Except what you view as inadequacies we view as features. You've not named a single flaw that isn't solved by a party winning over more voters. I'd rather those we elect need to get more votes not less.
Your rather trite arguments don't do your position any favours. The simple fact is that where a party's voters are currently located makes hugely more difference than how many of them there are in total. It is in fact possible - indeed almost certain - that if UKIP or the LibDems ever got enough votes to score more than both Tory and Labour, they would still be in third place in terms of MPs elected.
No it is not almost certain. If UKIP or the Lib Dems got enough votes to score more than both Tory and Labour they would likely be in government or at least second party.
Though the system is designed to require a large number of votes locally. That is a deliberate feature. You haven't yet demonstrated why a local loser deserves a seat while the local winner does not.
Who says local winners should be denied seats? What, for example, is the big flaw in the system used in Scotland and Wales to elect their devolved Parliaments?
Inflation figures coming out in 10 mins or so. The MoM figure is probably the most important one for a while. The factory input prices will be a good sign of what kind of inflation we can expect in the future as well.
All our current voting system does is prevent millions of peole having their views represented in Parliament. If that were not the case maybe more of our fellow citizens would engage and would not feel so estranged from the political process.
This is the system we have. It is not going to change, but let's not pretend that getting 90% of seats for 50% of the votes is fair.
I'm not going to say that, I woukd like a more proportional system, but we used to have higher turnout with the same voting system we have now, so how can the voting system be the reason people do not engage? Clearly it's possible to be engaged with FPTP. I'd still prefer another method, but people attribute too many negatives of modern politics to it.
Also turnout has gone up 3 elections in a row, albeit barely last time and from the lowest ebb, so people have been reengaging.
It's possible to get something fairer than now, even if we think a more radical move would be better at making it truly fair. We shouldn't fall into the politicians trap of 'your idea doesn't solve everything, therefore it is useless', or scoff at improvements by degree as if they are nothing.
When we essentially had a two party system FPTP made sense. Now we don't. Thus, we are left with a situation in which 50% of Scottish voters last year are left with three out of 59 MPs to represent their views, if they voted for a party that does not support independence. That is not only bad for them, but for Parliament as a whole - what Scots may think of major issues affecting them and the UK is not reflected.
To be fair, Labour are to blame for the downfall of the two party system.
Their base does not seem to be holding; probably because its views and interests are no longer represented by the MPs.
I think going back to multi member constituencies is the future, but also that the two party system will return within the next 25 years.
When was the last time the Tories got over 40% of the vote? I make it 24 years and five general elections ago.
Depends how you classify Blair, presumably?
Incidentally, I see Prescott helped out a busy buffet on a train recently. This is how Labour should act, not sitting on the floor making a video full of rubbish.
Mr. Cooke, how would each strand be fairly represented? Power resides in government, not opposition, so holding office becomes the consequence not of policy but of negotiating skill with one's peers [ahem] in Parliament.
Suppose two parties have 20% each, and six have 10% each. Those six could, under PR, form the government. The two most popular parties could be locked out. And this would be accounted entirely legitimate under PR, where the six losers thwart the two winners. And if those six, having such multi-lateral talks, make a bonfire of the promises, the very strands of opinion you say should be represented, what than can the electorate do?
For five years, nothing whatsoever. You may argue this is no different to the current arrangement, but that neglects to recognise the very nature of PR and inevitable coalitions is to make manifesto pledges less a list of promises, and more a menu from which government policy is selected, not by the electorate, but by the whims of the political class in private negotiations.
In short, there is a ready-made, bullet-proof pretext for throwing away promises that may have won support from the strands of opinion you say should be represented, whereas it is a far more serious and noteworthy thing when a single party majority government decides to throw away manifesto pledges.
Those 6 losers are locking out 2 other losers. They represent 60% of the country against 40% for the others - what's so unfair about that? Politicians are elected for their skill in politics. Of which negotiation is crucial - indeed, if your party has inept politicians, they'll be unsuccessful.
And we already have a ready-made bullet-proof pretext for throwing away promises: it's called legal precedent. It was demonstrated in court that manifesto promises are not binding even if you win a majority.
Yes, you can argue that throwing away your manifesto promises can cause damage at the next election, but it can in coalitions as well [looks at the number 56 falling to 8]. And you can flatten a party with more impunity under a PR system than you can FPTP [The Tories junk their key manifesto commitment to balancing the books, and point to Corbyn as the only alternative as soon as people think of punishing them]. Which falsifies your final paragraph.
And I'd rather put forwards a menu of policy directions from which the politicians have to choose a coherent plan of Government than get delivered two choices by the smoke-filled rooms of two party leaderships where you must take one in toto or get the other one.
The Tories say they believe in free markets. Free markets rely on increased choice and competition. FPTP reduces that to a duopoly. But monopolies and duopolies look so much more appealing when you're the ones who are in the monopoly seat or duopoly seats...
Mr. Cooke, how would each strand be fairly represented? Power resides in government, not opposition, so holding office becomes the consequence not of policy but of negotiating skill with one's peers [ahem] in Parliament.
Suppose two parties have 20% each, and six have 10% each. Those six could, under PR, form the government. The two most popular parties could be locked out. And this would be accounted entirely legitimate under PR, where the six losers thwart the two winners. And if those six, having such multi-lateral talks, make a bonfire of the promises, the very strands of opinion you say should be represented, what than can the electorate do?
For five years, nothing whatsoever. You may argue this is no different to the current arrangement, but that neglects to recognise the very nature of PR and inevitable coalitions is to make manifesto pledges less a list of promises, and more a menu from which government policy is selected, not by the electorate, but by the whims of the political class in private negotiations.
In short, there is a ready-made, bullet-proof pretext for throwing away promises that may have won support from the strands of opinion you say should be represented, whereas it is a far more serious and noteworthy thing when a single party majority government decides to throw away manifesto pledges.
Well the problem is that a six party coalition would fracture too often to be stable and eventually break up either leading to new elections in which the people will vote differently or one of the major parties will compromise. See Spain as a real life example.
Except what you view as inadequacies we view as features. You've not named a single flaw that isn't solved by a party winning over more voters. I'd rather those we elect need to get more votes not less.
Your rather trite arguments don't do your position any favours. The simple fact is that where a party's voters are currently located makes hugely more difference than how many of them there are in total. It is in fact possible - indeed almost certain - that if UKIP or the LibDems ever got enough votes to score more than both Tory and Labour, they would still be in third place in terms of MPs elected.
No it is not almost certain. If UKIP or the Lib Dems got enough votes to score more than both Tory and Labour they would likely be in government or at least second party.
Though the system is designed to require a large number of votes locally. That is a deliberate feature. You haven't yet demonstrated why a local loser deserves a seat while the local winner does not.
Who says local winners should be denied seats? What, for example, is the big flaw in the system used in Scotland and Wales to elect their devolved Parliaments?
The big flaws are that it takes away from local constituencies by both diluting the local winners and making constituencies much bigger than they would otherwise be. There are 129 MSPs but only 73 constituencies meaning that each constituency is about three quarters bigger than it should be if there were 129 constituencies. So you are taking power away from voters. If we did that in Westminster then either we would require 1060 MPs not 600, or we would have the same number of MPs but have each one representing over 134000 electors per constituency.
Then to make matters even worse you overwhelm what the voters actually chose to be their representatives with prizes for losers to punish the successful.
All our current voting system does is prevent millions of peole having their views represented in Parliament. If that were not the case maybe more of our fellow citizens would engage and would not feel so estranged from the political process.
This is the system we have. It is not going to change, but let's not pretend that getting 90% of seats for 50% of the votes is fair.
I'm not going to say that, I woukd like a more proportional system, but we used to have higher turnout with the same voting system we have now, so how can the voting system be the reason people do not engage? Clearly it's possible to be engaged with FPTP. I'd still prefer another method, but people attribute too many negatives of modern politics to it.
Also turnout has gone up 3 elections in a row, albeit barely last time and from the lowest ebb, so people have been reengaging.
It's possible to get something fairer than now, even if we think a more radical move would be better at making it truly fair. We shouldn't fall into the politicians trap of 'your idea doesn't solve everything, therefore it is useless', or scoff at improvements by degree as if they are nothing.
When we essentially had a two party system FPTP made sense. Now we don't. Thus, we are left with a situation in which 50% of Scottish voters last year are left with three out of 59 MPs to represent their views, if they voted for a party that does not support independence. That is not only bad for them, but for Parliament as a whole - what Scots may think of major issues affecting them and the UK is not reflected.
That's the Scottish voters informed choice. Let the non-independence parties seek to broaden their appeal and ultimately win back seats. In other words become more popular.
Your solution of rewarding parties for being unpopular is a terrible idea.
UKIP got four million votes last year. That is not unpopular. That is a hell of a lot of people.
No its not that many, considering there are 650 constituencies. In how many constituencies were they the most popular candidate? If it were lots of constituencies then they would have lots of MPs. If UKIP want MPs then let them earn them by coming first.
I see it as less of a football match, more of a making sure the broad spectrum of voters' views are represented. I guess we won't agree.
I guess we won't, I view it less of a football match and more of a gladiatorial battle ending in only one survivor.
Mr. Max, I'd argue political instability is another weakness of PR. It can only go one of two ways: stability whereby the political class decide upon the government instability whereby the political class fail to stitch things up, leading to chaos
Neither is good.
Mr. Cooke, what's unfair, as I wrote, is that a bonfire of promises would be necessary. Sixty percent would not be represented, because each party, all being equal, would have to throw away five-sixths of their manifesto. The very promises that enticed votes would be tossed aside after the votes had been cast.
There is no duopoly in Scotland. A burgeoning three-party system ended in England not because of the voting system but because of the voters, who decided to hack down the Lib Dems.
Mr. Tokyo, if a government under a new PM wishes to move in a way directly contrary (not just different, but the opposite) to the last manifesto, I'd support a swiftly held election, although that's not required legally and not permitted practically by the current nonsense of the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
Not this canard again. It is permitted by getting two-thirds of MPs in the Commons to set a new date for an election, which given oppositions can't realistically vote against an early vote means simply choosing a new date and putting it to the Commons.
Only if the government will oppose an early vote (or the opposition can become the government without one) can an early election not be held. It makes no difference to majority governments only minority or coalition ones.
All our current voting system does is prevent millions of peole having their views represented in Parliament. If that were not the case maybe more of our fellow citizens would engage and would not feel so estranged from the political process.
This is the system we have. It is not going to change, but let's not pretend that getting 90% of seats for 50% of the votes is fair.
Given no party has 90% of Westminster's seats it's moot whether its fair or not. Though if 90% of constituencies first preference happens to be the same that is fair, there is no justification to give prizes to all losers here it is meant to be a competitive vote not some "prizes for all" nonsense.
Lol. The 'winners' under the current system are those parties that just happen to have their votes geographically concentrated - like the SNP or Labour. Your 'losers' are not necessarily those with fewer votes but those parties whose support is spread more evenly, like the LibDems, Greens or UKIP. Where is the justice or fair representation in that?
The basis of this review is to look at equality and fairness at the base of the system - at the voter level. Trying to set up a constituency system to be fair in terms of outcome would be utterly wrong.
We have to have a level playing field - each constituency representing the same number of voters. What is wrong with that?
Because MPs represent all their constituents, not just voters.
I fail to see how that makes them having the same number to represent a problem.
The reforms don't, the constituencies are now based on equal numbers of voters not equal number of constituents.
600 MPs vs 650 MPs - a slight worsening of democracy but saves cash. And I'm all for saving cash... Not alot of change in the grand scheme of things - I did think it was PARTICULARLY RICH for Labour MPs to come on moaning and whining though when they forwent any type of meaningful electoral reform BECAUSE THE SYSTEM SUITED THEM well enough from 1997 - 2010.
Who says local winners should be denied seats? What, for example, is the big flaw in the system used in Scotland and Wales to elect their devolved Parliaments?
The big flaws are that it takes away from local constituencies by both diluting the local winners and making constituencies much bigger than they would otherwise be. There are 129 MSPs but only 73 constituencies meaning that each constituency is about three quarters bigger than it should be if there were 129 constituencies. So you are taking power away from voters. If we did that in Westminster then either we would require 1060 MPs not 600, or we would have the same number of MPs but have each one representing over 134000 electors per constituency.
Then to make matters even worse you overwhelm what the voters actually chose to be their representatives with prizes for losers to punish the successful.
Terrible, terrible system.
What on Earth does "local" even mean? The entire starting point of this discussion was that "local" is a variable feast dependent on whatever comes out of the Boundary Commission's vain attempts to satisfy a number of discordant objectives which cannot be mutually met. You get "local" MPs whose constituencies are such that you can't drive from one side to the other while staying in the constituency. Constituencies that are weird shapes meandering around and between other constituencies just to satisfy numbers.
We could simply bypass all this and retain a sort of local tie by modifying that county idea to get rid of proportionality if you want: each county has x number of MPs, each household gets a random number assigned and 1/x of these numbers go to each MP. Yes, you get a rather amusing spread of voters to MPs, but it's very easy to calculate a representative number without argument, other than reassigning the random numbers. Or we could bypass that by going alphabetically.
(Oxfordshire A-D, Oxfordshire E-H, Oxfordshire I-L, Oxfordshire M-P, Oxfordshire Q-T, Oxfordshire U-Z). Satisfies everyone, right? Admittedly the assignation of voters to MPs within the county is rather bizarre, but we already have that as an inherent trait of the existing system!
All our current voting system does is prevent millions of peole having their views represented in Parliament. If that were not the case maybe more of our fellow citizens would engage and would not feel so estranged from the political process.
This is the system we have. It is not going to change, but let's not pretend that getting 90% of seats for 50% of the votes is fair.
Given no party has 90% of Westminster's seats it's moot whether its fair or not. Though if 90% of constituencies first preference happens to be the same that is fair, there is no justification to give prizes to all losers here it is meant to be a competitive vote not some "prizes for all" nonsense.
Lol. The 'winners' under the current system are those parties that just happen to have their votes geographically concentrated - like the SNP or Labour. Your 'losers' are not necessarily those with fewer votes but those parties whose support is spread more evenly, like the LibDems, Greens or UKIP. Where is the justice or fair representation in that?
The basis of this review is to look at equality and fairness at the base of the system - at the voter level. Trying to set up a constituency system to be fair in terms of outcome would be utterly wrong.
We have to have a level playing field - each constituency representing the same number of voters. What is wrong with that?
Because MPs represent all their constituents, not just voters.
I fail to see how that makes them having the same number to represent a problem.
The reforms don't, the constituencies are now based on equal numbers of voters not equal number of constituents.
Which given we know exactly how many voters live in each constituency as of any particular date and not how many constituents seems entirely reasonable.
Anyone who hasn't bothered to register to vote should do so. It's easy to do so.
Except what you view as inadequacies we view as features. You've not named a single flaw that isn't solved by a party winning over more voters. I'd rather those we elect need to get more votes not less.
Your rather trite arguments don't do your position any favours. The simple fact is that where a party's voters are currently located makes hugely more difference than how many of them there are in total. It is in fact possible - indeed almost certain - that if UKIP or the LibDems ever got enough votes to score more than both Tory and Labour, they would still be in third place in terms of MPs elected.
No it is not almost certain. If UKIP or the Lib Dems got enough votes to score more than both Tory and Labour they would likely be in government or at least second party.
Though the system is designed to require a large number of votes locally. That is a deliberate feature. You haven't yet demonstrated why a local loser deserves a seat while the local winner does not.
Who says local winners should be denied seats? What, for example, is the big flaw in the system used in Scotland and Wales to elect their devolved Parliaments?
The big flaws are that it takes away from local constituencies by both diluting the local winners and making constituencies much bigger than they would otherwise be. There are 129 MSPs but only 73 constituencies meaning that each constituency is about three quarters bigger than it should be if there were 129 constituencies. So you are taking power away from voters. If we did that in Westminster then either we would require 1060 MPs not 600, or we would have the same number of MPs but have each one representing over 134000 electors per constituency.
Then to make matters even worse you overwhelm what the voters actually chose to be their representatives with prizes for losers to punish the successful.
Terrible, terrible system.
Taking powers away from voters by enduring their views are more accurately reflected. Hmm - not sure about that one.
Clintons in a hole and digging: both Bill and Hillary say she has had severe dehydration in the past. Presumably they expect other stories to emerge. So does it or doesn't it have anything to do with pneumonia, or is she just not good at remembering to drink?
Mr. Max, I'd argue political instability is another weakness of PR. It can only go one of two ways: stability whereby the political class decide upon the government instability whereby the political class fail to stitch things up, leading to chaos
Neither is good.
Mr. Cooke, what's unfair, as I wrote, is that a bonfire of promises would be necessary. Sixty percent would not be represented, because each party, all being equal, would have to throw away five-sixths of their manifesto. The very promises that enticed votes would be tossed aside after the votes had been cast.
There is no duopoly in Scotland. A burgeoning three-party system ended in England not because of the voting system but because of the voters, who decided to hack down the Lib Dems.
People vote for a multitude of reasons. Very very few scrutinise the manifestos and hold them as the standard by which they'll vote - I did it as an exercise last time around on another forum and those who supported the various parties before the manifestos were issued remained the same after they were issued. The polls also didn't shift by any statistically significant amount when the manifestos were issued and never do. You'll have to present evidence in favour of the hypothesis that people in any number vote on the basis of the manifestos.
(Indeed there have been exercises when manifesto policies were presented to focus groups completely separate from their party affiliations and when people found out which party they were from, their opinions changed massively).
Parties are based on ideological direction and so are votes. If a party abandons its ideological direction, they'll get hammered.
Clintons in a hole and digging: both Bill and Hillary say she has had severe dehydration in the past. Presumably they expect other stories to emerge. So does it or doesn't it have anything to do with pneumonia, or is she just not good at remembering to drink?
I thought today was supposed to be the hottest September day since we were moved out of the Hades constituency? So why the bloody great thunderstorm currently washing the garden away....?
Clintons in a hole and digging: both Bill and Hillary say she has had severe dehydration in the past. Presumably they expect other stories to emerge. So does it or doesn't it have anything to do with pneumonia, or is she just not good at remembering to drink?
No rise in inflation, everything lower than expected.
Producer inflation continuing its rising trend up from 0.3 to 0.8%. Surprisingly modest given the fall in the currency in July but no doubt a lot had been bought forward.
The inflation picture remains as benign as I can recall it in my adult life. The fact we still have some is clearly good too.
Except what you view as inadequacies we view as features. You've not named a single flaw that isn't solved by a party winning over more voters. I'd rather those we elect need to get more votes not less.
Your rather trite arguments don't do your position any favours. The simple fact is that where a party's voters are currently located makes hugely more difference than how many of them there are in total. It is in fact possible - indeed almost certain - that if UKIP or the LibDems ever got enough votes to score more than both Tory and Labour, they would still be in third place in terms of MPs elected.
No it is not almost certain. If UKIP or the Lib Dems got enough votes to score more than both Tory and Labour they would likely be in government or at least second party.
Though the system is designed to require a large number of votes locally. That is a deliberate feature. You haven't yet demonstrated why a local loser deserves a seat while the local winner does not.
Who says local winners should be denied seats? What, for example, is the big flaw in the system used in Scotland and Wales to elect their devolved Parliaments?
The big flaws are that it takes away from local constituencies by both diluting the local winners and making constituencies much bigger than they would otherwise be. There are 129 MSPs but only 73 constituencies meaning that each constituency is about three quarters bigger than it should be if there were 129 constituencies. So you are taking power away from voters. If we did that in Westminster then either we would require 1060 MPs not 600, or we would have the same number of MPs but have each one representing over 134000 electors per constituency.
Then to make matters even worse you overwhelm what the voters actually chose to be their representatives with prizes for losers to punish the successful.
Terrible, terrible system.
Taking powers away from voters by enduring their views are more accurately reflected. Hmm - not sure about that one.
Only the least popular views are more reflected. How does your solution give more weight to the most popular views?
If @SirBenjamin were to find some free time, I for one would be very interested in his initial thoughts in a thread header. I appreciate, however, that this may be a busy period for him.
I do not understand all the fuss on here about boundary changes. BBC Radio 5 Live have been devoting the 9-10 am period to the Bake Off Show transferring from one free to air channel to another.......
No rise in inflation, everything lower than expected.
Producer inflation continuing its rising trend up from 0.3 to 0.8%. Surprisingly modest given the fall in the currency in July but no doubt a lot had been bought forward.
The inflation picture remains as benign as I can recall it in my adult life. The fact we still have some is clearly good too.
I've had a poke around in the figures and there doesn't appear to be any nasties lurking about in the small print. Of course, a lot of companies will have hedges against currency movements, which will unwind over the next year or so.
No rise in inflation, everything lower than expected.
Producer inflation continuing its rising trend up from 0.3 to 0.8%. Surprisingly modest given the fall in the currency in July but no doubt a lot had been bought forward.
The inflation picture remains as benign as I can recall it in my adult life. The fact we still have some is clearly good too.
I've had a poke around in the figures and there doesn't appear to be any nasties lurking about in the small print. Of course, a lot of companies will have hedges against currency movements, which will unwind over the next year or so.
There is a significant rise in input costs at 7.6% but the explanation that that is mainly as a result of prior falls in oil falling out of the 12 month reckoning is entirely credible. Inflation will continue to rise but even the 2% target looks a bit away yet.
No rise in inflation, everything lower than expected.
Producer inflation continuing its rising trend up from 0.3 to 0.8%. Surprisingly modest given the fall in the currency in July but no doubt a lot had been bought forward.
The inflation picture remains as benign as I can recall it in my adult life. The fact we still have some is clearly good too.
I've had a poke around in the figures and there doesn't appear to be any nasties lurking about in the small print. Of course, a lot of companies will have hedges against currency movements, which will unwind over the next year or so.
There is a significant rise in input costs at 7.6% but the explanation that that is mainly as a result of prior falls in oil falling out of the 12 month reckoning is entirely credible. Inflation will continue to rise but even the 2% target looks a bit away yet.
So since Brexit we have exports rising, the stock market rising and inflation under control.
No rise in inflation, everything lower than expected.
Producer inflation continuing its rising trend up from 0.3 to 0.8%. Surprisingly modest given the fall in the currency in July but no doubt a lot had been bought forward.
The inflation picture remains as benign as I can recall it in my adult life. The fact we still have some is clearly good too.
The MoM rise of just 0.3% in August is definitely a surprise. It does look like companies are eating into their margins in order to maintain market share which is resulting in lower inflation.
I do not understand all the fuss on here about boundary changes. BBC Radio 5 Live have been devoting the 9-10 am period to the Bake Off Show transferring from one free to air channel to another.......
No rise in inflation, everything lower than expected.
Producer inflation continuing its rising trend up from 0.3 to 0.8%. Surprisingly modest given the fall in the currency in July but no doubt a lot had been bought forward.
The inflation picture remains as benign as I can recall it in my adult life. The fact we still have some is clearly good too.
I've had a poke around in the figures and there doesn't appear to be any nasties lurking about in the small print. Of course, a lot of companies will have hedges against currency movements, which will unwind over the next year or so.
There is a significant rise in input costs at 7.6% but the explanation that that is mainly as a result of prior falls in oil falling out of the 12 month reckoning is entirely credible. Inflation will continue to rise but even the 2% target looks a bit away yet.
From the behaviour of our suppliers who source internationally I think a lot of the exchange rate changes are currently being absorbed or were hedged prior to the referendum. How long this will last for I'm not sure as a 10% margin reduction is substantial.
No rise in inflation, everything lower than expected.
I've had a poke around in the figures and there doesn't appear to be any nasties lurking about in the small print. Of course, a lot of companies will have hedges against currency movements, which will unwind over the next year or so.
There is a significant rise in input costs at 7.6% but the explanation that that is mainly as a result of prior falls in oil falling out of the 12 month reckoning is entirely credible. Inflation will continue to rise but even the 2% target looks a bit away yet.
So since Brexit we have exports rising, the stock market rising and inflation under control.
The sky is falling though.
Except that we have not yet had Brexit and the uncertainty may well be affecting investment. I was at a party for a firm of solicitors at the end of last week. Their corporate partner said that he had 3 deals which were put on hold with Brexit and are still on hold. They may come back but the uncertainty is an issue. I have heard similar tales from other corporate lawyers.
I can understand politically why May is not in any rush to define Brexit or to have serious discussions but economically it is not great. I really think the government should get on with it.
Clintons in a hole and digging: both Bill and Hillary say she has had severe dehydration in the past. Presumably they expect other stories to emerge. So does it or doesn't it have anything to do with pneumonia, or is she just not good at remembering to drink?
I have become dehydrated exactly twice in my life after extreme exercise, I would never describe it as rarely or few or talk about how I can manage to avoid it.
It the lying from Hiliary that she didn't faint and only stumbled a bit that get me. We can see she passes out as clearly as Corbyn and his ram packed train. Why not just say so, rather than more lies. It just fuels the conspiracy theories.
On topic: I see the Tim Farron / Rory-the-Tory deathmatch has been averted. Both will have continuity seats that are safe as houses. My mum will be pleased (Rory's her MP, and she's a bit of a fangirl).
All our current voting system does is prevent millions of peole having their views represented in Parliament. If that were not the case maybe more of our fellow citizens would engage and would not feel so estranged from the political process.
This is the system we have. It is not going to change, but let's not pretend that getting 90% of seats for 50% of the votes is fair.
Given no party has 90% of Westminster's seats it's moot whether its fair or not. Though if 90% of constituencies first preference happens to be the same that is fair, there is no justification to give prizes to all losers here it is meant to be a competitive vote not some "prizes for all" nonsense.
Lol. The 'winners' under the current system are those parties that just happen to have their votes geographically concentrated - like the SNP or Labour. Your 'losers' are not necessarily those with fewer votes but those parties whose support is spread more evenly, like the LibDems, Greens or UKIP. Where is the justice or fair representation in that?
The basis of this review is to look at equality and fairness at the base of the system - at the voter level. Trying to set up a constituency system to be fair in terms of outcome would be utterly wrong.
We have to have a level playing field - each constituency representing the same number of voters. What is wrong with that?
Because MPs represent all their constituents, not just voters.
I fail to see how that makes them having the same number to represent a problem.
The reforms don't, the constituencies are now based on equal numbers of voters not equal number of constituents.
Which given we know exactly how many voters live in each constituency as of any particular date and not how many constituents seems entirely reasonable.
Anyone who hasn't bothered to register to vote should do so. It's easy to do so.
Given that an annual form is sent to every home, the council send one every time the name on the council tax bill changes, and the electoral commission have an online registration portal, how does anyone have an excuse for not being registered?
Mr. Max, I'd argue political instability is another weakness of PR. It can only go one of two ways: stability whereby the political class decide upon the government instability whereby the political class fail to stitch things up, leading to chaos
Neither is good.
Mr. Cooke, what's unfair, as I wrote, is that a bonfire of promises would be necessary. Sixty percent would not be represented, because each party, all being equal, would have to throw away five-sixths of their manifesto. The very promises that enticed votes would be tossed aside after the votes had been cast.
There is no duopoly in Scotland. A burgeoning three-party system ended in England not because of the voting system but because of the voters, who decided to hack down the Lib Dems.
'Stitch up' can be re-worded as 'compromise'. It happens in the UK if the H of L gets bolshy and is 'bought off', often as it happens by watering down the more loony proposed legislation.
All our current voting system does is prevent millions of peole having their views represented in Parliament. If that were not the case maybe more of our fellow citizens would engage and would not feel so estranged from the political process.
This is the system we have. It is not going to change, but let's not pretend that getting 90% of seats for 50% of the votes is fair.
Given no party has 90% of Westminster's seats it's moot whether its fair or not. Though if 90% of constituencies first preference happens to be the same that is fair, there is no justification to give prizes to all losers here it is meant to be a competitive vote not some "prizes for all" nonsense.
Lol. The 'winners' under the current system are those parties that just happen to have their votes geographically concentrated - like the SNP or Labour. Your 'losers' are not necessarily those with fewer votes but those parties whose support is spread more evenly, like the LibDems, Greens or UKIP. Where is the justice or fair representation in that?
The basis of this review is to look at equality and fairness at the base of the system - at the voter level. Trying to set up a constituency system to be fair in terms of outcome would be utterly wrong.
We have to have a level playing field - each constituency representing the same number of voters. What is wrong with that?
Because MPs represent all their constituents, not just voters.
I fail to see how that makes them having the same number to represent a problem.
The reforms don't, the constituencies are now based on equal numbers of voters not equal number of constituents.
Which given we know exactly how many voters live in each constituency as of any particular date and not how many constituents seems entirely reasonable.
Anyone who hasn't bothered to register to vote should do so. It's easy to do so.
Given that an annual form is sent to every home, the council send one every time the name on the council tax bill changes, and the electoral commission have an online registration portal, how does anyone have an excuse for not being registered?
I keep getting pestered by the Electoral register people demanding to know I live in my house..
Clintons in a hole and digging: both Bill and Hillary say she has had severe dehydration in the past. Presumably they expect other stories to emerge. So does it or doesn't it have anything to do with pneumonia, or is she just not good at remembering to drink?
I have become dehydrated exactly twice in my life after extreme exercise, I would never describe it as rarely or few or talk about how I can manage to avoid it.
It the lying from Hiliary that she didn't faint and only stumbled a bit that get me. We can see she passes out as clearly as Corbyn and his ram packed train. Why not just say so, rather than more lies. It just fuels the conspiracy theories.
she saw that lying is popular with those leaning towards trump?
No rise in inflation, everything lower than expected.
I've had a poke around in the figures and there doesn't appear to be any nasties lurking about in the small print. Of course, a lot of companies will have hedges against currency movements, which will unwind over the next year or so.
There is a significant rise in input costs at 7.6% but the explanation that that is mainly as a result of prior falls in oil falling out of the 12 month reckoning is entirely credible. Inflation will continue to rise but even the 2% target looks a bit away yet.
So since Brexit we have exports rising, the stock market rising and inflation under control.
The sky is falling though.
Except that we have not yet had Brexit and the uncertainty may well be affecting investment. I was at a party for a firm of solicitors at the end of last week. Their corporate partner said that he had 3 deals which were put on hold with Brexit and are still on hold. They may come back but the uncertainty is an issue. I have heard similar tales from other corporate lawyers.
I can understand politically why May is not in any rush to define Brexit or to have serious discussions but economically it is not great. I really think the government should get on with it.
I liked the FT on the current situation. It's benign for consumers who are clearly not that bothered. I expect business investment and FDI to fall off a cliff, but we won't see those numbers until November(?).
However, now the initial shock has passed, I still think we're more at the mercy of the global outlook than anything we do domestically.
Clintons in a hole and digging: both Bill and Hillary say she has had severe dehydration in the past. Presumably they expect other stories to emerge. So does it or doesn't it have anything to do with pneumonia, or is she just not good at remembering to drink?
I have become dehydrated exactly twice in my life after extreme exercise, I would never describe it as rarely or few or talk about how I can manage to avoid it.
It the lying from Hiliary that she didn't faint and only stumbled a bit that get me. We can see she passes out as clearly as Corbyn and his ram packed train. Why not just say so, rather than more lies. It just fuels the conspiracy theories.
there's an interesting anecdote on lance armstrong's latest podcast about Trump's golfing technique (a special caddy who runs ahead and retrieves the ball from the rough, bunker etc. and gives it a good lie...)
No rise in inflation, everything lower than expected.
I've had a poke around in the figures and there doesn't appear to be any nasties lurking about in the small print. Of course, a lot of companies will have hedges against currency movements, which will unwind over the next year or so.
There is a significant rise in input costs at 7.6% but the explanation that that is mainly as a result of prior falls in oil falling out of the 12 month reckoning is entirely credible. Inflation will continue to rise but even the 2% target looks a bit away yet.
So since Brexit we have exports rising, the stock market rising and inflation under control.
The sky is falling though.
Except that we have not yet had Brexit and the uncertainty may well be affecting investment. I was at a party for a firm of solicitors at the end of last week. Their corporate partner said that he had 3 deals which were put on hold with Brexit and are still on hold. They may come back but the uncertainty is an issue. I have heard similar tales from other corporate lawyers.
I can understand politically why May is not in any rush to define Brexit or to have serious discussions but economically it is not great. I really think the government should get on with it.
I think what is needed is clarity of destination and the timetable by which we get there. Business needs to know what the new environment will be but it also needs time to transition to it and get the arrangements in place.
On the other hand, given we are heading toward hard Brexit and most European business relationships needing completely overhauled, we probably may as well get on with it.
Clintons in a hole and digging: both Bill and Hillary say she has had severe dehydration in the past. Presumably they expect other stories to emerge. So does it or doesn't it have anything to do with pneumonia, or is she just not good at remembering to drink?
I have become dehydrated exactly twice in my life after extreme exercise, I would never describe it as rarely or few or talk about how I can manage to avoid it.
It the lying from Hiliary that she didn't faint and only stumbled a bit that get me. We can see she passes out as clearly as Corbyn and his ram packed train. Why not just say so, rather than more lies. It just fuels the conspiracy theories.
there's an interesting anecdote on lance armstrong's latest podcast about Trump's golfing technique (a special caddy who runs ahead and retrieves the ball from the rough, bunker etc. and gives it a good lie...)
No sure what your point is? Allegations of Trump cheats at golf, not exactly new or surprising.
What about a directly elected leader on the popular vote? A final round run-off between two candidates. Would ensure whoever leads us has over 50% of the electorate behind them.
No rise in inflation, everything lower than expected.
I've had a poke around in the figures and there doesn't appear to be any nasties lurking about in the small print. Of course, a lot of companies will have hedges against currency movements, which will unwind over the next year or so.
There is a significant rise in input costs at 7.6% but the explanation that that is mainly as a result of prior falls in oil falling out of the 12 month reckoning is entirely credible. Inflation will continue to rise but even the 2% target looks a bit away yet.
So since Brexit we have exports rising, the stock market rising and inflation under control.
The sky is falling though.
Except that we have not yet had Brexit and the uncertainty may well be affecting investment. I was at a party for a firm of solicitors at the end of last week. Their corporate partner said that he had 3 deals which were put on hold with Brexit and are still on hold. They may come back but the uncertainty is an issue. I have heard similar tales from other corporate lawyers.
I can understand politically why May is not in any rush to define Brexit or to have serious discussions but economically it is not great. I really think the government should get on with it.
Agreed that uncertainty is an issue it is also countered with opportunity. But the big hit was supposed to be in the short term and for now at least it is not materialising.
BREAKING: Three Syrian men arrested in Germany on suspicion of being sent by so-called Islamic State to carry out attacks
Well, ISIS did warn us that was what they were doing...
Will Mrs Merkel now admit that letting anyone who wanted to come into Germany was a bad idea?
I know I'm wasting my time pointing this out but letting in anyone who wants to come into Germany is not in fact the policy.
Okay, I'm all ears to be told what's the policy in theory.
All I know is that the policy in practice has seen three guys from ISIS turn up, numerous stories of sexual assault and other violence, and of people from safe but poor countries tearing up their documents and claiming to be Syrian to gain entry.
The news stories about the presidential candidate's charitable foundation are really starting to get bad, Trump's that is. Illegal political donations, buying gifts for Trump, phantom donations it's going to be a PR disaster.
You're kidding? Trump was always upfront about buying political influence - it's part of his platform to be poacher turned gamekeeper.
He claimed he bought political influence, the issue is the Trump foundation using other people's money to make political donations.
Trump hasn't put any money into the charity for years.
It doesn't matter there is a hardcore of about 42% who will vote for him no matter what.
Clintons in a hole and digging: both Bill and Hillary say she has had severe dehydration in the past. Presumably they expect other stories to emerge. So does it or doesn't it have anything to do with pneumonia, or is she just not good at remembering to drink?
I have become dehydrated exactly twice in my life after extreme exercise, I would never describe it as rarely or few or talk about how I can manage to avoid it.
It the lying from Hiliary that she didn't faint and only stumbled a bit that get me. We can see she passes out as clearly as Corbyn and his ram packed train. Why not just say so, rather than more lies. It just fuels the conspiracy theories.
there's an interesting anecdote on lance armstrong's latest podcast about Trump's golfing technique (a special caddy who runs ahead and retrieves the ball from the rough, bunker etc. and gives it a good lie...)
No sure what your point is? Allegations of Trump cheats at golf, not exactly new or surprising.
One of the perks of owning the course, I would assume.
No rise in inflation, everything lower than expected.
Producer inflation continuing its rising trend up from 0.3 to 0.8%. Surprisingly modest given the fall in the currency in July but no doubt a lot had been bought forward.
The inflation picture remains as benign as I can recall it in my adult life. The fact we still have some is clearly good too.
Inflation will be mitigated by a squeeze on earnings, I think. Unless you are a lucky pensioner on a triple lock. The consensus is that Brexit will cost 2% of GDP in the 18 months to the end of 2017 but as we were in an economic up cycle that would be growth that didn't happen rather than absolute decline. As we can never be sure about what would have happened, but can only see what did happen - no material change - it won't impact much.
BREAKING: Three Syrian men arrested in Germany on suspicion of being sent by so-called Islamic State to carry out attacks
Well, ISIS did warn us that was what they were doing...
Will Mrs Merkel now admit that letting anyone who wanted to come into Germany was a bad idea?
I know I'm wasting my time pointing this out but letting in anyone who wants to come into Germany is not in fact the policy.
Not policy, just the fact of the matter. They have let in huge numbers of people that aren't Syrian / from countries that aren't war torn.
EU (including German) asylum seekers are overwhelmingly from war-torn countries. The top three by some margin are Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.
"The study, called “Asylum applicants: Social structure, qualifications and employability,” says that most of refugees who came to Germany in 2015 are young men. Most males, seen by country, come from Pakistan, followed by Afghans, Syrians, Eritreans and Iraqis. Under-22s make up the biggest proportion among the Eritreans (over 46 percent), the Afghans (40 percent) and Iraqis (27 percent).
In total, nearly two-thirds of all refugees are 33 and under, with only a tiny proportion of people older than 52, the study says. Young people predominantly come from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Pakistan, Iraq and Syria." https://www.rt.com/news/343753-germany-refugees-males-statistics/
No rise in inflation, everything lower than expected.
Producer inflation continuing its rising trend up from 0.3 to 0.8%. Surprisingly modest given the fall in the currency in July but no doubt a lot had been bought forward.
The inflation picture remains as benign as I can recall it in my adult life. The fact we still have some is clearly good too.
Inflation will be mitigated by a squeeze on earnings, I think. Unless you are a lucky pensioner on a triple lock. The consensus is that Brexit will cost 2% of GDP in the 18 months to the end of 2017 but as we were in an economic up cycle that would be growth that didn't happen rather than absolute decline. As we can never be sure about what would have happened, but can only see what did happen - no material change - it won't impact much.
Yes, I think that is the most likely scenario, longer term wage deflation. It's how they dealt with weak currency in Germany as well from 2010 onwards.
No rise in inflation, everything lower than expected.
I've had a poke around in the figures and there doesn't appear to be any nasties lurking about in the small print. Of course, a lot of companies will have hedges against currency movements, which will unwind over the next year or so.
There is a significant rise in input costs at 7.6% but the explanation that that is mainly as a result of prior falls in oil falling out of the 12 month reckoning is entirely credible. Inflation will continue to rise but even the 2% target looks a bit away yet.
So since Brexit we have exports rising, the stock market rising and inflation under control.
The sky is falling though.
Except that we have not yet had Brexit and the uncertainty may well be affecting investment. I was at a party for a firm of solicitors at the end of last week. Their corporate partner said that he had 3 deals which were put on hold with Brexit and are still on hold. They may come back but the uncertainty is an issue. I have heard similar tales from other corporate lawyers.
I can understand politically why May is not in any rush to define Brexit or to have serious discussions but economically it is not great. I really think the government should get on with it.
I think what is needed is clarity of destination and the timetable by which we get there. Business needs to know what the new environment will be but it also needs time to transition to it and get the arrangements in place.
On the other hand, given we are heading toward hard Brexit and most European business relationships needing completely overhauled, we probably may as well get on with it.
I agree on both points. I think negotiating a satisfactory arrangement before we leave will be impossibly difficult with negotiations inevitably bogged down by the myriad of special interests throughout Europe. Once we are out it will probably be easier to negotiate sensible arrangements sector by sector.
And it is just possible that a studied indifference to being in the Single Market might prove to be the best way of achieving that.
Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn has called for Hungary to be suspended or even expelled from the European Union because of its "massive violation" of EU fundamental values.
Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn has called for Hungary to be suspended or even expelled from the European Union because of its "massive violation" of EU fundamental values.
Clintons in a hole and digging: both Bill and Hillary say she has had severe dehydration in the past. Presumably they expect other stories to emerge. So does it or doesn't it have anything to do with pneumonia, or is she just not good at remembering to drink?
I have become dehydrated exactly twice in my life after extreme exercise, I would never describe it as rarely or few or talk about how I can manage to avoid it.
It the lying from Hiliary that she didn't faint and only stumbled a bit that get me. We can see she passes out as clearly as Corbyn and his ram packed train. Why not just say so, rather than more lies. It just fuels the conspiracy theories.
there's an interesting anecdote on lance armstrong's latest podcast about Trump's golfing technique (a special caddy who runs ahead and retrieves the ball from the rough, bunker etc. and gives it a good lie...)
No sure what your point is? Allegations of Trump cheats at golf, not exactly new or surprising.
One of the perks of owning the course, I would assume.
I wonder if this caddy has a bowler hat with a metal rim....I see quite a lot of similarities between Goldfinger and Trump.
BREAKING: Three Syrian men arrested in Germany on suspicion of being sent by so-called Islamic State to carry out attacks
Well, ISIS did warn us that was what they were doing...
Will Mrs Merkel now admit that letting anyone who wanted to come into Germany was a bad idea?
I know I'm wasting my time pointing this out but letting in anyone who wants to come into Germany is not in fact the policy.
Not policy, just the fact of the matter. They have let in huge numbers of people that aren't Syrian / from countries that aren't war torn.
EU (including German) asylum seekers are overwhelmingly from war-torn countries. The top three by some margin are Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.
That's just not true for Germany. Number one was Pakistan iirc.
No, you misread that. Almost half were from Syria; only 1.7% were from Pakistan. It was Pakistani asylum seekers that had the highest proportion of men.
BREAKING: Three Syrian men arrested in Germany on suspicion of being sent by so-called Islamic State to carry out attacks
Well, ISIS did warn us that was what they were doing...
Will Mrs Merkel now admit that letting anyone who wanted to come into Germany was a bad idea?
I know I'm wasting my time pointing this out but letting in anyone who wants to come into Germany is not in fact the policy.
Not policy, just the fact of the matter. They have let in huge numbers of people that aren't Syrian / from countries that aren't war torn.
EU (including German) asylum seekers are overwhelmingly from war-torn countries. The top three by some margin are Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.
That's just not true for Germany. Number one was Pakistan iirc.
The numbers I saw don't say that, but they do say that over 1/3 didn't come from Syria / Afghanistan / Iraq...and of course we know that not all of the 2/3 claiming they came from those countries did actually do so.
Cameron's philosophy on this was correct. They should register people at refugee camps on the Syrian border, check them out, assess on the basis of need, then accept them to places like Germany.
In Brazil the Speaker of the lower house has been expelled from Congress for holding the proceeds of corruption in Swiss bank accounts. It is seen as a vote of revenge by supporters of impeached former president Rousseff as he orchestrated the impeachment against her
Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn has called for Hungary to be suspended or even expelled from the European Union because of its "massive violation" of EU fundamental values.
Hmm, not sure that having one member walk out of the door and another member being kicked out is a very good look for the EU. Hungary has a lot of friends in Eastern Europe and if their concerns are not listened to then they may well decide they've had enough of Brussels as well.
They don't seem to understand that the single market is no longer a big enough pull factor for countries who are not politically aligned to the EU. 10 years ago that wasn't true, but since then the single market has a smaller proportion of global GDP and has probably shrunk once you take the UK out.
No rise in inflation, everything lower than expected.
Producer inflation continuing its rising trend up from 0.3 to 0.8%. Surprisingly modest given the fall in the currency in July but no doubt a lot had been bought forward.
The inflation picture remains as benign as I can recall it in my adult life. The fact we still have some is clearly good too.
Inflation will be mitigated by a squeeze on earnings, I think. Unless you are a lucky pensioner on a triple lock. The consensus is that Brexit will cost 2% of GDP in the 18 months to the end of 2017 but as we were in an economic up cycle that would be growth that didn't happen rather than absolute decline. As we can never be sure about what would have happened, but can only see what did happen - no material change - it won't impact much.
Yes, I think that is the most likely scenario, longer term wage deflation. It's how they dealt with weak currency in Germany as well from 2010 onwards.
Well, we will see. I can see there being considerable resistance to wage deflation and the Living Wage will run counter to it. I also think, in so far as these matters are in government control at all, that May will want to avoid that because it will run entirely counter to her focus on the strugglers.
BREAKING: Three Syrian men arrested in Germany on suspicion of being sent by so-called Islamic State to carry out attacks
Well, ISIS did warn us that was what they were doing...
Will Mrs Merkel now admit that letting anyone who wanted to come into Germany was a bad idea?
I know I'm wasting my time pointing this out but letting in anyone who wants to come into Germany is not in fact the policy.
Not policy, just the fact of the matter. They have let in huge numbers of people that aren't Syrian / from countries that aren't war torn.
EU (including German) asylum seekers are overwhelmingly from war-torn countries. The top three by some margin are Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.
That's just not true for Germany. Number one was Pakistan iirc.
The numbers I saw don't say that, but they do say that over 1/3 didn't come from Syria / Afghanistan / Iraq...and of course we know that not all of the 2/3 claiming they came from those countries did actually do so.
Cameron's philosophy on this was correct. They should register people at refugee camps on the Syrian border, check them out, assess on the basis of need, then accept them to places like Germany.
Most of the rest were from ex-Yugoslavia and Albania.
No rise in inflation, everything lower than expected.
Producer inflation continuing its rising trend up from 0.3 to 0.8%. Surprisingly modest given the fall in the currency in July but no doubt a lot had been bought forward.
The inflation picture remains as benign as I can recall it in my adult life. The fact we still have some is clearly good too.
Inflation will be mitigated by a squeeze on earnings, I think. Unless you are a lucky pensioner on a triple lock. The consensus is that Brexit will cost 2% of GDP in the 18 months to the end of 2017 but as we were in an economic up cycle that would be growth that didn't happen rather than absolute decline. As we can never be sure about what would have happened, but can only see what did happen - no material change - it won't impact much.
Yes, I think that is the most likely scenario, longer term wage deflation. It's how they dealt with weak currency in Germany as well from 2010 onwards.
Well, we will see. I can see there being considerable resistance to wage deflation and the Living Wage will run counter to it. I also think, in so far as these matters are in government control at all, that May will want to avoid that because it will run entirely counter to her focus on the strugglers.
That's why I think the government will finally take action on boardroom and executive pay. They need to take action now or it will be impossible to sell 1% wage rises to the worker class. I'd say 5-6% pay cuts for management classes and 1% pay rises for worker classes ought to be enough to hold up margins without passing on cost increases to consumers. It will also help close the inequality gap that this country has been storing up.
BREAKING: Three Syrian men arrested in Germany on suspicion of being sent by so-called Islamic State to carry out attacks
Well, ISIS did warn us that was what they were doing...
Will Mrs Merkel now admit that letting anyone who wanted to come into Germany was a bad idea?
I know I'm wasting my time pointing this out but letting in anyone who wants to come into Germany is not in fact the policy.
Not policy, just the fact of the matter. They have let in huge numbers of people that aren't Syrian / from countries that aren't war torn.
EU (including German) asylum seekers are overwhelmingly from war-torn countries. The top three by some margin are Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.
That's just not true for Germany. Number one was Pakistan iirc.
No, you misread that. Almost half were from Syria; only 1.7% were from Pakistan. It was Pakistani asylum seekers that had the highest proportion of men.
My mistake! Still around a third are blatant chancers and who knows how truthful the rest were. Plus Afghanistan isn't Syria or Iraq. Including it in with those two isn't right, they don't have the same issues with IS.
No rise in inflation, everything lower than expected.
Producer inflation continuing its rising trend up from 0.3 to 0.8%. Surprisingly modest given the fall in the currency in July but no doubt a lot had been bought forward.
The inflation picture remains as benign as I can recall it in my adult life. The fact we still have some is clearly good too.
Inflation will be mitigated by a squeeze on earnings, I think. Unless you are a lucky pensioner on a triple lock. The consensus is that Brexit will cost 2% of GDP in the 18 months to the end of 2017 but as we were in an economic up cycle that would be growth that didn't happen rather than absolute decline. As we can never be sure about what would have happened, but can only see what did happen - no material change - it won't impact much.
Yes, I think that is the most likely scenario, longer term wage deflation. It's how they dealt with weak currency in Germany as well from 2010 onwards.
Well, we will see. I can see there being considerable resistance to wage deflation and the Living Wage will run counter to it. I also think, in so far as these matters are in government control at all, that May will want to avoid that because it will run entirely counter to her focus on the strugglers.
That's why I think the government will finally take action on boardroom and executive pay. They need to take action now or it will be impossible to sell 1% wage rises to the worker class. I'd say 5-6% pay cuts for management classes and 1% pay rises for worker classes ought to be enough to hold up margins without passing on cost increases to consumers. It will also help close the inequality gap that this country has been storing up.
I fear being "open for business" to the world post Brexit and seeking to impose limits on (the admittedly obscene) Boardroom pay at the same time will be a very hard sell.
BREAKING: Three Syrian men arrested in Germany on suspicion of being sent by so-called Islamic State to carry out attacks
Well, ISIS did warn us that was what they were doing...
Will Mrs Merkel now admit that letting anyone who wanted to come into Germany was a bad idea?
I know I'm wasting my time pointing this out but letting in anyone who wants to come into Germany is not in fact the policy.
Not policy, just the fact of the matter. They have let in huge numbers of people that aren't Syrian / from countries that aren't war torn.
EU (including German) asylum seekers are overwhelmingly from war-torn countries. The top three by some margin are Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.
That's just not true for Germany. Number one was Pakistan iirc.
That's what Russia Today reported (see madasafish's link) but if you click through to the study they source it from it doesn't seem to say that. Maybe they were trying to say that Pakistani applicants had a high proportion of men?
BREAKING: Three Syrian men arrested in Germany on suspicion of being sent by so-called Islamic State to carry out attacks
Well, ISIS did warn us that was what they were doing...
Will Mrs Merkel now admit that letting anyone who wanted to come into Germany was a bad idea?
I know I'm wasting my time pointing this out but letting in anyone who wants to come into Germany is not in fact the policy.
Not policy, just the fact of the matter. They have let in huge numbers of people that aren't Syrian / from countries that aren't war torn.
EU (including German) asylum seekers are overwhelmingly from war-torn countries. The top three by some margin are Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.
That's just not true for Germany. Number one was Pakistan iirc.
No, you misread that. Almost half were from Syria; only 1.7% were from Pakistan. It was Pakistani asylum seekers that had the highest proportion of men.
Clintons in a hole and digging: both Bill and Hillary say she has had severe dehydration in the past. Presumably they expect other stories to emerge. So does it or doesn't it have anything to do with pneumonia, or is she just not good at remembering to drink?
Or is she still suffering from the concussion in 2012? Which in itself was a bit odd really.
Anecdote alert: I was having dinner yesterday with an American colleague. She made the point that the email issue would have killed any other lawyer working in an industry like ours. Anyone who treated emails and confidentiality in the way Hilary has would be very lucky indeed not to face disciplinary action/dismissal etc. She is simply not trusted. (Another US lawyer colleague hates Hilary for precisely this reason.)
On Trump she said that he says so many things, often like a child who says the first thing that comes into their head, that even those who don't like him can often find themselves agreeing with some of the things he has said. But you didn't know which of them he might actually take seriously and implement.
So it would boil down to who was hated/disliked the least and she noted that the polls were narrowing. She wouldn't opine on who would win.
My takeaway from this is that I would not be that surprised if Trump were to win.
joncraigSKY @joncraig A well informed source in Brighton tells me David Cameron & wife Samantha have been dining with Tony & Cherie Blair recently. Interesting!
So then - which of these boundary proposals look to be complete bollocks and will get radically overhauled?
None or all. They will be either accepted in total or rejected in total. But no matter what they do, you cannot squeeze 650 into 600. (Although a few peerages, heads of quangos, non-executive directorships on large public companies may help)
No rise in inflation, everything lower than expected.
Producer inflation continuing its rising trend up from 0.3 to 0.8%. Surprisingly modest given the fall in the currency in July but no doubt a lot had been bought forward.
The inflation picture remains as benign as I can recall it in my adult life. The fact we still have some is clearly good too.
Inflation will be mitigated by a squeeze on earnings, I think. Unless you are a lucky pensioner on a triple lock. The consensus is that Brexit will cost 2% of GDP in the 18 months to the end of 2017 but as we were in an economic up cycle that would be growth that didn't happen rather than absolute decline. As we can never be sure about what would have happened, but can only see what did happen - no material change - it won't impact much.
Yes, I think that is the most likely scenario, longer term wage deflation. It's how they dealt with weak currency in Germany as well from 2010 onwards.
Well, we will see. I can see there being considerable resistance to wage deflation and the Living Wage will run counter to it. I also think, in so far as these matters are in government control at all, that May will want to avoid that because it will run entirely counter to her focus on the strugglers.
That's why I think the government will finally take action on boardroom and executive pay. They need to take action now or it will be impossible to sell 1% wage rises to the worker class. I'd say 5-6% pay cuts for management classes and 1% pay rises for worker classes ought to be enough to hold up margins without passing on cost increases to consumers. It will also help close the inequality gap that this country has been storing up.
Will not that need primary legislation? A Conservative government introducing a statutory incomes policy? I rather doubt it.
Plus Afghanistan isn't Syria or Iraq. Including it in with those two isn't right, they don't have the same issues with IS.
Where we came in was that someone was claiming that huge numbers of asylum seekers in Germany were from countries that weren't war-torn. (Note that a lot of the Syrian refugees will be fleeing the Assad regime, not IS, but they're still refugees.)
Not withstanding that the numbers for each country may include some people from other countries with fake papers and excellent language skills, if you look at the numbers this is absolutely not true: The overwhelming proportion of refugees are coming from countries that are at war, or (in the case of Eritrea) something close to it.
Plus Afghanistan isn't Syria or Iraq. Including it in with those two isn't right, they don't have the same issues with IS.
Where we came in was that someone was claiming that huge numbers of asylum seekers in Germany were from countries that weren't war-torn. (Note that a lot of the Syrian refugees will be fleeing the Assad regime, not IS, but they're still refugees.)
Not withstanding that the numbers for each country may include some people from other countries with fake papers and excellent language skills, if you look at the numbers this is absolutely not true: The overwhelming proportion of refugees are coming from countries that are at war, or (in the case of Eritrea) something close to it.
400k+ a year are not from the big 3, and thats before you consider people lying about country of origin with fake / no papers etc. Given they are arriving in Germany unchecked, who knows how many are fake. It is also debatable if Afghans should be accepted.
Before Merkel's policy change, I think Germany got 200k applications per year in total. I would say in most people's language having over double to 3 times the usual not from Syrian / Iraq / Afghanistan is a huge number.
No rise in inflation, everything lower than expected.
Producer inflation continuing its rising trend up from 0.3 to 0.8%. Surprisingly modest given the fall in the currency in July but no doubt a lot had been bought forward.
The inflation picture remains as benign as I can recall it in my adult life. The fact we still have some is clearly good too.
Inflation will be mitigated by a squeeze on earnings, I think. Unless you are a lucky pensioner on a triple lock. The consensus is that Brexit will cost 2% of GDP in the 18 months to the end of 2017 but as we were in an economic up cycle that would be growth that didn't happen rather than absolute decline. As we can never be sure about what would have happened, but can only see what did happen - no material change - it won't impact much.
Yes, I think that is the most likely scenario, longer term wage deflation. It's how they dealt with weak currency in Germany as well from 2010 onwards.
Well, we will see. I can see there being considerable resistance to wage deflation and the Living Wage will run counter to it. I also think, in so far as these matters are in government control at all, that May will want to avoid that because it will run entirely counter to her focus on the strugglers.
I can see the Living Wage being a casualty of Brexit. It's an outsourcing of welfare from government to companies, but it is one that is necessarily funded by future increases in business profitability. As the latter is likely to be substantially hit by Brexit, I can see the planned increases in the Living Wage not happening and as low wage earners will already have lost their Working Tax credits they will lose out overall.
Clintons in a hole and digging: both Bill and Hillary say she has had severe dehydration in the past. Presumably they expect other stories to emerge. So does it or doesn't it have anything to do with pneumonia, or is she just not good at remembering to drink?
Or is she still suffering from the concussion in 2012? Which in itself was a bit odd really.
Anecdote alert: I was having dinner yesterday with an American colleague. She made the point that the email issue would have killed any other lawyer working in an industry like ours. Anyone who treated emails and confidentiality in the way Hilary has would be very lucky indeed not to face disciplinary action/dismissal etc. She is simply not trusted. (Another US lawyer colleague hates Hilary for precisely this reason.)
On Trump she said that he says so many things, often like a child who says the first thing that comes into their head, that even those who don't like him can often find themselves agreeing with some of the things he has said. But you didn't know which of them he might actually take seriously and implement.
So it would boil down to who was hated/disliked the least and she noted that the polls were narrowing. She wouldn't opine on who would win.
My takeaway from this is that I would not be that surprised if Trump were to win.
If a decision had been taken not to prosecute a politician guilty of what Hillary was guilty of in almost any other country we would be contemptuously alleging institutional corruption. I really don't see why we should look at the US any differently. It was and is a disgrace.
Trump does not seem fit to be President but nor is Hillary. Its a dilemma.
joncraigSKY @joncraig A well informed source in Brighton tells me David Cameron & wife Samantha have been dining with Tony & Cherie Blair recently. Interesting!
I can imagine the topic of conversation being what an ungrateful bunch the public are in not realising their genius.
Comments
The boundary review is like transfer day for political nerds. #BoundaryReview
Incidentally, I see Prescott helped out a busy buffet on a train recently. This is how Labour should act, not sitting on the floor making a video full of rubbish.
Politicians are elected for their skill in politics. Of which negotiation is crucial - indeed, if your party has inept politicians, they'll be unsuccessful.
And we already have a ready-made bullet-proof pretext for throwing away promises: it's called legal precedent. It was demonstrated in court that manifesto promises are not binding even if you win a majority.
Yes, you can argue that throwing away your manifesto promises can cause damage at the next election, but it can in coalitions as well [looks at the number 56 falling to 8]. And you can flatten a party with more impunity under a PR system than you can FPTP [The Tories junk their key manifesto commitment to balancing the books, and point to Corbyn as the only alternative as soon as people think of punishing them]. Which falsifies your final paragraph.
And I'd rather put forwards a menu of policy directions from which the politicians have to choose a coherent plan of Government than get delivered two choices by the smoke-filled rooms of two party leaderships where you must take one in toto or get the other one.
The Tories say they believe in free markets. Free markets rely on increased choice and competition. FPTP reduces that to a duopoly. But monopolies and duopolies look so much more appealing when you're the ones who are in the monopoly seat or duopoly seats...
Then to make matters even worse you overwhelm what the voters actually chose to be their representatives with prizes for losers to punish the successful.
Terrible, terrible system.
stability whereby the political class decide upon the government
instability whereby the political class fail to stitch things up, leading to chaos
Neither is good.
Mr. Cooke, what's unfair, as I wrote, is that a bonfire of promises would be necessary. Sixty percent would not be represented, because each party, all being equal, would have to throw away five-sixths of their manifesto. The very promises that enticed votes would be tossed aside after the votes had been cast.
There is no duopoly in Scotland. A burgeoning three-party system ended in England not because of the voting system but because of the voters, who decided to hack down the Lib Dems.
Only if the government will oppose an early vote (or the opposition can become the government without one) can an early election not be held. It makes no difference to majority governments only minority or coalition ones.
Not alot of change in the grand scheme of things - I did think it was PARTICULARLY RICH for Labour MPs to come on moaning and whining though when they forwent any type of meaningful electoral reform BECAUSE THE SYSTEM SUITED THEM well enough from 1997 - 2010.
The entire starting point of this discussion was that "local" is a variable feast dependent on whatever comes out of the Boundary Commission's vain attempts to satisfy a number of discordant objectives which cannot be mutually met.
You get "local" MPs whose constituencies are such that you can't drive from one side to the other while staying in the constituency. Constituencies that are weird shapes meandering around and between other constituencies just to satisfy numbers.
We could simply bypass all this and retain a sort of local tie by modifying that county idea to get rid of proportionality if you want: each county has x number of MPs, each household gets a random number assigned and 1/x of these numbers go to each MP. Yes, you get a rather amusing spread of voters to MPs, but it's very easy to calculate a representative number without argument, other than reassigning the random numbers. Or we could bypass that by going alphabetically.
(Oxfordshire A-D, Oxfordshire E-H, Oxfordshire I-L, Oxfordshire M-P, Oxfordshire Q-T, Oxfordshire U-Z).
Satisfies everyone, right? Admittedly the assignation of voters to MPs within the county is rather bizarre, but we already have that as an inherent trait of the existing system!
Anyone who hasn't bothered to register to vote should do so. It's easy to do so.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/12/politics/bill-clinton-charlie-rose-hillary-clinton-health/
(Indeed there have been exercises when manifesto policies were presented to focus groups completely separate from their party affiliations and when people found out which party they were from, their opinions changed massively).
Parties are based on ideological direction and so are votes. If a party abandons its ideological direction, they'll get hammered.
I honestly can't see how someone who'd experienced heatstroke or similar wouldn't have learned a very unpleasant lesson the first time.
The inflation picture remains as benign as I can recall it in my adult life. The fact we still have some is clearly good too.
Must be Carney's quick thinking...
The sky is falling though.
Well, ISIS did warn us that was what they were doing...
I can understand politically why May is not in any rush to define Brexit or to have serious discussions but economically it is not great. I really think the government should get on with it.
I have become dehydrated exactly twice in my life after extreme exercise, I would never describe it as rarely or few or talk about how I can manage to avoid it.
It the lying from Hiliary that she didn't faint and only stumbled a bit that get me. We can see she passes out as clearly as Corbyn and his ram packed train. Why not just say so, rather than more lies. It just fuels the conspiracy theories.
Handy list of MPs facing a battle on their hands to stay in parliament. Please send us any more... https://t.co/Eq68ixZErq
However, now the initial shock has passed, I still think we're more at the mercy of the global outlook than anything we do domestically.
Bernard will not be happy. Here he is at PMQs last week
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will she beware those who are trying to make leaving the European Union ever more complicated and protracted?
Who could he possibly be referring to?
@rowenamason: Brexit secretary David Davis acknowledges leaving the EU "may be the most complicated negotiation of all time"
Oh...
Maybe the Tories can purge some troublemakers too?
@LOS_Fisher: Mini re-rerun of EU ref lined up by boundary changes: Brexit sec David Davis'sseat merged with Labour Remain chief Alan Johnson's
On the other hand, given we are heading toward hard Brexit and most European business relationships needing completely overhauled, we probably may as well get on with it.
What about a directly elected leader on the popular vote? A final round run-off between two candidates. Would ensure whoever leads us has over 50% of the electorate behind them.
All I know is that the policy in practice has seen three guys from ISIS turn up, numerous stories of sexual assault and other violence, and of people from safe but poor countries tearing up their documents and claiming to be Syrian to gain entry.
In total, nearly two-thirds of all refugees are 33 and under, with only a tiny proportion of people older than 52, the study says. Young people predominantly come from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Pakistan, Iraq and Syria."
https://www.rt.com/news/343753-germany-refugees-males-statistics/
Proposed boundary changes in England: 10 well-known MPs whose seat has disappeared #boundaryreview https://t.co/DWrVs4LwS9
And it is just possible that a studied indifference to being in the Single Market might prove to be the best way of achieving that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37347352
http://www.aktion-neue-nachbarn.de/fluechtlinge-in-deutschland/
Cameron's philosophy on this was correct. They should register people at refugee camps on the Syrian border, check them out, assess on the basis of need, then accept them to places like Germany.
FBI Director James Comey refuses to testify on Clinton emails https://t.co/k8xWe3mh5t https://t.co/3LRMpYz0xg
They don't seem to understand that the single market is no longer a big enough pull factor for countries who are not politically aligned to the EU. 10 years ago that wasn't true, but since then the single market has a smaller proportion of global GDP and has probably shrunk once you take the UK out.
I fear being "open for business" to the world post Brexit and seeking to impose limits on (the admittedly obscene) Boardroom pay at the same time will be a very hard sell.
Excellent link
How arrogant were Ed supporters?
On Trump she said that he says so many things, often like a child who says the first thing that comes into their head, that even those who don't like him can often find themselves agreeing with some of the things he has said. But you didn't know which of them he might actually take seriously and implement.
So it would boil down to who was hated/disliked the least and she noted that the polls were narrowing. She wouldn't opine on who would win.
My takeaway from this is that I would not be that surprised if Trump were to win.
There are plenty of positive ones, even though Wales is set to lose MPs.
joncraigSKY @joncraig
A well informed source in Brighton tells me David Cameron & wife Samantha have been dining with Tony & Cherie Blair recently. Interesting!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa2DW4aXVaw
(Yes I know it's not an MP, but it's close)
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/08/europe/italy-supreme-court-masturbation/
(Where is our favourite ristretto connoisseur ?)
Not withstanding that the numbers for each country may include some people from other countries with fake papers and excellent language skills, if you look at the numbers this is absolutely not true: The overwhelming proportion of refugees are coming from countries that are at war, or (in the case of Eritrea) something close to it.
Before Merkel's policy change, I think Germany got 200k applications per year in total. I would say in most people's language having over double to 3 times the usual not from Syrian / Iraq / Afghanistan is a huge number.
Trump does not seem fit to be President but nor is Hillary. Its a dilemma.