Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The world is becoming even more partisan

2456

Comments

  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    It's the direction of travel that matters.

    Since the debate it's Buttigieg down, Klobuchar up.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,218
    There are three big questions:

    1. Will Sanders be able to squeeze Warren to get his vote share up to the 30% mark?
    2. How much will Buttigieg be able to squeeze Biden and Klobuchar supporters?
    3. Will any Independents and Republican supporters come out for Mayor Pete?

    My guess is that Sanders will end up close to 30%, that Warren will do surprisingly well (again), that Biden will be in single digits, and that Mayor Pete will be in the high 20s.

    The winner... Sanders by a nose.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nothing is destroyed by the destruction of the United Kingdom, so let's not exaggerate. You might just as well call it the creation of a United Ireland and an independent Scotland.

    If you stop to think about it then it's remarkable exactly how much support there still is for the Union amongst Tories and Tory-leaning voters. After all, the closer the UK-England Venn diagram moves toward being a single circle, the weaker the position of Labour and the lower the likelihood of it coming back to power, at least without repenting of the Corbyn experiment and returning to harmless wet centrism.

    It is worth remembering at this juncture that maintaining a political union with Scotland and Northern Ireland alike requires a very considerable yearly outlay of English taxpayers' money to places where much of the population feels resentful, dominated, is desperate to get away, has an intense dislike of the English, or some combination of two or more of these things. What value, therefore, from the point of view of the ordinary English voter, is to be had in keeping it on life support?

    Northern Ireland is a relic of colonialism and religious sectarianism, the Union with Scotland is the product of 18th century concerns that no longer apply, and there is, in any event, absolutely no interest in reforming the Union in such a fashion is to make it a structure that is equitable and addresses the needs and concerns of all its members. So if it's going to die why not just let it?
    Exactly. It is against good internet practice to invoke Occam's Razor correctly, but The Union is a prime example of an unnecessary entity. It is impossible to formulate any broad unionist principle which covers the vastly different cases of Scotland and NI, except the principle that all your provinces are belong to London. And as you say, London isn't getting much out of it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    Blimey.

    Even Corbyn isn’t as useless as these idiots.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,218
    speedy2 said:

    It's the direction of travel that matters.

    Since the debate it's Buttigieg down, Klobuchar up.
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-first-february-poll/

    The polls are fascinating. Buttigieg has been hammered by his performance
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,250

    RobD said:

    RobD said:


    I’m sorry, but that doesn’t prove anything. You could be dead in a month!

    So could you. And hydrogen peroxide wouldn't have anything to do with it in either case.

    The danger of using the chemical (and from the stuff posted today about Chlorine dioxide it is the same) is with its immediate corrosive effects. There is no stated cumulative impact - one's body itself actually produces hydrogen peroxide naturally.
    You are simply asserting that it would have nothing to do with hydrogen peroxide.

    I could smoke a hundred fags a day until I die aged 99. That doesn’t mean smoking isn’t bad for your health, it just means I got lucky.
    There are well established clinical pathways by which the cumulative effect of smoking damages human health in most cases. The warnings about hydrogen peroxide are about its immediate corrosive dangers.

    But I am not trying to convince you. You do you.
    Hydrogen peroxide and diesel makes a credible rocket fuel...
  • Varadkar polled 8478 in Dublin West. Quota is 8726.
    Sinn Fein guy polled 12456 and he is elected.
    It is a 4 seats constituency.
    FF got 6,892 votes
    Green 4901
    Trot 4353
    Labour collapsed to 2xxx
    Other FG candidate 1,870
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,483
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nothing is destroyed by the destruction of the United Kingdom, so let's not exaggerate. You might just as well call it the creation of a United Ireland and an independent Scotland.

    If you stop to think about it then it's remarkable exactly how much support there still is for the Union amongst Tories and Tory-leaning voters. After all, the closer the UK-England Venn diagram moves toward being a single circle, the weaker the position of Labour and the lower the likelihood of it coming back to power, at least without repenting of the Corbyn experiment and returning to harmless wet centrism.

    It is worth remembering at this juncture that maintaining a political union with Scotland and Northern Ireland alike requires a very considerable yearly outlay of English taxpayers' money to places where much of the population feels resentful, dominated, is desperate to get away, has an intense dislike of the English, or some combination of two or more of these things. What value, therefore, from the point of view of the ordinary English voter, is to be had in keeping it on life support?

    Northern Ireland is a relic of colonialism and religious sectarianism, the Union with Scotland is the product of 18th century concerns that no longer apply, and there is, in any event, absolutely no interest in reforming the Union in such a fashion is to make it a structure that is equitable and addresses the needs and concerns of all its members. So if it's going to die why not just let it?
    Exactly. It is against good internet practice to invoke Occam's Razor correctly, but The Union is a prime example of an unnecessary entity. It is impossible to formulate any broad unionist principle which covers the vastly different cases of Scotland and NI, except the principle that all your provinces are belong to London. And as you say, London isn't getting much out of it.
    Yawn. Funny how we didn't hear much of this from anyone before Brexit sent them into an anti-UK frenzy.
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    They need a block of 80 seats, they will get around half of that, with the Greens they will get to mid 50's possibly 60 seats.

    It's a high task, but the Gael-Fail coalition might need a 3rd partner too to stay in power.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,250

    Fishing said:

    eek said:


    We get the politicians we deserve and with 24 hour news and social media you need to be foolish or insane to become an MP.

    We get the politicians we deserve because we elect (most of) them.

    Maybe MPs got the Speaker they deserved for the same reason?

    Or maybe it was New Labour's naked partisanship in electing Bercow despite Conservative opposition that gave us the Speaker we didn't deserve?

    Not sure.
    Bercow was reelected Speaker at the start of the 2010, 2015 and 2017 Parliaments. It can't all be down to Labour votes else David Cameron and Theresa May would not have been in Number 10.
    Bercow had his fans on both sides of the aisle - but his support from the opposition benches far outweighed those from the Government side.

    Plus voting against the Speaker risks not being called so often (if at all) - and Bercow did like to play favourites (as have other Speakers in the past - but probably not to the same extent)
    I don't get Bercow's game.

    He is standing up on his hind legs demanding to be as innocent as the day is long, meanwhile invoking conspiracy theories and attacking everyone in sight and telling a few untruths himself.

    Will he get onto the illuminati and the space lizards next week?

    If he is as innocent as he claims, there were no grounds for him to misuse the authority of his office as Speaker to prevent an independent enquiry which (according to him) would have found him to be as white as the driven snow, at a time when the was concern about bullying in Parliament.

    All pretty whiffy.

    There is going to be a suitable enquiry now, so he just needs to stop being a prick and get on with it.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,483
    MattW said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:


    I’m sorry, but that doesn’t prove anything. You could be dead in a month!

    So could you. And hydrogen peroxide wouldn't have anything to do with it in either case.

    The danger of using the chemical (and from the stuff posted today about Chlorine dioxide it is the same) is with its immediate corrosive effects. There is no stated cumulative impact - one's body itself actually produces hydrogen peroxide naturally.
    You are simply asserting that it would have nothing to do with hydrogen peroxide.

    I could smoke a hundred fags a day until I die aged 99. That doesn’t mean smoking isn’t bad for your health, it just means I got lucky.
    There are well established clinical pathways by which the cumulative effect of smoking damages human health in most cases. The warnings about hydrogen peroxide are about its immediate corrosive dangers.

    But I am not trying to convince you. You do you.
    Hydrogen peroxide and diesel makes a credible rocket fuel...
    Glad to hear it. There was also a lot of research about its medical properties back in the day. It's also great for stain removal, cleaning ambulances, and ear drops. :smile:
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    edited February 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

    It's the direction of travel that matters.

    Since the debate it's Buttigieg down, Klobuchar up.
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-first-february-poll/

    The polls are fascinating. Buttigieg has been hammered by his performance
    I remember mentioning it in the very early hours after the debate.
    He got caught on live National TV.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited February 2020
    Green leader elected on first count in Dublin Bay South. 22%

    27% for FG distributed on 2 candidates (6300 and 4600)
    16% for SF. (6300)
    13% for FF (5400)

    It is a 4 members constituency.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nothing is destroyed by the destruction of the United Kingdom, so let's not exaggerate. You might just as well call it the creation of a United Ireland and an independent Scotland.

    If you stop to think about it then it's remarkable exactly how much support there still is for the Union amongst Tories and Tory-leaning voters. After all, the closer the UK-England Venn diagram moves toward being a single circle, the weaker the position of Labour and the lower the likelihood of it coming back to power, at least without repenting of the Corbyn experiment and returning to harmless wet centrism.

    It is worth remembering at this juncture that maintaining a political union with Scotland and Northern Ireland alike requires a very considerable yearly outlay of English taxpayers' money to places where much of the population feels resentful, dominated, is desperate to get away, has an intense dislike of the English, or some combination of two or more of these things. What value, therefore, from the point of view of the ordinary English voter, is to be had in keeping it on life support?

    Northern Ireland is a relic of colonialism and religious sectarianism, the Union with Scotland is the product of 18th century concerns that no longer apply, and there is, in any event, absolutely no interest in reforming the Union in such a fashion is to make it a structure that is equitable and addresses the needs and concerns of all its members. So if it's going to die why not just let it?
    Exactly. It is against good internet practice to invoke Occam's Razor correctly, but The Union is a prime example of an unnecessary entity. It is impossible to formulate any broad unionist principle which covers the vastly different cases of Scotland and NI, except the principle that all your provinces are belong to London. And as you say, London isn't getting much out of it.
    Yawn. Funny how we didn't hear much of this from anyone before Brexit sent them into an anti-UK frenzy.
    I am a lukewarm remainer, and a more intelligent reading of my post would probably not lead to the conclusion that I was in a frenzy about anything. Always interested to hear from a sodium chlorite fanboy, though.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,250

    ydoethur said:

    Good old Labour. Just when you think they’re gently nudging back to sanity they take careful aim and shoot themselves in both feet.
    Starmer will be fine and this is journalistic hysteria. If there are allegations of misuse of data then the data controller (the party) is indeed obliged to report them so they can be looked at. If some staff on either side turned out to have broken a rule, they'd be sacked and perhaps prosecuted, end of.
    Unless one of them is fingered for telling them to do it.

    Personally I think it is just the normal asinine fun and games, that will sink without trace.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,483
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nothing is destroyed by the destruction of the United Kingdom, so let's not exaggerate. You might just as well call it the creation of a United Ireland and an independent Scotland.

    If you stop to think about it then it's remarkable exactly how much support there still is for the Union amongst Tories and Tory-leaning voters. After all, the closer the UK-England Venn diagram moves toward being a single circle, the weaker the position of Labour and the lower the likelihood of it coming back to power, at least without repenting of the Corbyn experiment and returning to harmless wet centrism.

    It is worth remembering at this juncture that maintaining a political union with Scotland and Northern Ireland alike requires a very considerable yearly outlay of English taxpayers' money to places where much of the population feels resentful, dominated, is desperate to get away, has an intense dislike of the English, or some combination of two or more of these things. What value, therefore, from the point of view of the ordinary English voter, is to be had in keeping it on life support?

    Northern Ireland is a relic of colonialism and religious sectarianism, the Union with Scotland is the product of 18th century concerns that no longer apply, and there is, in any event, absolutely no interest in reforming the Union in such a fashion is to make it a structure that is equitable and addresses the needs and concerns of all its members. So if it's going to die why not just let it?
    Exactly. It is against good internet practice to invoke Occam's Razor correctly, but The Union is a prime example of an unnecessary entity. It is impossible to formulate any broad unionist principle which covers the vastly different cases of Scotland and NI, except the principle that all your provinces are belong to London. And as you say, London isn't getting much out of it.
    Yawn. Funny how we didn't hear much of this from anyone before Brexit sent them into an anti-UK frenzy.
    I am a lukewarm remainer, and a more intelligent reading of my post would probably not lead to the conclusion that I was in a frenzy about anything. Always interested to hear from a sodium chlorite fanboy, though.
    Hydrogen peroxide. As I've said, I know nothing about the other substance.
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836

    ydoethur said:

    Good old Labour. Just when you think they’re gently nudging back to sanity they take careful aim and shoot themselves in both feet.
    If they block Starmer then its over isn't it? The party will split.
    Yes
    What matters is surely what the rules are, whether they were broken or not, and what the codified punishment is. I hate how we have got to this point in politics where rules and punishment are judged per how much we like the person involved.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,218
    speedy2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

    It's the direction of travel that matters.

    Since the debate it's Buttigieg down, Klobuchar up.
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-first-february-poll/

    The polls are fascinating. Buttigieg has been hammered by his performance
    I remember mentioning it in the very early hours after the debate.
    He got caught on live National TV.
    The polls liked his performance.

    And every other PB commentator who watched the clip seemed to have a different view to yours.

    So, do I believe the polls? Do I believe people with no dog in the game? Or do I believe someone who has never posted a single positive thing about Pete Buttigieg?

    I have to be incredibly cautious about cognitive dissonance. I don't want to seek out only those things that agree with my preconceptions.

    But I have to ask myself - why is there such a massive difference between likely Democratic voters say in polls, and what you say?

    One other thing: you've consistently said that Pete Buttigieg is an incredibly divisive candidate. Yet, the polling shows (see the 538 link above) that only Klobuchar is less disliked than he is. Why is your view so different from the polls? And why should I trust your intuition over hard numbers?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,617
    MattW said:

    Fishing said:

    eek said:


    We get the politicians we deserve and with 24 hour news and social media you need to be foolish or insane to become an MP.

    We get the politicians we deserve because we elect (most of) them.

    Maybe MPs got the Speaker they deserved for the same reason?

    Or maybe it was New Labour's naked partisanship in electing Bercow despite Conservative opposition that gave us the Speaker we didn't deserve?

    Not sure.
    Bercow was reelected Speaker at the start of the 2010, 2015 and 2017 Parliaments. It can't all be down to Labour votes else David Cameron and Theresa May would not have been in Number 10.
    Bercow had his fans on both sides of the aisle - but his support from the opposition benches far outweighed those from the Government side.

    Plus voting against the Speaker risks not being called so often (if at all) - and Bercow did like to play favourites (as have other Speakers in the past - but probably not to the same extent)
    I don't get Bercow's game.

    He is standing up on his hind legs demanding to be as innocent as the day is long, meanwhile invoking conspiracy theories and attacking everyone in sight and telling a few untruths himself.

    Will he get onto the illuminati and the space lizards next week?

    If he is as innocent as he claims, there were no grounds for him to misuse the authority of his office as Speaker to prevent an independent enquiry which (according to him) would have found him to be as white as the driven snow, at a time when the was concern about bullying in Parliament.

    All pretty whiffy.

    There is going to be a suitable enquiry now, so he just needs to stop being a prick and get on with it.
    Watching him try and play the victim, when he was the guy in charge of the whole shebang, is most unedifying f***ing hillarious!
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,483
    What really warms the heart is that people like Bercow would once have been, in due course, rewarded by a comfortable EU sinecure. :lol:
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,119
    edited February 2020
    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    Fishing said:

    eek said:


    We get the politicians we deserve and with 24 hour news and social media you need to be foolish or insane to become an MP.

    We get the politicians we deserve because we elect (most of) them.

    Maybe MPs got the Speaker they deserved for the same reason?

    Or maybe it was New Labour's naked partisanship in electing Bercow despite Conservative opposition that gave us the Speaker we didn't deserve?

    Not sure.
    Bercow was reelected Speaker at the start of the 2010, 2015 and 2017 Parliaments. It can't all be down to Labour votes else David Cameron and Theresa May would not have been in Number 10.
    Bercow had his fans on both sides of the aisle - but his support from the opposition benches far outweighed those from the Government side.

    Plus voting against the Speaker risks not being called so often (if at all) - and Bercow did like to play favourites (as have other Speakers in the past - but probably not to the same extent)
    I don't get Bercow's game.

    He is standing up on his hind legs demanding to be as innocent as the day is long, meanwhile invoking conspiracy theories and attacking everyone in sight and telling a few untruths himself.

    Will he get onto the illuminati and the space lizards next week?

    If he is as innocent as he claims, there were no grounds for him to misuse the authority of his office as Speaker to prevent an independent enquiry which (according to him) would have found him to be as white as the driven snow, at a time when the was concern about bullying in Parliament.

    All pretty whiffy.

    There is going to be a suitable enquiry now, so he just needs to stop being a prick and get on with it.
    Watching him try and play the victim, when he was the guy in charge of the whole shebang, is most unedifying f***ing hillarious!
    His lack of self awareness of how it will look to the public as well. Putting aside the historic convention / bullying allegations, having somebody basically screaming I DEMAND I GET MY PLACE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS makes you look incredibly out of touch.

    Now most people with brains would use surrogates to do this, while you appear to take the high ground and say well I did 10 years as speaker and now it is up to the powers that be to make that decision, by the way I have a book out...But perhaps Bercow doesn't have any friends willing to do this for him.
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    edited February 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

    It's the direction of travel that matters.

    Since the debate it's Buttigieg down, Klobuchar up.
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-first-february-poll/

    The polls are fascinating. Buttigieg has been hammered by his performance
    I remember mentioning it in the very early hours after the debate.
    He got caught on live National TV.
    The polls liked his performance.

    And every other PB commentator who watched the clip seemed to have a different view to yours.

    So, do I believe the polls? Do I believe people with no dog in the game? Or do I believe someone who has never posted a single positive thing about Pete Buttigieg?

    I have to be incredibly cautious about cognitive dissonance. I don't want to seek out only those things that agree with my preconceptions.

    But I have to ask myself - why is there such a massive difference between likely Democratic voters say in polls, and what you say?

    One other thing: you've consistently said that Pete Buttigieg is an incredibly divisive candidate. Yet, the polling shows (see the 538 link above) that only Klobuchar is less disliked than he is. Why is your view so different from the polls? And why should I trust your intuition over hard numbers?
    He went down in all 3 tracking polls (Emerson, Suffolk, CNN) after the debate, those are hard numbers which confirmed what I saw that night.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,405

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    Fishing said:

    eek said:


    We get the politicians we deserve and with 24 hour news and social media you need to be foolish or insane to become an MP.

    We get the politicians we deserve because we elect (most of) them.

    Maybe MPs got the Speaker they deserved for the same reason?

    Or maybe it was New Labour's naked partisanship in electing Bercow despite Conservative opposition that gave us the Speaker we didn't deserve?

    Not sure.
    Bercow was reelected Speaker at the start of the 2010, 2015 and 2017 Parliaments. It can't all be down to Labour votes else David Cameron and Theresa May would not have been in Number 10.
    Bercow had his fans on both sides of the aisle - but his support from the opposition benches far outweighed those from the Government side.

    Plus voting against the Speaker risks not being called so often (if at all) - and Bercow did like to play favourites (as have other Speakers in the past - but probably not to the same extent)
    I don't get Bercow's game.

    He is standing up on his hind legs demanding to be as innocent as the day is long, meanwhile invoking conspiracy theories and attacking everyone in sight and telling a few untruths himself.

    Will he get onto the illuminati and the space lizards next week?

    If he is as innocent as he claims, there were no grounds for him to misuse the authority of his office as Speaker to prevent an independent enquiry which (according to him) would have found him to be as white as the driven snow, at a time when the was concern about bullying in Parliament.

    All pretty whiffy.

    There is going to be a suitable enquiry now, so he just needs to stop being a prick and get on with it.
    Watching him try and play the victim, when he was the guy in charge of the whole shebang, is most unedifying f***ing hillarious!
    His lack of self awareness of how it will look to the public as well. Putting aside the historic convention / bullying allegations, having somebody basically screaming I DEMAND I GET MY PLACE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS makes you look incredibly out of touch.

    Now most people with brains would use surrogates to do this, while you appear to take the high ground and say well I did 10 years as speaker and now it is up to the powers that be to make that decision, by the way I have a book out...But perhaps Bercow doesn't have any friends willing to do this for him.
    perhaps????
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,935

    RobD said:

    RobD said:


    I’m sorry, but that doesn’t prove anything. You could be dead in a month!

    So could you. And hydrogen peroxide wouldn't have anything to do with it in either case.

    The danger of using the chemical (and from the stuff posted today about Chlorine dioxide it is the same) is with its immediate corrosive effects. There is no stated cumulative impact - one's body itself actually produces hydrogen peroxide naturally.
    You are simply asserting that it would have nothing to do with hydrogen peroxide.

    I could smoke a hundred fags a day until I die aged 99. That doesn’t mean smoking isn’t bad for your health, it just means I got lucky.
    There are well established clinical pathways by which the cumulative effect of smoking damages human health in most cases. The warnings about hydrogen peroxide are about its immediate corrosive dangers.

    But I am not trying to convince you. You do you.
    I was mainly commenting on your claim that you have "proven" it is safe by the fact you have yet to experience side effects. That isn't how it works.
  • I see the Daily Mail is up to its old games and some high profile accounts on twitter don't appeared to learned anything from the past.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,218
    rpjs said:
    The United States is an excellent ally of the UK.

    The President of the United States is our ally so long as we do exactly what we're told.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,935

    I see the Daily Mail is up to its old games and some high profile accounts on twitter don't appeared to learned anything from the past.

    What are they up to?
  • RobD said:

    I see the Daily Mail is up to its old games and some high profile accounts on twitter don't appeared to learned anything from the past.

    What are they up to?
    I am not going to get risk getting OGH or myself in trouble.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,229

    Perhaps not, but I would be very surprised if that is the case. For full disclosure I myself have ingested an incredibly weak solution of hydrogen peroxide and distilled water intermittently for a couple of years. Anecdotally I find it very beneficial, though I don't have clinical trials to prove it. What is proven (by the fact that I am typing this) is that it's safe in appropriate quantities and dilutions. I have never experienced any ill effects whatsoever.

    OK so no physical deterioration in your case - fair enough - but what about the mental side?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,218
    speedy2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

    It's the direction of travel that matters.

    Since the debate it's Buttigieg down, Klobuchar up.
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-first-february-poll/

    The polls are fascinating. Buttigieg has been hammered by his performance
    I remember mentioning it in the very early hours after the debate.
    He got caught on live National TV.
    The polls liked his performance.

    And every other PB commentator who watched the clip seemed to have a different view to yours.

    So, do I believe the polls? Do I believe people with no dog in the game? Or do I believe someone who has never posted a single positive thing about Pete Buttigieg?

    I have to be incredibly cautious about cognitive dissonance. I don't want to seek out only those things that agree with my preconceptions.

    But I have to ask myself - why is there such a massive difference between likely Democratic voters say in polls, and what you say?

    One other thing: you've consistently said that Pete Buttigieg is an incredibly divisive candidate. Yet, the polling shows (see the 538 link above) that only Klobuchar is less disliked than he is. Why is your view so different from the polls? And why should I trust your intuition over hard numbers?
    He went down in all 3 tracking polls (Emerson, Suffolk, CNN) after the debate, those are hard numbers which confirmed what I saw that night.
    Yes, he dipped in the two of those that are on 538. (Although the University of New Hampshire daily poll showed no movement.)

    Let's take it as read he dropped yesterday in the polling.

    Are you sure you're not conflating correlation with causation?

    Maybe he had a surge after Iowa and that was simply dissipating. Simply, the poll of people who watched the debate showed that Buttigieg was the candidate who improved their position most.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    Two O’Briens? They must be miles from a result.

    Every Trekkie will agree that I am a Meaney for making that pun.
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    The Sinners' strategy seems to have been completely bonkers. To get 143% of the quota as in Dublin West but only have 1 candidate is just throwing seats away surely.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    ydoethur said:

    Good old Labour. Just when you think they’re gently nudging back to sanity they take careful aim and shoot themselves in both feet.
    If they block Starmer then its over isn't it? The party will split.
    The PLP would select Starmer as its leader and he would then become Leader of the Opposition.The NEC et al could then 'go forth and multiply'.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    MattW said:

    Fishing said:

    eek said:


    We get the politicians we deserve and with 24 hour news and social media you need to be foolish or insane to become an MP.

    We get the politicians we deserve because we elect (most of) them.

    Maybe MPs got the Speaker they deserved for the same reason?

    Or maybe it was New Labour's naked partisanship in electing Bercow despite Conservative opposition that gave us the Speaker we didn't deserve?

    Not sure.
    Bercow was reelected Speaker at the start of the 2010, 2015 and 2017 Parliaments. It can't all be down to Labour votes else David Cameron and Theresa May would not have been in Number 10.
    Bercow had his fans on both sides of the aisle - but his support from the opposition benches far outweighed those from the Government side.

    Plus voting against the Speaker risks not being called so often (if at all) - and Bercow did like to play favourites (as have other Speakers in the past - but probably not to the same extent)
    I don't get Bercow's game.

    He is standing up on his hind legs demanding to be as innocent as the day is long, meanwhile invoking conspiracy theories and attacking everyone in sight and telling a few untruths himself.

    Will he get onto the illuminati and the space lizards next week?

    If he is as innocent as he claims, there were no grounds for him to misuse the authority of his office as Speaker to prevent an independent enquiry which (according to him) would have found him to be as white as the driven snow, at a time when the was concern about bullying in Parliament.

    All pretty whiffy.

    There is going to be a suitable enquiry now, so he just needs to stop being a prick and get on with it.
    Bercow comes across as a man VERY bothered by status. The idea of him being the first Speaker not to get the status of His Lordship must be eating him up.

    Excellent.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,483
    kinabalu said:

    Perhaps not, but I would be very surprised if that is the case. For full disclosure I myself have ingested an incredibly weak solution of hydrogen peroxide and distilled water intermittently for a couple of years. Anecdotally I find it very beneficial, though I don't have clinical trials to prove it. What is proven (by the fact that I am typing this) is that it's safe in appropriate quantities and dilutions. I have never experienced any ill effects whatsoever.

    OK so no physical deterioration in your case - fair enough - but what about the mental side?
    Still not enough to find sense in your posts sadly, but I'll keep trying.
  • Good evening, everyone.

    Probably won't be staying long but a quick look at the BBC's seat projections is making Mr. Nabavi's tip on Sinn Fein getting 29+ seats look rather good.
  • Wexford (5 to be elected)

    Mythen (SF) elected with 18,717 votes. Quota is 12,513

    Howlin (Lab) 9,223
    Browne (FF) 9,058
    D'Arcy (FG) 6,472
    Kehoe (FG) 6,337
    Byrne (FF) 6,415
    Murphy (Ind) 5,825
    Sheehan (FF) 4,366
    etc

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    Reckon this will come to be seen as a mistake:

    All local authorities have been asked to fly the flag for the Duke of York’s 60th birthday celebrations on 19th February. Although the Queen has cancelled formal celebrations in the wake of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal and infamous Newsnight interview, a government advisory notice, seen by The Sun newspaper, has been sent to councils asking them to mark the occasion
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,617

    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    Fishing said:

    eek said:


    We get the politicians we deserve and with 24 hour news and social media you need to be foolish or insane to become an MP.

    We get the politicians we deserve because we elect (most of) them.

    Maybe MPs got the Speaker they deserved for the same reason?

    Or maybe it was New Labour's naked partisanship in electing Bercow despite Conservative opposition that gave us the Speaker we didn't deserve?

    Not sure.
    Bercow was reelected Speaker at the start of the 2010, 2015 and 2017 Parliaments. It can't all be down to Labour votes else David Cameron and Theresa May would not have been in Number 10.
    Bercow had his fans on both sides of the aisle - but his support from the opposition benches far outweighed those from the Government side.

    Plus voting against the Speaker risks not being called so often (if at all) - and Bercow did like to play favourites (as have other Speakers in the past - but probably not to the same extent)
    I don't get Bercow's game.

    He is standing up on his hind legs demanding to be as innocent as the day is long, meanwhile invoking conspiracy theories and attacking everyone in sight and telling a few untruths himself.

    Will he get onto the illuminati and the space lizards next week?

    If he is as innocent as he claims, there were no grounds for him to misuse the authority of his office as Speaker to prevent an independent enquiry which (according to him) would have found him to be as white as the driven snow, at a time when the was concern about bullying in Parliament.

    All pretty whiffy.

    There is going to be a suitable enquiry now, so he just needs to stop being a prick and get on with it.
    Watching him try and play the victim, when he was the guy in charge of the whole shebang, is most unedifying f***ing hillarious!
    His lack of self awareness of how it will look to the public as well. Putting aside the historic convention / bullying allegations, having somebody basically screaming I DEMAND I GET MY PLACE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS makes you look incredibly out of touch.

    Now most people with brains would use surrogates to do this, while you appear to take the high ground and say well I did 10 years as speaker and now it is up to the powers that be to make that decision, by the way I have a book out...But perhaps Bercow doesn't have any friends willing to do this for him.
    He's slowly realising that the Peerage isn't coming, the bullying enquiry isn't about to get swept under the carpet, and that he now needs to make as much money as possible before the walls come tumbling down around him.
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237

    Wexford (5 to be elected)

    Mythen (SF) elected with 18,717 votes. Quota is 12,513

    Howlin (Lab) 9,223
    Browne (FF) 9,058
    D'Arcy (FG) 6,472
    Kehoe (FG) 6,337
    Byrne (FF) 6,415
    Murphy (Ind) 5,825
    Sheehan (FF) 4,366
    etc

    Another SF seat thrown away here too.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    IanB2 said:

    Reckon this will come to be seen as a mistake:

    All local authorities have been asked to fly the flag for the Duke of York’s 60th birthday celebrations on 19th February. Although the Queen has cancelled formal celebrations in the wake of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal and infamous Newsnight interview, a government advisory notice, seen by The Sun newspaper, has been sent to councils asking them to mark the occasion

    How recent is that report? I'm sure I heard the other day that the councils had been told that they didn't have to glorify Prince Andrew if they didn't want to...
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

    It's the direction of travel that matters.

    Since the debate it's Buttigieg down, Klobuchar up.
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-first-february-poll/

    The polls are fascinating. Buttigieg has been hammered by his performance
    I remember mentioning it in the very early hours after the debate.
    He got caught on live National TV.
    The polls liked his performance.

    And every other PB commentator who watched the clip seemed to have a different view to yours.

    So, do I believe the polls? Do I believe people with no dog in the game? Or do I believe someone who has never posted a single positive thing about Pete Buttigieg?

    I have to be incredibly cautious about cognitive dissonance. I don't want to seek out only those things that agree with my preconceptions.

    But I have to ask myself - why is there such a massive difference between likely Democratic voters say in polls, and what you say?

    One other thing: you've consistently said that Pete Buttigieg is an incredibly divisive candidate. Yet, the polling shows (see the 538 link above) that only Klobuchar is less disliked than he is. Why is your view so different from the polls? And why should I trust your intuition over hard numbers?
    He went down in all 3 tracking polls (Emerson, Suffolk, CNN) after the debate, those are hard numbers which confirmed what I saw that night.
    Yes, he dipped in the two of those that are on 538. (Although the University of New Hampshire daily poll showed no movement.)

    Let's take it as read he dropped yesterday in the polling.

    Are you sure you're not conflating correlation with causation?

    Maybe he had a surge after Iowa and that was simply dissipating. Simply, the poll of people who watched the debate showed that Buttigieg was the candidate who improved their position most.
    What else could have caused a drop of 4, 2 and 1 for Buttigieg and a rise of 4,3 and 1 for Klobuchar, in the single first day in the tracking polls after the debate if it wasn't the debate ?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Chris_A said:

    The Sinners' strategy seems to have been completely bonkers. To get 143% of the quota as in Dublin West but only have 1 candidate is just throwing seats away surely.

    Sinn Fein lost seats in the Euros in 2019.

    They didn't expect this -- they went in to the election with low expectations.

    But they pulled off a Corby_2017.
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    SF 177% of the quota in Dublin NW. Again only the one candidate.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited February 2020
    Cork East (4 seats) Count 1:

    BUCKLEY, SF 12,587*
    O'KEEFFE, FF 7,414
    O'CONNOR, FF 7,026
    SHERLOCK, LAB 6,610
    STANTON, FG 6,143
    O'DRISCOLL, FG 4,554
    LINEHAN-FOLEY, IND 3,903
    QUAIDE, GP 3,749
    HANNON, AON 1,337
    SHINNICK, IFP 455
    KIELY, IND 435
    O'GRADY, IND 267
    O'LEARY, IND 64

    Quota is 10,908

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    Highest wind speed recorded today so far, 97mph on the Isle of Wight.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,617
    Chris_A said:

    SF 177% of the quota in Dublin NW. Again only the one candidate.

    Forgive my ignorance of the voting system, but why would they not stand enough candidates?

    Can the vote be split by too many standing, so that none end up elected?
    Is there a massive deposit per candidate?
    Could they not find enough candidates?
    Something on spending limits?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,119
    edited February 2020
    Sandpit said:


    He's slowly realising that the Peerage isn't coming, the bullying enquiry isn't about to get swept under the carpet, and that he now needs to make as much money as possible before the walls come tumbling down around him.

    I will be surprised if his book does much business.
  • Dublin North West Count 1:

    ELLIS, SF 14,375*
    SHORTALL, SD 6,124
    MCAULIFFE, FF 3,902
    ROCK, FG 3,579
    CONROY, GP 1,548
    REDDY, SOL-PBP 1,215
    MONTAGUE, LAB 848
    REDMOND, NP 471
    CROFT, IND 209
    FITZGERALD, IND 115

    It is a 3 seater
  • The honours system is a load of old wank. I can't really add anything else to that.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,617
    IanB2 said:

    Highest wind speed recorded today so far, 97mph on the Isle of Wight.

    Last night BA managed to get a 747 from New York to London in under five hours, thanks to the high winds in the jet stream.
    https://twitter.com/R_Niblett_/status/1226406364366458881
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Sandpit said:

    Chris_A said:

    SF 177% of the quota in Dublin NW. Again only the one candidate.

    Forgive my ignorance of the voting system, but why would they not stand enough candidates?

    Can the vote be split by too many standing, so that none end up elected?

    Yes.
  • Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Highest wind speed recorded today so far, 97mph on the Isle of Wight.

    Last night BA managed to get a 747 from New York to London in under five hours, thanks to the high winds in the jet stream.
    https://twitter.com/R_Niblett_/status/1226406364366458881
    Passengers stomachs arrived 3hrs later....
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    IanB2 said:

    Reckon this will come to be seen as a mistake:

    All local authorities have been asked to fly the flag for the Duke of York’s 60th birthday celebrations on 19th February. Although the Queen has cancelled formal celebrations in the wake of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal and infamous Newsnight interview, a government advisory notice, seen by The Sun newspaper, has been sent to councils asking them to mark the occasion

    How recent is that report? I'm sure I heard the other day that the councils had been told that they didn't have to glorify Prince Andrew if they didn't want to...
    It was in yesterday’s paper. And yes, you are right, there’s a story today that the government may have backed down, faced by a refusal from a number of local authorities.

    There’s a further story in today’s paper, although not nearly as prominent as the news about London’s mystery Coronavirus victim.
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    Sandpit said:

    Chris_A said:

    SF 177% of the quota in Dublin NW. Again only the one candidate.

    Forgive my ignorance of the voting system, but why would they not stand enough candidates?

    Can the vote be split by too many standing, so that none end up elected?
    Is there a massive deposit per candidate?
    Could they not find enough candidates?
    Something on spending limits?
    Yes you risk splitting your vote if you put up too many candidates but the Irish parties are well versed at managing this, e,g, suggesting that people number 1/2 in one part of the constituency and 2/1 in another.

    SF 191% of the quota in Waterford and this really is a nailed on 2nd seat missed.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,218
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Highest wind speed recorded today so far, 97mph on the Isle of Wight.

    Last night BA managed to get a 747 from New York to London in under five hours, thanks to the high winds in the jet stream.
    https://twitter.com/R_Niblett_/status/1226406364366458881
    It's about 15 minutes faster than the previous New York-London subsonic record. Which is insane.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    Sandpit said:

    Chris_A said:

    SF 177% of the quota in Dublin NW. Again only the one candidate.

    Forgive my ignorance of the voting system, but why would they not stand enough candidates?

    Can the vote be split by too many standing, so that none end up elected?
    Is there a massive deposit per candidate?
    Could they not find enough candidates?
    Something on spending limits?
    Under STV the optimum is generally to put up one more candidate than you expect to get elected. Transfers between candidates of the same party are never ‘perfect’, as not everyone follows a party slate and there are always voters who don’t number all of their preferences. So putting up a full slate of candidates risks losing stray votes during eliminations.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Highest wind speed recorded today so far, 97mph on the Isle of Wight.

    Last night BA managed to get a 747 from New York to London in under five hours, thanks to the high winds in the jet stream.
    https://twitter.com/R_Niblett_/status/1226406364366458881
    Passengers stomachs arrived 3hrs later....
    Boston to London last November, a little over 5 hours. Like a rollercoaster. The tail winds were incredible.
  • matt said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Highest wind speed recorded today so far, 97mph on the Isle of Wight.

    Last night BA managed to get a 747 from New York to London in under five hours, thanks to the high winds in the jet stream.
    https://twitter.com/R_Niblett_/status/1226406364366458881
    Passengers stomachs arrived 3hrs later....
    Boston to London last November, a little over 5 hours. Like a rollercoaster. The tail winds were incredible.
    :s
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,862
    Slightly surprised on this site that someone hasn’t pointed out that we haven’t quite got to the level of the reds and blues in Byzantium yet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots

    Nothing is new under the sun.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,617
    edited February 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Highest wind speed recorded today so far, 97mph on the Isle of Wight.

    Last night BA managed to get a 747 from New York to London in under five hours, thanks to the high winds in the jet stream.
    https://twitter.com/R_Niblett_/status/1226406364366458881
    It's about 15 minutes faster than the previous New York-London subsonic record. Which is insane.
    There were a few other similar speeds last night too. Hope everyone going the other way carried enough extra fuel and didn't have to tech stop on the way!

    Contrast with today, where in the face of the storm UK-bound planes have been scattered everywhere from Shannon to Frankfurt.

    Reports of Qantas having a tail-scrape on departure from LHR this afternoon too. The very heavy LHR>PER direct flight.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,125
    ydoethur said:

    Two O’Briens? They must be miles from a result.

    Every Trekkie will agree that I am a Meaney for making that pun.
    Colm again?
  • London council insists it will STILL fly the EU flag outside town hall despite Brexit

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7984143/London-council-insists-fly-EU-flag-outside-town-hall-despite-Brexit.html

    Nearly as sad as those idiots defacing the "not my 50p's".
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237

    London council insists it will STILL fly the EU flag outside town hall despite Brexit

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7984143/London-council-insists-fly-EU-flag-outside-town-hall-despite-Brexit.html

    Nearly as sad as those idiots defacing the "not my 50p's".

    It is the Council of Europe's flag; we are a member of the Council of Europe, are we not?

    I look forward to defacing a 50p when I get one.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,125

    Sandpit said:


    He's slowly realising that the Peerage isn't coming, the bullying enquiry isn't about to get swept under the carpet, and that he now needs to make as much money as possible before the walls come tumbling down around him.

    I will be surprised if his book does much business.
    I don't think they ever do. The money comes from serialisation in sympathetic newspapers and being invited onto daytime television to talk about it. Not many people buy the actual books.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    viewcode said:

    ydoethur said:

    Two O’Briens? They must be miles from a result.

    Every Trekkie will agree that I am a Meaney for making that pun.
    Colm again?
    Given that is pronounced ‘column,’ it doesn’t work.

    Besides, I Brooks no rival.
  • viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:


    He's slowly realising that the Peerage isn't coming, the bullying enquiry isn't about to get swept under the carpet, and that he now needs to make as much money as possible before the walls come tumbling down around him.

    I will be surprised if his book does much business.
    I don't think they ever do. The money comes from serialisation in sympathetic newspapers and being invited onto daytime television to talk about it. Not many people buy the actual books.
    Do we know if any paper is serializing this one?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,229
    IanB2 said:

    Highest wind speed recorded today so far, 97mph on the Isle of Wight.

    Would that be enough to open a brolly and do a Mary Poppins? I reckon it probably would.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,037
    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris_A said:

    SF 177% of the quota in Dublin NW. Again only the one candidate.

    Forgive my ignorance of the voting system, but why would they not stand enough candidates?

    Can the vote be split by too many standing, so that none end up elected?
    Is there a massive deposit per candidate?
    Could they not find enough candidates?
    Something on spending limits?
    Under STV the optimum is generally to put up one more candidate than you expect to get elected. Transfers between candidates of the same party are never ‘perfect’, as not everyone follows a party slate and there are always voters who don’t number all of their preferences. So putting up a full slate of candidates risks losing stray votes during eliminations.
    Stupid system.

    d'Hondt for me, with the candidate order decided by party primaries.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris_A said:

    SF 177% of the quota in Dublin NW. Again only the one candidate.

    Forgive my ignorance of the voting system, but why would they not stand enough candidates?

    Can the vote be split by too many standing, so that none end up elected?
    Is there a massive deposit per candidate?
    Could they not find enough candidates?
    Something on spending limits?
    Under STV the optimum is generally to put up one more candidate than you expect to get elected. Transfers between candidates of the same party are never ‘perfect’, as not everyone follows a party slate and there are always voters who don’t number all of their preferences. So putting up a full slate of candidates risks losing stray votes during eliminations.
    Stupid system.

    d'Hondt for me, with the candidate order decided by party primaries.
    Any system is an improvement on the daft one used for the Scottish Parliament and the Sennedd.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,037
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris_A said:

    SF 177% of the quota in Dublin NW. Again only the one candidate.

    Forgive my ignorance of the voting system, but why would they not stand enough candidates?

    Can the vote be split by too many standing, so that none end up elected?
    Is there a massive deposit per candidate?
    Could they not find enough candidates?
    Something on spending limits?
    Under STV the optimum is generally to put up one more candidate than you expect to get elected. Transfers between candidates of the same party are never ‘perfect’, as not everyone follows a party slate and there are always voters who don’t number all of their preferences. So putting up a full slate of candidates risks losing stray votes during eliminations.
    Stupid system.

    d'Hondt for me, with the candidate order decided by party primaries.
    Any system is an improvement on the daft one used for the Scottish Parliament and the Sennedd.
    Yes - that is an even bigger dog's breakfast.
  • ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris_A said:

    SF 177% of the quota in Dublin NW. Again only the one candidate.

    Forgive my ignorance of the voting system, but why would they not stand enough candidates?

    Can the vote be split by too many standing, so that none end up elected?
    Is there a massive deposit per candidate?
    Could they not find enough candidates?
    Something on spending limits?
    Under STV the optimum is generally to put up one more candidate than you expect to get elected. Transfers between candidates of the same party are never ‘perfect’, as not everyone follows a party slate and there are always voters who don’t number all of their preferences. So putting up a full slate of candidates risks losing stray votes during eliminations.
    Stupid system.

    d'Hondt for me, with the candidate order decided by party primaries.
    Any system is an improvement on the daft one used for the Scottish Parliament and the Sennedd.
    AV.

    The answer is always AV.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,037
    Time for the news channels to frot themselves crazy over some industry awards bash.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Highest wind speed recorded today so far, 97mph on the Isle of Wight.

    Last night BA managed to get a 747 from New York to London in under five hours, thanks to the high winds in the jet stream.
    https://twitter.com/R_Niblett_/status/1226406364366458881
    It's about 15 minutes faster than the previous New York-London subsonic record. Which is insane.
    Who needs Concorde, eh?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,037

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris_A said:

    SF 177% of the quota in Dublin NW. Again only the one candidate.

    Forgive my ignorance of the voting system, but why would they not stand enough candidates?

    Can the vote be split by too many standing, so that none end up elected?
    Is there a massive deposit per candidate?
    Could they not find enough candidates?
    Something on spending limits?
    Under STV the optimum is generally to put up one more candidate than you expect to get elected. Transfers between candidates of the same party are never ‘perfect’, as not everyone follows a party slate and there are always voters who don’t number all of their preferences. So putting up a full slate of candidates risks losing stray votes during eliminations.
    Stupid system.

    d'Hondt for me, with the candidate order decided by party primaries.
    Any system is an improvement on the daft one used for the Scottish Parliament and the Sennedd.
    AV.

    The answer is always AV.
    For electing one person, yes. For electing a representative parliament, no.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,617

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris_A said:

    SF 177% of the quota in Dublin NW. Again only the one candidate.

    Forgive my ignorance of the voting system, but why would they not stand enough candidates?

    Can the vote be split by too many standing, so that none end up elected?
    Is there a massive deposit per candidate?
    Could they not find enough candidates?
    Something on spending limits?
    Under STV the optimum is generally to put up one more candidate than you expect to get elected. Transfers between candidates of the same party are never ‘perfect’, as not everyone follows a party slate and there are always voters who don’t number all of their preferences. So putting up a full slate of candidates risks losing stray votes during eliminations.
    Stupid system.

    d'Hondt for me, with the candidate order decided by party primaries.
    Any system is an improvement on the daft one used for the Scottish Parliament and the Sennedd.
    AV.

    The answer is always AV.
    The question was should we use FPTP or AV. The people gave their answer.
  • Time for the news channels to frot themselves crazy over some industry awards bash.

    Not just them. Most commercial radio stations too.

    Does anyone normal watch them?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Highest wind speed recorded today so far, 97mph on the Isle of Wight.

    Last night BA managed to get a 747 from New York to London in under five hours, thanks to the high winds in the jet stream.
    https://twitter.com/R_Niblett_/status/1226406364366458881
    It's about 15 minutes faster than the previous New York-London subsonic record. Which is insane.
    Must be bloody horrible flying the other way.... They'll get there about Wednesday.
  • Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris_A said:

    SF 177% of the quota in Dublin NW. Again only the one candidate.

    Forgive my ignorance of the voting system, but why would they not stand enough candidates?

    Can the vote be split by too many standing, so that none end up elected?
    Is there a massive deposit per candidate?
    Could they not find enough candidates?
    Something on spending limits?
    Under STV the optimum is generally to put up one more candidate than you expect to get elected. Transfers between candidates of the same party are never ‘perfect’, as not everyone follows a party slate and there are always voters who don’t number all of their preferences. So putting up a full slate of candidates risks losing stray votes during eliminations.
    Stupid system.

    d'Hondt for me, with the candidate order decided by party primaries.
    Any system is an improvement on the daft one used for the Scottish Parliament and the Sennedd.
    AV.

    The answer is always AV.
    The question was should we use FPTP or AV. The people gave their answer.
    It just became a vehicle to kick Nick Clegg.

    If people had solely focussed on the issue YES2AV would have won a landslide.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,880
    edited February 2020
    matt said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Highest wind speed recorded today so far, 97mph on the Isle of Wight.

    Last night BA managed to get a 747 from New York to London in under five hours, thanks to the high winds in the jet stream.
    https://twitter.com/R_Niblett_/status/1226406364366458881
    Passengers stomachs arrived 3hrs later....
    Boston to London last November, a little over 5 hours. Like a rollercoaster. The tail winds were incredible.
    Always dodgy, that rail line through Peterborough :)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris_A said:

    SF 177% of the quota in Dublin NW. Again only the one candidate.

    Forgive my ignorance of the voting system, but why would they not stand enough candidates?

    Can the vote be split by too many standing, so that none end up elected?
    Is there a massive deposit per candidate?
    Could they not find enough candidates?
    Something on spending limits?
    Under STV the optimum is generally to put up one more candidate than you expect to get elected. Transfers between candidates of the same party are never ‘perfect’, as not everyone follows a party slate and there are always voters who don’t number all of their preferences. So putting up a full slate of candidates risks losing stray votes during eliminations.
    Stupid system.

    d'Hondt for me, with the candidate order decided by party primaries.
    Any system is an improvement on the daft one used for the Scottish Parliament and the Sennedd.
    AV.

    The answer is always AV.
    The question was should we use FPTP or AV. The people gave their answer.
    It just became a vehicle to kick Nick Clegg.

    If people had solely focussed on the issue YES2AV would have won a landslide.
    Bollocks would it.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,037
    Off topic: A yellow alert covering the entire UK creates the outline of a rabbit.
  • ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris_A said:

    SF 177% of the quota in Dublin NW. Again only the one candidate.

    Forgive my ignorance of the voting system, but why would they not stand enough candidates?

    Can the vote be split by too many standing, so that none end up elected?
    Is there a massive deposit per candidate?
    Could they not find enough candidates?
    Something on spending limits?
    Under STV the optimum is generally to put up one more candidate than you expect to get elected. Transfers between candidates of the same party are never ‘perfect’, as not everyone follows a party slate and there are always voters who don’t number all of their preferences. So putting up a full slate of candidates risks losing stray votes during eliminations.
    Stupid system.

    d'Hondt for me, with the candidate order decided by party primaries.
    Any system is an improvement on the daft one used for the Scottish Parliament and the Sennedd.
    AV.

    The answer is always AV.
    Winston Churchill criticised the electoral outcomes of the alternative vote as "determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates."

    Tony Blair, defending FPTP, argued that other systems give small parties the balance of power, and influence disproportionate to their votes.

    Allowing people into the UK parliament who did not finish first in their constituency was described by David Cameron as creating a "Parliament full of second-choices who no one really wanted but didn't really object to either."
  • Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris_A said:

    SF 177% of the quota in Dublin NW. Again only the one candidate.

    Forgive my ignorance of the voting system, but why would they not stand enough candidates?

    Can the vote be split by too many standing, so that none end up elected?
    Is there a massive deposit per candidate?
    Could they not find enough candidates?
    Something on spending limits?
    Under STV the optimum is generally to put up one more candidate than you expect to get elected. Transfers between candidates of the same party are never ‘perfect’, as not everyone follows a party slate and there are always voters who don’t number all of their preferences. So putting up a full slate of candidates risks losing stray votes during eliminations.
    Stupid system.

    d'Hondt for me, with the candidate order decided by party primaries.
    Any system is an improvement on the daft one used for the Scottish Parliament and the Sennedd.
    AV.

    The answer is always AV.
    The question was should we use FPTP or AV. The people gave their answer.
    No2AV 68%
    Yes2AV 32%

    :innocent:
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    edited February 2020
    viewcode said:

    ydoethur said:

    Two O’Briens? They must be miles from a result.

    Every Trekkie will agree that I am a Meaney for making that pun.
    Colm again?
    Some kind of mis-Chief there? Maybe the other O'Brien's from the mirror universe. Or a changeling, of course.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,359
    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Former Commons Speaker John Bercow has said there is a "conspiracy" to keep him out of the House of Lords.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51434470

    I see it has escalated from bullying this morning to a conspiracy.
    I don't think people are bullying him out of the House of Lords - it's more his bullying is the reason why he shouldn't ever be a member of it.
    And yet, he was still a better speaker than Michael Martin.
    A dead man would have been better than that grafter
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,617

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris_A said:

    SF 177% of the quota in Dublin NW. Again only the one candidate.

    Forgive my ignorance of the voting system, but why would they not stand enough candidates?

    Can the vote be split by too many standing, so that none end up elected?
    Is there a massive deposit per candidate?
    Could they not find enough candidates?
    Something on spending limits?
    Under STV the optimum is generally to put up one more candidate than you expect to get elected. Transfers between candidates of the same party are never ‘perfect’, as not everyone follows a party slate and there are always voters who don’t number all of their preferences. So putting up a full slate of candidates risks losing stray votes during eliminations.
    Stupid system.

    d'Hondt for me, with the candidate order decided by party primaries.
    Any system is an improvement on the daft one used for the Scottish Parliament and the Sennedd.
    AV.

    The answer is always AV.
    The question was should we use FPTP or AV. The people gave their answer.
    It just became a vehicle to kick Nick Clegg.

    If people had solely focussed on the issue YES2AV would have won a landslide.
    Is that the Nick Clegg who himself described it as a "miserable little compromise"?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris_A said:

    SF 177% of the quota in Dublin NW. Again only the one candidate.

    Forgive my ignorance of the voting system, but why would they not stand enough candidates?

    Can the vote be split by too many standing, so that none end up elected?
    Is there a massive deposit per candidate?
    Could they not find enough candidates?
    Something on spending limits?
    Under STV the optimum is generally to put up one more candidate than you expect to get elected. Transfers between candidates of the same party are never ‘perfect’, as not everyone follows a party slate and there are always voters who don’t number all of their preferences. So putting up a full slate of candidates risks losing stray votes during eliminations.
    Stupid system.

    d'Hondt for me, with the candidate order decided by party primaries.
    Any system is an improvement on the daft one used for the Scottish Parliament and the Sennedd.
    AV.

    The answer is always AV.
    Surely it depends on the question? For example, if it is ‘how do you get the best pineapple toppings?’ or, ‘why are England’s batsmen collectively shit?’ ‘AV’ makes no sense whatsoever as an answer.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,125
    MattW said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:


    I’m sorry, but that doesn’t prove anything. You could be dead in a month!

    So could you. And hydrogen peroxide wouldn't have anything to do with it in either case.

    The danger of using the chemical (and from the stuff posted today about Chlorine dioxide it is the same) is with its immediate corrosive effects. There is no stated cumulative impact - one's body itself actually produces hydrogen peroxide naturally.
    You are simply asserting that it would have nothing to do with hydrogen peroxide.

    I could smoke a hundred fags a day until I die aged 99. That doesn’t mean smoking isn’t bad for your health, it just means I got lucky.
    There are well established clinical pathways by which the cumulative effect of smoking damages human health in most cases. The warnings about hydrogen peroxide are about its immediate corrosive dangers.

    But I am not trying to convince you. You do you.
    Hydrogen peroxide and diesel makes a credible rocket fuel...
    A variant of Hydrogen Peroxide called High-test Peroxide or "HTP" (85% H202, 15% H2O) and kerosene was used as the oxidiser and propellant in the sadly-missed British space programme of the 60's and 70's.

    I don't know how corrosive HTP is. HTP/kerosene has some advantages as rocket fuels: it's liquid at room temperatures and it's hypergolic: the two ignite on contact without needing an igniter, making rocket motors simpler. However HTP's hypergolicity and its ability to act as a monopropellant is a disadvantage: spill some and you risk a fire or an explosion.

    IIRC, when rocket testing was done in Cornwall there were baths of water scattered around so that accidentally aflame engineers could be dunked. HTP was used as an oxidiser in submarines or torpedoes but became associated with accidents, such as HMS Explorer, HMS Excalibur, HMS Sidon and - famously - APL K-141 Kursk, the latter of which was crippled by a HTP torpedo explosion.

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MvG3CgAAQBAJ
    http://www.braeunig.us/space/propel.htm
    https://history.nasa.gov/conghand/propelnt.htm
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_peroxide
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-test_peroxide
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Kursk_(K-141)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sidon_(P259)

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,359

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nothing is destroyed by the destruction of the United Kingdom, so let's not exaggerate. You might just as well call it the creation of a United Ireland and an independent Scotland.

    If you stop to think about it then it's remarkable exactly how much support there still is for the Union amongst Tories and Tory-leaning voters. After all, the closer the UK-England Venn diagram moves toward being a single circle, the weaker the position of Labour and the lower the likelihood of it coming back to power, at least without repenting of the Corbyn experiment and returning to harmless wet centrism.

    It is worth remembering at this juncture that maintaining a political union with Scotland and Northern Ireland alike requires a very considerable yearly outlay of English taxpayers' money to places where much of the population feels resentful, dominated, is desperate to get away, has an intense dislike of the English, or some combination of two or more of these things. What value, therefore, from the point of view of the ordinary English voter, is to be had in keeping it on life support?

    Northern Ireland is a relic of colonialism and religious sectarianism, the Union with Scotland is the product of 18th century concerns that no longer apply, and there is, in any event, absolutely no interest in reforming the Union in such a fashion is to make it a structure that is equitable and addresses the needs and concerns of all its members. So if it's going to die why not just let it?
    HA HA HA, the old chestnut that the English subsidise Scotland rather than the reality of it being the other way round. Get a backbone and have an independence referendum rather than whine constantly.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,125
    ydoethur said:

    viewcode said:

    ydoethur said:

    Two O’Briens? They must be miles from a result.

    Every Trekkie will agree that I am a Meaney for making that pun.
    Colm again?
    Given that is pronounced ‘column,’ it doesn’t work.

    Besides, I Brooks no rival.
    A very defensible stance, I find... :)
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    malcolmg said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nothing is destroyed by the destruction of the United Kingdom, so let's not exaggerate. You might just as well call it the creation of a United Ireland and an independent Scotland.

    If you stop to think about it then it's remarkable exactly how much support there still is for the Union amongst Tories and Tory-leaning voters. After all, the closer the UK-England Venn diagram moves toward being a single circle, the weaker the position of Labour and the lower the likelihood of it coming back to power, at least without repenting of the Corbyn experiment and returning to harmless wet centrism.

    It is worth remembering at this juncture that maintaining a political union with Scotland and Northern Ireland alike requires a very considerable yearly outlay of English taxpayers' money to places where much of the population feels resentful, dominated, is desperate to get away, has an intense dislike of the English, or some combination of two or more of these things. What value, therefore, from the point of view of the ordinary English voter, is to be had in keeping it on life support?

    Northern Ireland is a relic of colonialism and religious sectarianism, the Union with Scotland is the product of 18th century concerns that no longer apply, and there is, in any event, absolutely no interest in reforming the Union in such a fashion is to make it a structure that is equitable and addresses the needs and concerns of all its members. So if it's going to die why not just let it?
    HA HA HA, the old chestnut that the English subsidise Scotland rather than the reality of it being the other way round. Get a backbone and have an independence referendum rather than whine constantly.
    Scotland subsidizes England when oil prices are high and the reverse happens when the oil prices are low. Oil prices are likely to be low in the short and long term.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Highest wind speed recorded today so far, 97mph on the Isle of Wight.

    Last night BA managed to get a 747 from New York to London in under five hours, thanks to the high winds in the jet stream.
    https://twitter.com/R_Niblett_/status/1226406364366458881
    It's about 15 minutes faster than the previous New York-London subsonic record. Which is insane.
    Must be bloody horrible flying the other way.... They'll get there about Wednesday.
    A friend once flew Miami - Seattle, about as far as any journey in the Lower 48, with spectacular headwinds. They had an unexpected refuelling stop enroute.
  • malcolmg said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Nothing is destroyed by the destruction of the United Kingdom, so let's not exaggerate. You might just as well call it the creation of a United Ireland and an independent Scotland.

    If you stop to think about it then it's remarkable exactly how much support there still is for the Union amongst Tories and Tory-leaning voters. After all, the closer the UK-England Venn diagram moves toward being a single circle, the weaker the position of Labour and the lower the likelihood of it coming back to power, at least without repenting of the Corbyn experiment and returning to harmless wet centrism.

    It is worth remembering at this juncture that maintaining a political union with Scotland and Northern Ireland alike requires a very considerable yearly outlay of English taxpayers' money to places where much of the population feels resentful, dominated, is desperate to get away, has an intense dislike of the English, or some combination of two or more of these things. What value, therefore, from the point of view of the ordinary English voter, is to be had in keeping it on life support?

    Northern Ireland is a relic of colonialism and religious sectarianism, the Union with Scotland is the product of 18th century concerns that no longer apply, and there is, in any event, absolutely no interest in reforming the Union in such a fashion is to make it a structure that is equitable and addresses the needs and concerns of all its members. So if it's going to die why not just let it?
    HA HA HA, the old chestnut that the English subsidise Scotland rather than the reality of it being the other way round. Get a backbone and have an independence referendum rather than whine constantly.
    Good chance it will happen in Autumn 2021 Malc, but the union will win
  • eekeek Posts: 28,405
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris_A said:

    SF 177% of the quota in Dublin NW. Again only the one candidate.

    Forgive my ignorance of the voting system, but why would they not stand enough candidates?

    Can the vote be split by too many standing, so that none end up elected?
    Is there a massive deposit per candidate?
    Could they not find enough candidates?
    Something on spending limits?
    Under STV the optimum is generally to put up one more candidate than you expect to get elected. Transfers between candidates of the same party are never ‘perfect’, as not everyone follows a party slate and there are always voters who don’t number all of their preferences. So putting up a full slate of candidates risks losing stray votes during eliminations.
    Stupid system.

    d'Hondt for me, with the candidate order decided by party primaries.
    Any system is an improvement on the daft one used for the Scottish Parliament and the Sennedd.
    AV.

    The answer is always AV.
    Surely it depends on the question? For example, if it is ‘how do you get the best pineapple toppings?’ or, ‘why are England’s batsmen collectively shit?’ ‘AV’ makes no sense whatsoever as an answer.
    Selection via an alternative vote system explains both issues.
This discussion has been closed.