better chances of beating Trump is already there in the market, so I'm not sure there's value there.
Midpoint is 10.15 for the presidency, 5.55 for the nomination, so an implied probability of well over 50% of beating Trump.
For all of the others, it is a lot less than 50%. Sanders is not especially low. Actually slightly better than Buttigieg.
While I'm sure it is exciting to be a part of an excited, packed crowd listening to a dynamic or engaging speaker, I'm never clear how impressed I am supposed to be when we know some pretty awful people can also get good crowds to listen to them, even if electorally they do poorly.
Is OGH going to tell us how much he has got on Mayo Pete (told you I'd steal it!) It's just that I can think of a precedent for him putting early money on an improbable candidate...
I predicted FG (most seats) Vs SF in the match bet.
I also think FF & SF coalition.
Looks like Varadkar has pulled it off in Ireland, taking 1st place on the exit poll while the final poll had him 3rd (again he did better on preferred PM than FG did on the main poll)
Is OGH going to tell us how much he has got on Mayo Pete (told you I'd steal it!) It's just that I can think of a precedent for him putting early money on an improbable candidate...
Dunno. But on my wallet, I can tell you that Pete becomes POTUS means a new iphone and a week away for my better half.
While I'm sure it is exciting to be a part of an excited, packed crowd listening to a dynamic or engaging speaker, I'm never clear how impressed I am supposed to be when we know some pretty awful people can also get good crowds to listen to them, even if electorally they do poorly.
Look at the crowds there used to be for Jeremy Corbyn.
The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
But they'll end up with unequal seat numbers. Their ridiculous system is not proportional.
Actually it's remarkable proportional (once you reach about 6%), oddly enough. I did a straight-line fit to the 2011 and 2016 seat proportions vs vote shares for the top five parties and it was a very good fit: R-squared 0.92.
This time will be a bit different because of SF not standing enough candidates.
It should not be considered remarkable that a system billed as PR gives a proportional result.
It simply is not a proportional system. Parties having to guess how many candidates to field, voters voting tactically, and of course the nonsensical method of sloshing buckets of votes around from one recipient to another.
I strongly support PR. But not this.
It's not PR. It's much better, because the legitimate criticisms of PR don't apply. You vote for individuals, and you can express 2nd, 3rd etc preferences.
Yeah, and the net effect in terms of not being able to form a coherent government which anyone actually voted, and with lots of pork-barreling and undue influence by bizarre minor players, for is exactly like a pure PR system.
Much better than a party winning a landslide on <<50% of the vote!</p>
The government, whoever ends up in office, will be one that precisely no-one voted for. Once you get more than two parties, there are no good voting systems.
Except FPTP. The main purpose of which is to force the parties to agree on their coalitions before facing the electorate, not after.
It's still comfortably the least worst system available. I don't know how many European countries need to demonstrate why no proportional system works properly in order to satisfy their proponents here.
I'm not sure what rock you need to have been living under for the last few years to believe that our electoral system is superior to Ireland's (to name one of many better alternatives).
While I'm sure it is exciting to be a part of an excited, packed crowd listening to a dynamic or engaging speaker, I'm never clear how impressed I am supposed to be when we know some pretty awful people can also get good crowds to listen to them, even if electorally they do poorly.
Look at the crowds there used to be for Jeremy Corbyn.
Can someone tell the morons at SKY that the number of people that die from infection is only one part of the story and the amount of people that actually acquire have the infection is just as important.
I predicted FG (most seats) Vs SF in the match bet.
I also think FF & SF coalition.
Looks like Varadkar has pulled it off in Ireland, taking 1st place on the exit poll while the final poll had him 3rd (again he did better on preferred PM than FG did on the main poll)
He hasn't, a 0.1% lead in an exit poll in a STV election won't get him most seats or able to lead a viable coalition.
I don't think changing the name of an honour in such a fashion would matter all that much to people, since the honours themselves and even the acronym would not change, but if I were her I'd be worried that such an inconsequential proposal is one of the most prominent things coming out of her campaign. It's such an odd thing to have even come up in the first place.
Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. offered a blunt message on Saturday for anyone thinking that former Mayor Pete Buttigieg resembles another young Democratic politician who once sought the presidency.
“This guy’s not a Barack Obama,” Mr. Biden said at a news conference at a campaign office in Manchester, on a day in which he ramped up his attacks on Mr. Buttigieg.
I think that's a very unwise line of attack from Biden, because it mostly emphasises that - ummm - he's no Obama either.
I predicted FG (most seats) Vs SF in the match bet.
I also think FF & SF coalition.
Looks like Varadkar has pulled it off in Ireland, taking 1st place on the exit poll while the final poll had him 3rd (again he did better on preferred PM than FG did on the main poll)
He hasn't, a 0.1% lead in an exit poll in a STV election won't get him most seats or able to lead a viable coalition.
He has most seats it seems and FF won't deal with SF
Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. offered a blunt message on Saturday for anyone thinking that former Mayor Pete Buttigieg resembles another young Democratic politician who once sought the presidency.
“This guy’s not a Barack Obama,” Mr. Biden said at a news conference at a campaign office in Manchester, on a day in which he ramped up his attacks on Mr. Buttigieg.
I think that's a very unwise line of attack from Biden, because it mostly emphasises that - ummm - he's no Obama either.
I am beginning to wonder whether Biden's whole strategy is 'I was Obama's Veep'
No way is that enough.
I feel chastened, since I have said many times on here ( a year or so ago) that only Biden can win.
I predicted FG (most seats) Vs SF in the match bet.
I also think FF & SF coalition.
Looks like Varadkar has pulled it off in Ireland, taking 1st place on the exit poll while the final poll had him 3rd (again he did better on preferred PM than FG did on the main poll)
He hasn't, a 0.1% lead in an exit poll in a STV election won't get him most seats or able to lead a viable coalition.
He has most seats it seems and FF won't deal with SF
Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. offered a blunt message on Saturday for anyone thinking that former Mayor Pete Buttigieg resembles another young Democratic politician who once sought the presidency.
“This guy’s not a Barack Obama,” Mr. Biden said at a news conference at a campaign office in Manchester, on a day in which he ramped up his attacks on Mr. Buttigieg.
I think that's a very unwise line of attack from Biden...
I thought it was just wet. You'd hardly call it "cutting".
I predicted FG (most seats) Vs SF in the match bet.
I also think FF & SF coalition.
Looks like Varadkar has pulled it off in Ireland, taking 1st place on the exit poll while the final poll had him 3rd (again he did better on preferred PM than FG did on the main poll)
He hasn't, a 0.1% lead in an exit poll in a STV election won't get him most seats or able to lead a viable coalition.
He has most seats it seems and FF won't deal with SF
The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
But they'll end up with unequal seat numbers. Their ridiculous system is not proportional.
Actually it's remarkable proportional (once you reach about 6%), oddly enough. I did a straight-line fit to the 2011 and 2016 seat proportions vs vote shares for the top five parties and it was a very good fit: R-squared 0.92.
This time will be a bit different because of SF not standing enough candidates.
It should not be considered remarkable that a system billed as PR gives a proportional result.
It simply is not a proportional system. Parties having to guess how many candidates to field, voters voting tactically, and of course the nonsensical method of sloshing buckets of votes around from one recipient to another.
I strongly support PR. But not this.
It's not PR. It's much better, because the legitimate criticisms of PR don't apply. You vote for individuals, and you can express 2nd, 3rd etc preferences.
Yeah, and the net effect in terms of not being able to form a coherent government which anyone actually voted, and with lots of pork-barreling and undue influence by bizarre minor players, for is exactly like a pure PR system.
Much better than a party winning a landslide on <<50% of the vote!</p>
The government, whoever ends up in office, will be one that precisely no-one voted for. Once you get more than two parties, there are no good voting systems.
Except FPTP. The main purpose of which is to force the parties to agree on their coalitions before facing the electorate, not after.
It's still comfortably the least worst system available. I don't know how many European countries need to demonstrate why no proportional system works properly in order to satisfy their proponents here.
I'm not sure what rock you need to have been living under for the last few years to believe that our electoral system is superior to Ireland's (to name one of many better alternatives).
The rock where we have a stable government for the next five years, as we have had for my entire life bar an unfortunate period between June 2017 and December 2019 (and arguably the run-up to the 1997 election)
I don't think changing the name of an honour in such a fashion would matter all that much to people, since the honours themselves and even the acronym would not change, but if I were her I'd be worried that such an inconsequential proposal is one of the most prominent things coming out of her campaign. It's such an odd thing to have even come up in the first place.
This is the Wikipedia effect. Honours are commonly spelled out, so that rather than saying Fred Smith was awarded a CBE, Wikipedia will say Fred was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire.
Here is Hugh Laurie's entry, which is the first name that sprung to mind. Try anyone else by all means. He was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in the 2007 New Year Honours and Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2018 New Year Honours, both for services to drama. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Laurie
The point is that the British Empire, which rightly or wrongly is controversial in some quarters, is made ludicrously and unfortunately prominent. Changing the name and keeping the initials and awards is a reasonable compromise. Persuading Wikipedia to change its house style would be an alternative.
Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. offered a blunt message on Saturday for anyone thinking that former Mayor Pete Buttigieg resembles another young Democratic politician who once sought the presidency.
“This guy’s not a Barack Obama,” Mr. Biden said at a news conference at a campaign office in Manchester, on a day in which he ramped up his attacks on Mr. Buttigieg.
Well, that's dumb. It's just going to help primary-goers draw the obvious parallels between Pete and Obama.
In fact it's such a basic failure of psychology it makes me wonder if Biden secretly wants Buttigieg to hoover up his vote as soon as possible so he can withdraw and retire, safe in the knowledge that he's helped knock Sanders off top spot for the nomination.
I don't think changing the name of an honour in such a fashion would matter all that much to people, since the honours themselves and even the acronym would not change, but if I were her I'd be worried that such an inconsequential proposal is one of the most prominent things coming out of her campaign. It's such an odd thing to have even come up in the first place.
This is the Wikipedia effect. Honours are commonly spelled out, so that rather than saying Fred Smith was awarded a CBE, Wikipedia will say Fred was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire.
Here is Hugh Laurie's entry, which is the first name that sprung to mind. Try anyone else by all means. He was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in the 2007 New Year Honours and Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2018 New Year Honours, both for services to drama. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Laurie
The point is that the British Empire, which rightly or wrongly is controversial in some quarters, is made ludicrously and unfortunately prominent. Changing the name and keeping the initials and awards is a reasonable compromise. Persuading Wikipedia to change its house style would be an alternative.
It is mental that being anti-colonialism apparently makes you anti-British. Britain is a wonderful country for all sorts of reasons, but oppressing a quarter of the world is not one of them.
The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
But they'll end up with unequal seat numbers. Their ridiculous system is not proportional.
Actually it's remarkable proportional (once you reach about 6%), oddly enough. I did a straight-line fit to the 2011 and 2016 seat proportions vs vote shares for the top five parties and it was a very good fit: R-squared 0.92.
This time will be a bit different because of SF not standing enough candidates.
It should not be considered remarkable that a system billed as PR gives a proportional result.
It simply is not a proportional system. Parties having to guess how many candidates to field, voters voting tactically, and of course the nonsensical method of sloshing buckets of votes around from one recipient to another.
I strongly support PR. But not this.
It's not PR. It's much better, because the legitimate criticisms of PR don't apply. You vote for individuals, and you can express 2nd, 3rd etc preferences.
Yeah, and the net effect in terms of not being able to form a coherent government which anyone actually voted, and with lots of pork-barreling and undue influence by bizarre minor players, for is exactly like a pure PR system.
Much better than a party winning a landslide on <<50% of the vote!</p>
The government, whoever ends up in office, will be one that precisely no-one voted for. Once you get more than two parties, there are no good voting systems.
Except FPTP. The main purpose of which is to force the parties to agree on their coalitions before facing the electorate, not after.
It's still comfortably the least worst system available. I don't know how many European countries need to demonstrate why no proportional system works properly in order to satisfy their proponents here.
Yes, that is the great strength of FPTP but with more than two parties, you lose the 50-ish per cent majorities. I did used to believe that FPTP forced two-party politics but it is hard to sustain that in recent decades. Arguably we have returned to two-party politics in England and Wales.
I don't think changing the name of an honour in such a fashion would matter all that much to people, since the honours themselves and even the acronym would not change, but if I were her I'd be worried that such an inconsequential proposal is one of the most prominent things coming out of her campaign. It's such an odd thing to have even come up in the first place.
This is the Wikipedia effect. Honours are commonly spelled out, so that rather than saying Fred Smith was awarded a CBE, Wikipedia will say Fred was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire.
Here is Hugh Laurie's entry, which is the first name that sprung to mind. Try anyone else by all means. He was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in the 2007 New Year Honours and Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2018 New Year Honours, both for services to drama. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Laurie
The point is that the British Empire, which rightly or wrongly is controversial in some quarters, is made ludicrously and unfortunately prominent. Changing the name and keeping the initials and awards is a reasonable compromise. Persuading Wikipedia to change its house style would be an alternative.
It is mental that being anti-colonialism apparently makes you anti-British. Britain is a wonderful country for all sorts of reasons, but oppressing a quarter of the world is not one of them.
Oh for goodness sake. No-one in this debate is "pro-colonial", as you well know. It's about whether you think the historical context around the actions taken during the Empire's history, coupled with the undoubted good that it accomplished, justifies maintaining the traditions associated with it, or not.
Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. offered a blunt message on Saturday for anyone thinking that former Mayor Pete Buttigieg resembles another young Democratic politician who once sought the presidency.
“This guy’s not a Barack Obama,” Mr. Biden said at a news conference at a campaign office in Manchester, on a day in which he ramped up his attacks on Mr. Buttigieg.
Well, that's dumb. It's just going to help primary-goers draw the obvious parallels between Pete and Obama.
In fact it's such a basic failure of psychology it makes me wonder if Biden secretly wants Buttigieg to hoover up his vote as soon as possible so he can withdraw and retire, safe in the knowledge that he's helped knock Sanders off top spot for the nomination.
This may be my book talking.
Joe Biden has twice before run for president and rapidly screwed up both times. I'd not read any deep political significance into his lousy campaign third time round.
I don't think changing the name of an honour in such a fashion would matter all that much to people, since the honours themselves and even the acronym would not change, but if I were her I'd be worried that such an inconsequential proposal is one of the most prominent things coming out of her campaign. It's such an odd thing to have even come up in the first place.
This is the Wikipedia effect. Honours are commonly spelled out, so that rather than saying Fred Smith was awarded a CBE, Wikipedia will say Fred was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire.
Here is Hugh Laurie's entry, which is the first name that sprung to mind. Try anyone else by all means. He was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in the 2007 New Year Honours and Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2018 New Year Honours, both for services to drama. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Laurie
The point is that the British Empire, which rightly or wrongly is controversial in some quarters, is made ludicrously and unfortunately prominent. Changing the name and keeping the initials and awards is a reasonable compromise. Persuading Wikipedia to change its house style would be an alternative.
It is mental that being anti-colonialism apparently makes you anti-British. Britain is a wonderful country for all sorts of reasons, but oppressing a quarter of the world is not one of them.
Oh for goodness sake. No-one in this debate is "pro-colonial", as you well know. It's about whether you think the historical context around the actions taken during the Empire's history, coupled with the undoubted good that it accomplished, justifies maintaining the traditions associated with it, or not.
The government, whoever ends up in office, will be one that precisely no-one voted for. Once you get more than two parties, there are no good voting systems.
Except FPTP. The main purpose of which is to force the parties to agree on their coalitions before facing the electorate, not after.
It's still comfortably the least worst system available. I don't know how many European countries need to demonstrate why no proportional system works properly in order to satisfy their proponents here.
Yes, that is the great strength of FPTP but with more than two parties, you lose the 50-ish per cent majorities. I did used to believe that FPTP forced two-party politics but it is hard to sustain that in recent decades. Arguably we have returned to two-party politics in England and Wales.
It's fair to say that the traditional left/right axis does seem to have gotten more complicated in recent years. Scotland is a good example of why, since there's no particular reason why the Yes/No votes should split along those lines. The elephant in the room there is that no system deals well with that sort of localised popularity (pure PR screws the SNP completely; regional based PR and STV give similar results to FPTP).
I would have expected that Brexit should do something similar in E&W, and it sort of looked like it might've done in 2017; but then 2019 mostly dismantled that theory.
The issue remains, I believe, that Labour still think the Lib Dems are some sort of Trojan horse for them, to suck in wealthy center left voters who don't see much for them from Labour, and the Lib Dems have no idea what they stand for at national level.
This is the Wikipedia effect. Honours are commonly spelled out, so that rather than saying Fred Smith was awarded a CBE, Wikipedia will say Fred was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire.
Here is Hugh Laurie's entry, which is the first name that sprung to mind. Try anyone else by all means. He was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in the 2007 New Year Honours and Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2018 New Year Honours, both for services to drama. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Laurie
The point is that the British Empire, which rightly or wrongly is controversial in some quarters, is made ludicrously and unfortunately prominent. Changing the name and keeping the initials and awards is a reasonable compromise. Persuading Wikipedia to change its house style would be an alternative.
Peter Mandelson made the same suggestion ("Order of British Excellence")
I'm starting to wonder about South Carolina. His polling there is... not great, but if he wins both NH and Nevada then he's surely going to be a whole lot closer?
Currently 15.5 available. Probably not worth it, I think.
UK Labour might have done better if people had the option to choose between different kinds of Labour politician, left or Blairite etc, and if they had had to negotiate after the election. The one thing PR will do for you is prick the ego of any one man who thinks he represents the whole people as their leader.
The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
But they'll end up with unequal seat numbers. Their ridiculous system is not proportional.
Actually it's remarkable proportional (once you reach about 6%), oddly enough. I did a straight-line fit to the 2011 and 2016 seat proportions vs vote shares for the top five parties and it was a very good fit: R-squared 0.92.
This time will be a bit different because of SF not standing enough candidates.
It should not be considered remarkable that a system billed as PR gives a proportional result.
It simply is not a proportional system. Parties having to guess how many candidates to field, voters voting tactically, and of course the nonsensical method of sloshing buckets of votes around from one recipient to another.
I strongly support PR. But not this.
It's not PR. It's much better, because the legitimate criticisms of PR don't apply. You vote for individuals, and you can express 2nd, 3rd etc preferences.
Yeah, and the net effect in terms of not being able to form a coherent government which anyone actually voted, and with lots of pork-barreling and undue influence by bizarre minor players, for is exactly like a pure PR system.
Much better than a party winning a landslide on <<50% of the vote!</p>
The government, whoever ends up in office, will be one that precisely no-one voted for. Once you get more than two parties, there are no good voting systems.
Except FPTP. The main purpose of which is to force the parties to agree on their coalitions before facing the electorate, not after.
It's still comfortably the least worst system available. I don't know how many European countries need to demonstrate why no proportional system works properly in order to satisfy their proponents here.
Yes, that is the great strength of FPTP but with more than two parties, you lose the 50-ish per cent majorities. I did used to believe that FPTP forced two-party politics but it is hard to sustain that in recent decades. Arguably we have returned to two-party politics in England and Wales.
Even those striking against a decision you've made, Becky?
Its what the previous MP for Salford did:
In 2006 Blears joined in protests against the closure of hospital departments in her constituency, even though these closures were consistent with the policies of the government of which she was a senior member.
The Irish electorate have apparently interpreted 'proportional representation' to mean 'vote for the parties to represent you in exactly the same proportions'...
But they'll end up with unequal seat numbers. Their ridiculous system is not proportional.
Actually it's remarkable proportional (once you reach about 6%), oddly enough. I did a straight-line fit to the 2011 and 2016 seat proportions vs vote shares for the top five parties and it was a very good fit: R-squared 0.92.
This time will be a bit different because of SF not standing enough candidates.
It should not be considered remarkable that a system billed as PR gives a proportional result.
It simply is not a proportional system. Parties having to guess how many candidates to field, voters voting tactically, and of course the nonsensical method of sloshing buckets of votes around from one recipient to another.
I strongly support PR. But not this.
It's not PR. It's much better, because the legitimate criticisms of PR don't apply. You vote for individuals, and you can express 2nd, 3rd etc preferences.
Yeah, and the net effect in terms of not being able to form a coherent government which anyone actually voted, and with lots of pork-barreling and undue influence by bizarre minor players, for is exactly like a pure PR system.
Much better than a party winning a landslide on <<50% of the vote!</p>
The government, whoever ends up in office, will be one that precisely no-one voted for. Once you get more than two parties, there are no good voting systems.
Except FPTP. The main purpose of which is to force the parties to agree on their coalitions before facing the electorate, not after.
It's still comfortably the least worst system available. I don't know how many European countries need to demonstrate why no proportional system works properly in order to satisfy their proponents here.
Yes, that is the great strength of FPTP but with more than two parties, you lose the 50-ish per cent majorities. I did used to believe that FPTP forced two-party politics but it is hard to sustain that in recent decades. Arguably we have returned to two-party politics in England and Wales.
And Scotland and NI. Just different parties.
Don’t be silly. Scotland does not have two party politics.
Even those striking against a decision you've made, Becky?
Its what the previous MP for Salford did:
In 2006 Blears joined in protests against the closure of hospital departments in her constituency, even though these closures were consistent with the policies of the government of which she was a senior member.
Leighton Andrews once protested against the closure of a primary school in his constituency after he had, in his capacity as Minister for Education, personally signed the order closing it.
Starting to get worried about the Bloomberg shaped hole in my book.
Have you thought about hedging by placing a bet on him winning the Presidential election?
If he wins the nomination I think the nominees odds will shift and I reckon whoever wins the nomination, bar Sanders, will start leading the polls which will see the odds come in further.
Oh, I do have an all green presidential book that I could work with.
Comments
My understanding is that he was tasked with finding a way of stuffing yet more gold into the mouths of doctors who are blaming pension restrictions for their early retirement, a challenge that makes feeding the average fois gras goose look a dawdle.
I also think FF & SF coalition.
If he wins the nomination I think the nominees odds will shift and I reckon whoever wins the nomination, bar Sanders, will start leading the polls which will see the odds come in further.
Telegraph.
Literally
Don’t make fun of South Bend, Pete Buttigieg says.
LEBANON — Amplifying his comments from earlier in the day, Pete Buttigieg took umbrage with some of the attacks on his résumé, painting them as critiques of the “industrial Midwest” he grew up in.
“We’re tired of being reduced to a punchline by Washington politicians who want to see themselves in our stories,” said Mr. Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind.
Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. offered a blunt message on Saturday for anyone thinking that former Mayor Pete Buttigieg resembles another young Democratic politician who once sought the presidency.
“This guy’s not a Barack Obama,” Mr. Biden said at a news conference at a campaign office in Manchester, on a day in which he ramped up his attacks on Mr. Buttigieg.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/feb/08/premier-league-netflix-tv-sports-rights
https://twitter.com/tripgabriel/status/1226261270711717891
My guess is this is deliberate. Javis wants to show he gets Boris's radicalism (and thus avoid a sacking next week) and also test the political boundaries of how far he might be able to go with tax reform.
Biden's main theme is he was Obama's Veep. Nothing wrong with that, but I am coming around to OGH's view that he is way past it.
The whole Dem primary is mad. Where are the 50 year olds who can win?
Midpoint is 10.15 for the presidency, 5.55 for the nomination, so an implied probability of well over 50% of beating Trump.
For all of the others, it is a lot less than 50%. Sanders is not especially low. Actually slightly better than Buttigieg.
Or Nigel Farage.
Where are they now?
I reckon it was a factor.
Pete will win. But DYOR.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-wuhan-virus-death-toll-overtakes-sars-11928259
https://twitter.com/peterdonaghy/status/1226272588613259266?s=20
No way is that enough.
I feel chastened, since I have said many times on here ( a year or so ago) that only Biden can win.
But now...?
And entirely realistic - it would take a zombie apocalypse to get most Seoulites to move there.
Sunil will be excited to hear there’s a sequel in the works.
Here is Hugh Laurie's entry, which is the first name that sprung to mind. Try anyone else by all means.
He was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in the 2007 New Year Honours and Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2018 New Year Honours, both for services to drama.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Laurie
The point is that the British Empire, which rightly or wrongly is controversial in some quarters, is made ludicrously and unfortunately prominent. Changing the name and keeping the initials and awards is a reasonable compromise. Persuading Wikipedia to change its house style would be an alternative.
FG 42 (-5)
FF 40 (-5)
SF 32 (+10)
Green 16 (+13!)
SPBP 4 (-2)
SD 2 (no change)
Lab 2 (-5)
Aontu 1 (no change)
Other 21 (+1)
In fact it's such a basic failure of psychology it makes me wonder if Biden secretly wants Buttigieg to hoover up his vote as soon as possible so he can withdraw and retire, safe in the knowledge that he's helped knock Sanders off top spot for the nomination.
This may be my book talking.
Goodnight all.
I would have expected that Brexit should do something similar in E&W, and it sort of looked like it might've done in 2017; but then 2019 mostly dismantled that theory.
The issue remains, I believe, that Labour still think the Lib Dems are some sort of Trojan horse for them, to suck in wealthy center left voters who don't see much for them from Labour, and the Lib Dems have no idea what they stand for at national level.
Apparently it's called "Ciara", which even sounds Irish.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51425482
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciara
Currently 15.5 available. Probably not worth it, I think.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1226289898459664384?s=20
https://twitter.com/Sunday_Mail/status/1226288559327469568?s=20
https://twitter.com/Liberal97/status/1226269765204946947?s=20
In 2006 Blears joined in protests against the closure of hospital departments in her constituency, even though these closures were consistent with the policies of the government of which she was a senior member.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_Blears#Hospital_closures