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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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 ?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Comments
Since the debate it's Buttigieg down, Klobuchar up.
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.
Even Corbyn isn’t as useless as these idiots.
The polls are fascinating. Buttigieg has been hammered by his performance
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
It's a high task, but the Gael-Fail coalition might need a 3rd partner too to stay in power.
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.
He got caught on live National TV.
27% for FG distributed on 2 candidates (6300 and 4600)
16% for SF. (6300)
13% for FF (5400)
It is a 4 members constituency.
Personally I think it is just the normal asinine fun and games, that will sink without trace.
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?
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-ally-boris-johnson-abandoning-president-after-apoplectic-call-2020-2
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.
The President of the United States is our ally so long as we do exactly what we're told.
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.
http://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1226555908530065412?s=20
Every Trekkie will agree that I am a Meaney for making that pun.
Excellent.
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.
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
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
They didn't expect this -- they went in to the election with low expectations.
But they pulled off a Corby_2017.
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
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?
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
https://twitter.com/R_Niblett_/status/1226406364366458881
There’s a further story in today’s paper, although not nearly as prominent as the news about London’s mystery Coronavirus victim.
SF 191% of the quota in Waterford and this really is a nailed on 2nd seat missed.
Nothing is new under the sun.
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.
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".
I look forward to defacing a 50p when I get one.
Besides, I Brooks no rival.
d'Hondt for me, with the candidate order decided by party primaries.
The answer is always AV.
Does anyone normal watch them?
https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/1226524684734410753?s=20
If people had solely focussed on the issue YES2AV would have won a landslide.
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."
Yes2AV 32%
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)