The government is right to junk Supplementary Vote – it’s the worst of all worlds – politicalbetting
Options
The government is right to junk Supplementary Vote – it’s the worst of all worlds – politicalbetting.com
The only exciting thing about the London mayoral election result this year is likely to be whether Sadiq Khan wins on the first vote or is forced into second preferences. He will not be close by Shaun Bailey or any of the many other candidates but may miss out on the 50% share needed to secure a first-preference win.
0
Comments
-
Sixty-one percent of French adults surveyed said the vaccine was unsafe, a rise of 18 percentage points compared to February, YouGov said.CarlottaVance said:
Just over half of German adults surveyed said they thought the vaccine was unsafe, a rise of 15 percentage points compared to February, while 43% of Italians had serious doubts, an increase of almost a third.
Well done mini-Trump...time to build a wall around France.0 -
Second but first after second preferences are redistributed.10
-
How does one go about building and equipping a nightingale mrna vax factory?2
-
The survey showed that only in Britain, where the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine has been used in a national rollout since January, have the blood clot concerns had little to no impact on public confidence. The majority of people polled in the UK - 77% - still say the shot is safe. Their trust in it is on a par with Pfizer's 79% perceived safety rating.FrancisUrquhart said:
Sixty-one percent of French adults surveyed said the vaccine was unsafe, a rise of 18 percentage points compared to February, YouGov said.CarlottaVance said:
Just over half of German adults surveyed said they thought the vaccine was unsafe, a rise of 15 percentage points compared to February, while 43% of Italians had serious doubts, an increase of almost a third.
Well done mini-Trump...time to build a wall around France.0 -
Wakes up
Reads news
Sees the world is going mad
Goes back to bed...3 -
I thought I was not going to agree with David Herdson, because Conservatives are always wrong when they talk about voting systems. But then I read his piece, and I was persuaded.
If this system was introduced in 2000, then it was under a Labour Government, and they are almost as corrupt and self-interested as the Tories.0 -
What these threads on voting methods are illustrating is that whilst it's very easy to diss FPTP it's equally difficult to back an alternative with total confidence. Every voting system is flawed. If you're going to allow everyone over a certain age to have a vote then there's no perfect way to represent their views.
Personally I'm happy with FPTP. I think it's bemusing that those on the left are now complaining about it since when in power, and it suited them just fine, they did bog all about it.
And when the LibDems had their golden chance to reform the voting system as their price of coalition they blew it.
Let sleeping dogs lie, I say. If you don't like the Conservatives being in power, beat them.6 -
An unusually silly lead from Herdson. Yes, the way SV limits second preferences is flawed, but having a second preference is better than none, and ensures both that fewer votes are wasted and that the winner has the support of at least half of the voters, which FPTnP doesn’t do. His suggestions that votes aren’t wasted under our current system is absurd. Indeed every flaw he seeks to call out under SV is worse when there is no second choice at all.5
-
I see that another African politician has died of Covid:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/22/congos-opposition-candidate-kolelas-dies-a-day-after-poll
The combination of meeting lots of people, age much greater than the national average and air conditioned offices is not a good one.0 -
As record-breaking rains batter the NSW coastline and southern Queensland, causing widespread flooding, animals and insects are scrambling to escape the waters.
“There were also skinks, ants, basically every insect, crickets – all just trying to get away from the flood waters. My husband videoed it, because I was not going close to it. When he was standing still he had spiders climbing up his legs. A skink used him as a pole to get away from the water.
Macksville resident Melanie Williams was also shocked by a swarm of spiders climbing the outer wall of her home as they fled for higher ground. “I occasionally see spiders around the place but never anything like that, it was just insane,” she told the ABC. She told Guardian Australia the spiders outside her home were “horrific” but her neighbour told her there were twice as many inside his garage.0 -
It's sunny though, here. Sort of. Some breaks in the cloud cover we've had for several days.Sandpit said:Wakes up
Reads news
Sees the world is going mad
Goes back to bed...
If PP was changing the system just for these elections that would be one thing, but her claim seems to be that FPTP is always best.0 -
US AZ results out - works among over 65s as well as younger people and 100% effective against serious illness seventy something against symptomatic infection.8
-
Good morning, everyone.
All eyes on EU leaders to see what the magic 8-ball throws up on Thursday. So far, "AZN vaccine is poison", "Export bans", "Mandatory for the elderly", "Forbidden for the elderly", and "Unscientific pause to give a few people more chance to die" have come up, but we're all eager to see what happens next.
F1: returns this weekend.4 -
If Frau Dr van der Leyen has any sense she'll issue a statement along the lines of 'We've had concerns over the AZN vaccine, but as a scientist I've realised these were groundless. It should be part of the range of vaccines being used.'CarlottaVance said:US AZ results out - works among over 65s as well as younger people and 100% effective against serious illness seventy something against symptomatic infection.
And leave it to the company, and the industry generally, to get one with meeting contractual obligations.
That sort of co-operation is what the EU is for.0 -
Is it correct that the US could meet Biden’s new vaccine target without AZN? But with it they have a whopping surplus? Interesting. Most interesting...CarlottaVance said:US AZ results out - works among over 65s as well as younger people and 100% effective against serious illness seventy something against symptomatic infection.
0 -
Also no serious side effects in US AZ trial. AZ will present data to FDA in a few weeks.0
-
The EU will soon be welcoming the return of witch trials and the Spanish Inquisition....FrancisUrquhart said:
Sixty-one percent of French adults surveyed said the vaccine was unsafe, a rise of 18 percentage points compared to February, YouGov said.CarlottaVance said:
Just over half of German adults surveyed said they thought the vaccine was unsafe, a rise of 15 percentage points compared to February, while 43% of Italians had serious doubts, an increase of almost a third.
Well done mini-Trump...time to build a wall around France.
"Embrace the medieval!"-1 -
But that still leaves Brexit Britain W-A-Y out in front.OldKingCole said:
If Frau Dr van der Leyen has any sense she'll issue a statement along the lines of 'We've had concerns over the AZN vaccine, but as a scientist I've realised these were groundless. It should be part of the range of vaccines being used.'CarlottaVance said:US AZ results out - works among over 65s as well as younger people and 100% effective against serious illness seventy something against symptomatic infection.
And leave it to the company, and the industry generally, to get one with meeting contractual obligations.
That sort of co-operation is what the EU is for.
"If we can't stop the vaccines - can we stop the needles?"1 -
Before either, we'll see Nicola Sturgeon branded an unreliable witness. Maybe an out and out liar. You may hear nothing of the other two over the Stuka whine of the Nats.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
All eyes on EU leaders to see what the magic 8-ball throws up on Thursday. So far, "AZN vaccine is poison", "Export bans", "Mandatory for the elderly", "Forbidden for the elderly", and "Unscientific pause to give a few people more chance to die" have come up, but we're all eager to see what happens next.
F1: returns this weekend.0 -
Yes the UK has done very well. Given our health structure I suspect we'd have done just as well if we'd still been in the EU.MarqueeMark said:
But that still leaves Brexit Britain W-A-Y out in front.OldKingCole said:
If Frau Dr van der Leyen has any sense she'll issue a statement along the lines of 'We've had concerns over the AZN vaccine, but as a scientist I've realised these were groundless. It should be part of the range of vaccines being used.'CarlottaVance said:US AZ results out - works among over 65s as well as younger people and 100% effective against serious illness seventy something against symptomatic infection.
And leave it to the company, and the industry generally, to get one with meeting contractual obligations.
That sort of co-operation is what the EU is for.
"If we can't stop the vaccines - can we stop the needles?"
We'd have been a significant partner in the EMA too, of course. That would have moved more smartly.0 -
As I mentioned yesterday, the traditional Congolese greeting is not the handshake, but rubbing alternate temples together. Covid couldn't have devised a better vector for transmission - two faces in extended close contact.Foxy said:I see that another African politician has died of Covid:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/22/congos-opposition-candidate-kolelas-dies-a-day-after-poll
The combination of meeting lots of people, age much greater than the national average and air conditioned offices is not a good one.0 -
The alacrity of the EMA moving out of London - 1st March 2019, well before Brexit - didn't help. It was a reduced body as a result.OldKingCole said:
Yes the UK has done very well. Given our health structure I suspect we'd have done just as well if we'd still been in the EU.MarqueeMark said:
But that still leaves Brexit Britain W-A-Y out in front.OldKingCole said:
If Frau Dr van der Leyen has any sense she'll issue a statement along the lines of 'We've had concerns over the AZN vaccine, but as a scientist I've realised these were groundless. It should be part of the range of vaccines being used.'CarlottaVance said:US AZ results out - works among over 65s as well as younger people and 100% effective against serious illness seventy something against symptomatic infection.
And leave it to the company, and the industry generally, to get one with meeting contractual obligations.
That sort of co-operation is what the EU is for.
"If we can't stop the vaccines - can we stop the needles?"
We'd have been a significant partner in the EMA too, of course. That would have moved more smartly.2 -
Agreed. More votes are wasted in FPTP. So a nonsensical argument.IanB2 said:An unusually silly lead from Herdson. Yes, the way SV limits second preferences is flawed, but having a second preference is better than none, and ensures both that fewer votes are wasted and that the winner has the support of at least half of the voters, which FPTnP doesn’t do. His suggestions that votes aren’t wasted under our current system is absurd. Indeed every flaw he seeks to call out under SV is worse when there is no second choice at all.
But I also agree with David that this is a distraction from more important issues.2 -
Morning all. Thank-you, David.OldKingCole said:
It's sunny though, here. Sort of. Some breaks in the cloud cover we've had for several days.Sandpit said:Wakes up
Reads news
Sees the world is going mad
Goes back to bed...
If PP was changing the system just for these elections that would be one thing, but her claim seems to be that FPTP is always best.
Time for gardening.0 -
Bright sunshine, Chiffchaff singing near the window - winter is now but a faded memory.0
-
True; there was a reason give for the haste, but I can't recall what it was! IIRC it was our idea, but that could be wrong.MarqueeMark said:
The alacrity of the EMA moving out of London - 1st March 2019, well before Brexit - didn't help. It was a reduced body as a result.OldKingCole said:
Yes the UK has done very well. Given our health structure I suspect we'd have done just as well if we'd still been in the EU.MarqueeMark said:
But that still leaves Brexit Britain W-A-Y out in front.OldKingCole said:
If Frau Dr van der Leyen has any sense she'll issue a statement along the lines of 'We've had concerns over the AZN vaccine, but as a scientist I've realised these were groundless. It should be part of the range of vaccines being used.'CarlottaVance said:US AZ results out - works among over 65s as well as younger people and 100% effective against serious illness seventy something against symptomatic infection.
And leave it to the company, and the industry generally, to get one with meeting contractual obligations.
That sort of co-operation is what the EU is for.
"If we can't stop the vaccines - can we stop the needles?"
We'd have been a significant partner in the EMA too, of course. That would have moved more smartly.
0 -
King Cole, I thought we'd offered to retain it until they had time to sort things but the EU wanted to take the EMA out quickly.2
-
Yes, in a few weeks I shall be spending an hour or so a week putting the world to rights in the sun in a pub garden, instead of on here.MarqueeMark said:Bright sunshine, Chiffchaff singing near the window - winter is now but a faded memory.
Not at 7.30am, of course!1 -
Could be, although I recall going to a Retired Pharmacists meeting in Nov 2018 where a speaker, a retired EMA scientist, urged us to lobby out Govt. to keep the EMA as it was.Morris_Dancer said:King Cole, I thought we'd offered to retain it until they had time to sort things but the EU wanted to take the EMA out quickly.
0 -
Snow is forecast for Friday apparentlyMarqueeMark said:Bright sunshine, Chiffchaff singing near the window - winter is now but a faded memory.
0 -
Utterly deluded.OldKingCole said:
Yes the UK has done very well. Given our health structure I suspect we'd have done just as well if we'd still been in the EU.MarqueeMark said:
But that still leaves Brexit Britain W-A-Y out in front.OldKingCole said:
If Frau Dr van der Leyen has any sense she'll issue a statement along the lines of 'We've had concerns over the AZN vaccine, but as a scientist I've realised these were groundless. It should be part of the range of vaccines being used.'CarlottaVance said:US AZ results out - works among over 65s as well as younger people and 100% effective against serious illness seventy something against symptomatic infection.
And leave it to the company, and the industry generally, to get one with meeting contractual obligations.
That sort of co-operation is what the EU is for.
"If we can't stop the vaccines - can we stop the needles?"
We'd have been a significant partner in the EMA too, of course. That would have moved more smartly.1 -
Possible light rain here then, with temperatures just getting into double figures (C, of course!)Big_G_NorthWales said:
Snow is forecast for Friday apparentlyMarqueeMark said:Bright sunshine, Chiffchaff singing near the window - winter is now but a faded memory.
0 -
We offered to extend their time here. The EU was behind the headlong rush - and consequent loss of expertise.OldKingCole said:
True; there was a reason give for the haste, but I can't recall what it was! IIRC it was our idea, but that could be wrong.MarqueeMark said:
The alacrity of the EMA moving out of London - 1st March 2019, well before Brexit - didn't help. It was a reduced body as a result.OldKingCole said:
Yes the UK has done very well. Given our health structure I suspect we'd have done just as well if we'd still been in the EU.MarqueeMark said:
But that still leaves Brexit Britain W-A-Y out in front.OldKingCole said:
If Frau Dr van der Leyen has any sense she'll issue a statement along the lines of 'We've had concerns over the AZN vaccine, but as a scientist I've realised these were groundless. It should be part of the range of vaccines being used.'CarlottaVance said:US AZ results out - works among over 65s as well as younger people and 100% effective against serious illness seventy something against symptomatic infection.
And leave it to the company, and the industry generally, to get one with meeting contractual obligations.
That sort of co-operation is what the EU is for.
"If we can't stop the vaccines - can we stop the needles?"
We'd have been a significant partner in the EMA too, of course. That would have moved more smartly.
(Interesting: they couldn't decide whether to move it to Amsterdam or Milan. So they drew lots!)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/03/eu-medicines-regulator-struggles-coronavirus-pandemic-staff/3 -
Thanks for that, Donnie Downer!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Snow is forecast for Friday apparentlyMarqueeMark said:Bright sunshine, Chiffchaff singing near the window - winter is now but a faded memory.
Although not in Devon beyond the Dartmoor tors, I suspect.0 -
The punishment beatings had to commence early.Morris_Dancer said:King Cole, I thought we'd offered to retain it until they had time to sort things but the EU wanted to take the EMA out quickly.
Though the Boomerang of Doom has ensured that it is the EU that gets whacked on the back of the head.5 -
People who aren’t the first choice prefer a system that gives them another chanceBarnesian said:
Agreed. More votes are wasted in FPTP. So a nonsensical argument.IanB2 said:An unusually silly lead from Herdson. Yes, the way SV limits second preferences is flawed, but having a second preference is better than none, and ensures both that fewer votes are wasted and that the winner has the support of at least half of the voters, which FPTnP doesn’t do. His suggestions that votes aren’t wasted under our current system is absurd. Indeed every flaw he seeks to call out under SV is worse when there is no second choice at all.
But I also agree with David that this is a distraction from more important issues.1 -
We wanted to keep it and proposed that we be an associate member.OldKingCole said:
Could be, although I recall going to a Retired Pharmacists meeting in Nov 2018 where a speaker, a retired EMA scientist, urged us to lobby out Govt. to keep the EMA as it was.Morris_Dancer said:King Cole, I thought we'd offered to retain it until they had time to sort things but the EU wanted to take the EMA out quickly.
They said no, broke their lease and moved. Over 1/3 staff said they would rather stay in London3 -
Ah, OK. Seem to recall there was some discussion over senior staff preferences for the site, plus availability of support staff.MarqueeMark said:
We offered to extend their time here. The EU was behind the headlong rush - and consequent loss of expertise.OldKingCole said:
True; there was a reason give for the haste, but I can't recall what it was! IIRC it was our idea, but that could be wrong.MarqueeMark said:
The alacrity of the EMA moving out of London - 1st March 2019, well before Brexit - didn't help. It was a reduced body as a result.OldKingCole said:
Yes the UK has done very well. Given our health structure I suspect we'd have done just as well if we'd still been in the EU.MarqueeMark said:
But that still leaves Brexit Britain W-A-Y out in front.OldKingCole said:
If Frau Dr van der Leyen has any sense she'll issue a statement along the lines of 'We've had concerns over the AZN vaccine, but as a scientist I've realised these were groundless. It should be part of the range of vaccines being used.'CarlottaVance said:US AZ results out - works among over 65s as well as younger people and 100% effective against serious illness seventy something against symptomatic infection.
And leave it to the company, and the industry generally, to get one with meeting contractual obligations.
That sort of co-operation is what the EU is for.
"If we can't stop the vaccines - can we stop the needles?"
We'd have been a significant partner in the EMA too, of course. That would have moved more smartly.
(Interesting: they couldn't decide whether to move it to Amsterdam or Milan. So they drew lots!)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/03/eu-medicines-regulator-struggles-coronavirus-pandemic-staff/
I think, but, again am prepared to be wrong, that some Brit staff are commuting to Amsterdam.0 -
Really not sure I get this argument. Why is a vote "wasted" if I don't choose one of those who get through to the final round but not "wasted" when I vote for someone that loses in FPTP?
We certainly have more important things to worry about, on that I agree.1 -
But inept since the first London Mayor was an independent who beat the Labour candidate. It was only later that Ken Livingstone (re-)joined the Labour Party.ClippP said:I thought I was not going to agree with David Herdson, because Conservatives are always wrong when they talk about voting systems. But then I read his piece, and I was persuaded.
If this system was introduced in 2000, then it was under a Labour Government, and they are almost as corrupt and self-interested as the Tories.
I do not know why the government is changing the voting system but one imagines its team of weirdo misfit superforecasters identified an advantage to the Conservative Party.2 -
0
-
Mr. L, aye. Not sure why it's a great cause for celebration if my 9th choice candidate beats the 10th placed chap.0
-
Do Londoners have an issue with the current voting system? Seems to me that yet again the Tories are imposing changes on a city that has run them out.3
-
F1: Verstappen favourite to win in Bahrain on Betfair. 2.74 versus 2.8 for Hamilton.
Hmm.1 -
And they had to pay up for the broken lease. Even went to court about it.Charles said:
We wanted to keep it and proposed that we be an associate member.OldKingCole said:
Could be, although I recall going to a Retired Pharmacists meeting in Nov 2018 where a speaker, a retired EMA scientist, urged us to lobby out Govt. to keep the EMA as it was.Morris_Dancer said:King Cole, I thought we'd offered to retain it until they had time to sort things but the EU wanted to take the EMA out quickly.
They said no, broke their lease and moved. Over 1/3 staff said they would rather stay in London0 -
No doubt they are being royally rewarded if so.OldKingCole said:
Ah, OK. Seem to recall there was some discussion over senior staff preferences for the site, plus availability of support staff.MarqueeMark said:
We offered to extend their time here. The EU was behind the headlong rush - and consequent loss of expertise.OldKingCole said:
True; there was a reason give for the haste, but I can't recall what it was! IIRC it was our idea, but that could be wrong.MarqueeMark said:
The alacrity of the EMA moving out of London - 1st March 2019, well before Brexit - didn't help. It was a reduced body as a result.OldKingCole said:
Yes the UK has done very well. Given our health structure I suspect we'd have done just as well if we'd still been in the EU.MarqueeMark said:
But that still leaves Brexit Britain W-A-Y out in front.OldKingCole said:
If Frau Dr van der Leyen has any sense she'll issue a statement along the lines of 'We've had concerns over the AZN vaccine, but as a scientist I've realised these were groundless. It should be part of the range of vaccines being used.'CarlottaVance said:US AZ results out - works among over 65s as well as younger people and 100% effective against serious illness seventy something against symptomatic infection.
And leave it to the company, and the industry generally, to get one with meeting contractual obligations.
That sort of co-operation is what the EU is for.
"If we can't stop the vaccines - can we stop the needles?"
We'd have been a significant partner in the EMA too, of course. That would have moved more smartly.
(Interesting: they couldn't decide whether to move it to Amsterdam or Milan. So they drew lots!)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/03/eu-medicines-regulator-struggles-coronavirus-pandemic-staff/
I think, but, again am prepared to be wrong, that some Brit staff are commuting to Amsterdam.
But there will soon be a need for plenty of senior pharma figures here, when the production moves to the safer shores of the UK....0 -
Well done Macron and co. IdiotsCarlottaVance said:US AZ results out - works among over 65s as well as younger people and 100% effective against serious illness seventy something against symptomatic infection.
2 -
2 on-topic questions:
Why was this system used in London in the first place?
(Was it like modified d'Hondt in Scotland an attempt to wire in a Lab majority?)
Would any Mayoral results have been changed by this?
For me, I think this is deckchair-rearrangement for all it's practical impact.
My one reflection is whether this is groundwork for a review of all devolution systems - which would make sense democratically (?) because they are mainly ready for a review and rather broken, and perhaps politically because an overall thing might be cover for whatever will be done in Scotland. There is also the reality that perhaps it needs to be evened across parts of the country.
God knows how they will do that latter, mind.0 -
-
Of course in FPTP the “winner” is usually the first choice of only a minority.Charles said:
People who aren’t the first choice prefer a system that gives them another chanceBarnesian said:
Agreed. More votes are wasted in FPTP. So a nonsensical argument.IanB2 said:An unusually silly lead from Herdson. Yes, the way SV limits second preferences is flawed, but having a second preference is better than none, and ensures both that fewer votes are wasted and that the winner has the support of at least half of the voters, which FPTnP doesn’t do. His suggestions that votes aren’t wasted under our current system is absurd. Indeed every flaw he seeks to call out under SV is worse when there is no second choice at all.
But I also agree with David that this is a distraction from more important issues.3 -
The 100% is stunning. Absolutely stunning. Think for a moment where we were with vaccines a year ago when this started.CarlottaVance said:US AZ results out - works among over 65s as well as younger people and 100% effective against serious illness seventy something against symptomatic infection.
Everyone in Oxford team should get a knighthood.
9 -
@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?
Inflammatory to say the least...0 -
Agreed. The weird thing is that the US results are better than those that they managed to produce themselves in a slightly rushed and bumbling trial here. They actually managed to undersell the efficacy of their product. Must be a first in Pharma.rottenborough said:
The 100% is stunning. Absolutely stunning. Think for a moment where we were with vaccines a year ago when this started.CarlottaVance said:US AZ results out - works among over 65s as well as younger people and 100% effective against serious illness seventy something against symptomatic infection.
Everyone in Oxford team should get a knighthood.8 -
Just say no.Scott_xP said:
Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.6 -
Who is going to be the first cabinet member to get caught sneaking abroad?rottenborough said:Just say no.
Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.0 -
The US stockpile of AZ is only about 30 million I think. Oxford /AZ seems to be a good vaccine but the production of it seems to be much more difficult than Pfizers jab given the millions more of that which has been produced. An inherent problem with the vaccine or just AZ not being used to vaccine manufacture?moonshine said:
Is it correct that the US could meet Biden’s new vaccine target without AZN? But with it they have a whopping surplus? Interesting. Most interesting...CarlottaVance said:US AZ results out - works among over 65s as well as younger people and 100% effective against serious illness seventy something against symptomatic infection.
0 -
It's not the absolute worst system. That has to go PR of the party list type. Where politicians can arrange to become utterly invulnerable to the voters.DecrepiterJohnL said:
But inept since the first London Mayor was an independent who beat the Labour candidate. It was only later that Ken Livingstone (re-)joined the Labour Party.ClippP said:I thought I was not going to agree with David Herdson, because Conservatives are always wrong when they talk about voting systems. But then I read his piece, and I was persuaded.
If this system was introduced in 2000, then it was under a Labour Government, and they are almost as corrupt and self-interested as the Tories.
I do not know why the government is changing the voting system but one imagines its team of weirdo misfit superforecasters identified an advantage to the Conservative Party.0 -
Helen Wheatley doing a valiant job on R4 of holding to an agreed line that is not helpful to speculate over the AZ situation and EU.0
-
0
-
I think any party list system has to be way worse than any other system. The German system is insane - the very popular politicians run to represent the constituency with the most popular winning the seat and because of the way the system works the losers end up there via the party list top up system.Malmesbury said:
It's not the absolute worst system. That has to go PR of the party list type. Where politicians can arrange to become utterly invulnerable to the voters.DecrepiterJohnL said:
But inept since the first London Mayor was an independent who beat the Labour candidate. It was only later that Ken Livingstone (re-)joined the Labour Party.ClippP said:I thought I was not going to agree with David Herdson, because Conservatives are always wrong when they talk about voting systems. But then I read his piece, and I was persuaded.
If this system was introduced in 2000, then it was under a Labour Government, and they are almost as corrupt and self-interested as the Tories.
I do not know why the government is changing the voting system but one imagines its team of weirdo misfit superforecasters identified an advantage to the Conservative Party.
In reality the choice is a simple one - do you want the most popular candidate out of X (in which case it's possible that the winning candidate is only supported by just over (100/X)% of the vote or do you want a system where the candidate is the preferred choice of 50+% of voters.1 -
Just not politically possible and highly undesirable in any event. You only need to look at the result of the Westminster FPTP system in Scotland to show the risks. Do we really want to risk an opposition to the SNP government of 3? Given that a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the borders and the NE) support independence this would guarantee massive SNP majorities.Gallowgate said:@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?
Inflammatory to say the least...
Indeed, I would go further. Rather than some smart super forecaster finding some Tory advantage this focus on FPTP elections is a bungle that should be quietly forgotten about as soon as possible.0 -
Whilst I know your opinion on voting systems is nuanced with a preference for more proportionate systems the more "local" the government, with all due respect it does seem a little hypocritical to support FPTP at Westminster while opposing it at Holyrood for the main reason (possibly sole?) that it would likely give the SNP massive majorities...DavidL said:
Just not politically possible and highly undesirable in any event. You only need to look at the result of the Westminster FPTP system in Scotland to show the risks. Do we really want to risk an opposition to the SNP government of 3? Given that a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the borders and the NE) support independence this would guarantee massive SNP majorities.Gallowgate said:@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?
Inflammatory to say the least...
Indeed, I would go further. Rather than some smart super forecaster finding some Tory advantage this focus on FPTP elections is a bungle that should be quietly forgotten about as soon as possible.0 -
I am flabbergasted that confidence in the Oxford vaccine has declined in the EU after they subjected it to more totally unproven allegations.9
-
It really is a no brainer. Not only is there the risk of variants but we urgently need to boost our domestic leisure industry and help get it back on its feet after 18 disastrous months. There are hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake. Plus some improvement in our balance of payments. Plus reminding our oh so good friends in the EU what the UK brings to the party.rottenborough said:
Just say no.Scott_xP said:
Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.1 -
Quite a few of them are doing it as part of their job at FCDO...Scott_xP said:
Who is going to be the first cabinet member to get caught sneaking abroad?rottenborough said:Just say no.
Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.
Are they all getting COVID tested on arrival?
I suspect we will soon find COVID tests are for the little people.
0 -
You say hypocritical, I say pragmatic.Gallowgate said:
Whilst I know your opinion on voting systems is nuanced with a preference for more proportionate systems the more "local" the government, with all due respect it does seem a little hypocritical to support FPTP at Westminster while opposing it at Holyrood for the main reason (possibly sole?) that it would likely give the SNP massive majorities...DavidL said:
Just not politically possible and highly undesirable in any event. You only need to look at the result of the Westminster FPTP system in Scotland to show the risks. Do we really want to risk an opposition to the SNP government of 3? Given that a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the borders and the NE) support independence this would guarantee massive SNP majorities.Gallowgate said:@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?
Inflammatory to say the least...
Indeed, I would go further. Rather than some smart super forecaster finding some Tory advantage this focus on FPTP elections is a bungle that should be quietly forgotten about as soon as possible.0 -
Interesting...
Scientists Say They Found Cause of Rare Blood Clotting Linked to AstraZeneca Vaccine
German, Norwegian researchers say rare autoimmune reaction is behind several cases of brain blood clotting, and suggest a possible treatment for it
https://www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-say-they-found-cause-of-blood-clotting-linked-to-astrazeneca-vaccine-11616169108
0 -
At least they want to save us from using the 100% effective non blood clot causing medicationMorris_Dancer said:I am flabbergasted that confidence in the Oxford vaccine has declined in the EU after they subjected it to more totally unproven allegations.
Our EU overlords are indeed benevolent0 -
If only the Remoaners would do the same.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1373904704451776513
An interesting point.1 -
No - I'm suggesting that a measure of reform in the current setup in Scotland may prove to be necessary, given how eg separation of powers is not strong enough, and Parliamentary Privilege vs Crown Office is clearly insufficient. Would anyone disagree with that?Gallowgate said:@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?
Inflammatory to say the least...
I call that a "25 year service". And it is critical for the enquiries to be completed, and really no one outside Scotland in Govt has even commented afaik. Yet the Holyrood system is still very obviously inadequate and ready for a refresh.
How that would happen is politically interesting, as it would need to be specifically *not* "Westminster unilateral". However is it not basically a Westmnister competence under the Scotland Act?
I'm suggesting that most of the other aspects of devolution - including the decision to swerve the issue in English Regions as people did not like the suggestion - are also suboptimal, and that looking at it all at the same time might be sensible.
Perhaps "political cover" is the wrong phrase !!
1 -
Sure. It is pragmatic. But it does certainly lend support to the idea that the main and dominant reason Conservatives really like FPTP at Westminster is because it benefits them.DavidL said:
You say hypocritical, I say pragmatic.Gallowgate said:
Whilst I know your opinion on voting systems is nuanced with a preference for more proportionate systems the more "local" the government, with all due respect it does seem a little hypocritical to support FPTP at Westminster while opposing it at Holyrood for the main reason (possibly sole?) that it would likely give the SNP massive majorities...DavidL said:
Just not politically possible and highly undesirable in any event. You only need to look at the result of the Westminster FPTP system in Scotland to show the risks. Do we really want to risk an opposition to the SNP government of 3? Given that a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the borders and the NE) support independence this would guarantee massive SNP majorities.Gallowgate said:@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?
Inflammatory to say the least...
Indeed, I would go further. Rather than some smart super forecaster finding some Tory advantage this focus on FPTP elections is a bungle that should be quietly forgotten about as soon as possible.
There is a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the major cities) that support the Conservative Party...
FWIW I have always supported PR, even during the last Labour government. In fact it is my biggest criticism of Tony Blair, other than the Iraq War obviously, that he failed to follow through with the manifesto commitment of changing the voting system.2 -
Decide on the basis of evidence in the summer. Saying yes or no now are both very poor answers given we will know far far more in June about the prevalence and vaccination in various countries for the summer than we do now.rottenborough said:
Just say no.Scott_xP said:
Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.
Too much talking not enough waiting.0 -
This is a risk we should take. With tests at the airport and a few days later it is manageable. There will always be some danger of infection, but we can't put normal life on hold forever.rottenborough said:
Just say no.Scott_xP said:
Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.0 -
-
Westminster could impose changes via a referendum ratification process. It would be tough for the Scottish Government to object if a majority vote for it in a referendum in Scotland.MattW said:
No - I'm suggesting that a measure of reform in the current setup in Scotland may prove to be necessary, given how eg separation of powers is not strong enough, and Parliamentary Privilege vs Crown Office is clearly insufficient. Would anyone disagree with that?Gallowgate said:@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?
Inflammatory to say the least...
I call that a "25 year service". And it is critical for the enquiries to be completed, and really no one outside Scotland has even commented. Yet the Holyrood system is still very obviously inadequate and ready for a refresh.
How that would happen is politically interesting, as it would need to be specifically *not* "Westminster unilateral". However it is basically a Westmnister competence.
I'm suggesting that most of the other aspects of devolution - including the decision to swerve the issue in English Regions - is also suboptimal, and that looking at it all at the same time might be sensible.
Perhaps "political cover" is the wrong phrase.
Although I can imagine the UK government want to avoid talk of Scottish referendums...0 -
I predict that the US population will be larger than China's within the next fifty years.
https://twitter.com/davidpaulk/status/13738453307651153930 -
Well the Dakotas do need populating.Nigelb said:I predict that the US population will be larger than China's within the next fifty years.
0 -
-
For me, as we discussed yesterday, the best features of FPTP at national level are its tendency to produce decisive governments and to discourage fragmentation. I would not want a Belgian style situation where it takes a year to form a new government.Gallowgate said:
Sure. It is pragmatic. But it does certainly lend support to the idea that the main and dominant reason Conservatives really like FPTP at Westminster is because it benefits them.DavidL said:
You say hypocritical, I say pragmatic.Gallowgate said:
Whilst I know your opinion on voting systems is nuanced with a preference for more proportionate systems the more "local" the government, with all due respect it does seem a little hypocritical to support FPTP at Westminster while opposing it at Holyrood for the main reason (possibly sole?) that it would likely give the SNP massive majorities...DavidL said:
Just not politically possible and highly undesirable in any event. You only need to look at the result of the Westminster FPTP system in Scotland to show the risks. Do we really want to risk an opposition to the SNP government of 3? Given that a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the borders and the NE) support independence this would guarantee massive SNP majorities.Gallowgate said:@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?
Inflammatory to say the least...
Indeed, I would go further. Rather than some smart super forecaster finding some Tory advantage this focus on FPTP elections is a bungle that should be quietly forgotten about as soon as possible.
There is a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the major cities) that support the Conservative Party...
FWIW I have always supported PR, even during the last Labour government. In fact it is my biggest criticism of Tony Blair, other than the Iraq War obviously, that he failed to follow through with the manifesto commitment of changing the voting system.
@Pagan2 also made the point yesterday that PR systems with fragmented parties means that you vote for a manifesto that you like but it doesn't get implemented. All the power to decide what a government actually does is taken from the electorate to the politicians in what these days are no doubt well ventilated rooms away from the public gaze. I don't see that as an improvement.1 -
I think you'll find that the Labour by-election campaign will be a single issue "vote to give the nurses more than 1%!" campaign.Slackbladder said:
If only the Remoaners would do the same.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1373904704451776513
An interesting point.0 -
Neighbours of mine are antivaccers, the force with which they present their ludicrous arguments is staggering. We now have even more reason to avoid them as they are a risk to everyone else.Morris_Dancer said:I am flabbergasted that confidence in the Oxford vaccine has declined in the EU after they subjected it to more totally unproven allegations.
3 -
The SA variant is already here, and shutting the door after the horse is long gone simply magnifies the economic damage and misery of lockdown needlessly.rottenborough said:
Just say no.Scott_xP said:
Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.0 -
Pop Quiz: do you prefer:Fishing said:
This is a risk we should take. With tests at the airport and a few days later it is manageable. There will always be some danger of infection, but we can't put normal life on hold forever.rottenborough said:
Just say no.Scott_xP said:
Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.
a) UK life largely back to normal for 2021, very limited risk of more lockdowns, social life back to having no limitations, pubs, theatres, cinemas, restaurants all open, freedom to holiday anywhere in the UK - just not foreign holibobs until 2022;
or
b) foreign holibobs for Brits allowed from June 2021, but that comes with a material risk that a new variant comes into the UK to which our vaccines are far less effective. Consequent risk of lockdowns and closures.
I know where I stand.8 -
Given that our system gives majority power to minority opinion, it pretty much guarantees that most people will not see the manifestos they voted for implemented.DavidL said:
For me, as we discussed yesterday, the best features of FPTP at national level are its tendency to produce decisive governments and to discourage fragmentation. I would not want a Belgian style situation where it takes a year to form a new government.Gallowgate said:
Sure. It is pragmatic. But it does certainly lend support to the idea that the main and dominant reason Conservatives really like FPTP at Westminster is because it benefits them.DavidL said:
You say hypocritical, I say pragmatic.Gallowgate said:
Whilst I know your opinion on voting systems is nuanced with a preference for more proportionate systems the more "local" the government, with all due respect it does seem a little hypocritical to support FPTP at Westminster while opposing it at Holyrood for the main reason (possibly sole?) that it would likely give the SNP massive majorities...DavidL said:
Just not politically possible and highly undesirable in any event. You only need to look at the result of the Westminster FPTP system in Scotland to show the risks. Do we really want to risk an opposition to the SNP government of 3? Given that a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the borders and the NE) support independence this would guarantee massive SNP majorities.Gallowgate said:@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?
Inflammatory to say the least...
Indeed, I would go further. Rather than some smart super forecaster finding some Tory advantage this focus on FPTP elections is a bungle that should be quietly forgotten about as soon as possible.
There is a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the major cities) that support the Conservative Party...
FWIW I have always supported PR, even during the last Labour government. In fact it is my biggest criticism of Tony Blair, other than the Iraq War obviously, that he failed to follow through with the manifesto commitment of changing the voting system.
@Pagan2 also made the point yesterday that PR systems with fragmented parties means that you vote for a manifesto that you like but it doesn't get implemented. All the power to decide what a government actually does is taken from the electorate to the politicians in what these days are no doubt well ventilated rooms away from the public gaze. I don't see that as an improvement.1 -
To be honest, we've done the arguments in favour/against FPTP to death.DavidL said:
For me, as we discussed yesterday, the best features of FPTP at national level are its tendency to produce decisive governments and to discourage fragmentation. I would not want a Belgian style situation where it takes a year to form a new government.Gallowgate said:
Sure. It is pragmatic. But it does certainly lend support to the idea that the main and dominant reason Conservatives really like FPTP at Westminster is because it benefits them.DavidL said:
You say hypocritical, I say pragmatic.Gallowgate said:
Whilst I know your opinion on voting systems is nuanced with a preference for more proportionate systems the more "local" the government, with all due respect it does seem a little hypocritical to support FPTP at Westminster while opposing it at Holyrood for the main reason (possibly sole?) that it would likely give the SNP massive majorities...DavidL said:
Just not politically possible and highly undesirable in any event. You only need to look at the result of the Westminster FPTP system in Scotland to show the risks. Do we really want to risk an opposition to the SNP government of 3? Given that a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the borders and the NE) support independence this would guarantee massive SNP majorities.Gallowgate said:@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?
Inflammatory to say the least...
Indeed, I would go further. Rather than some smart super forecaster finding some Tory advantage this focus on FPTP elections is a bungle that should be quietly forgotten about as soon as possible.
There is a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the major cities) that support the Conservative Party...
FWIW I have always supported PR, even during the last Labour government. In fact it is my biggest criticism of Tony Blair, other than the Iraq War obviously, that he failed to follow through with the manifesto commitment of changing the voting system.
@Pagan2 also made the point yesterday that PR systems with fragmented parties means that you vote for a manifesto that you like but it doesn't get implemented. All the power to decide what a government actually does is taken from the electorate to the politicians in what these days are no doubt well ventilated rooms away from the public gaze. I don't see that as an improvement.
All I will say is that to get those "decisive governments" there is a democratic cost. Whether that is worth it is a matter for opinion.
On the coalition front — we already have coalitions. They are simply hidden from the public.
Under FPTP the public has no say over which half of the Conservative Party has the most sway and the same is true with Labour.
Already under FPTP policy is formulated in well ventilated rooms away from the public gaze. Under PR the people have a direct say over who has the most power in these well ventilated rooms. You can't get away from it.3 -
You may be surprised to learn Mr M, that I agree with you.MarqueeMark said:
Pop Quiz: do you prefer:Fishing said:
This is a risk we should take. With tests at the airport and a few days later it is manageable. There will always be some danger of infection, but we can't put normal life on hold forever.rottenborough said:
Just say no.Scott_xP said:
Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.
a) UK life largely back to normal for 2021, very limited risk of more lockdowns, social life back to having no limitations, pubs, theatres, cinemas, restaurants all open, freedom to holiday anywhere in the UK - just not foreign holibobs until 2022;
or
b) foreign holibobs for Brits allowed from June 2021, but that comes with a material risk that a new variant comes into the UK to which our vaccines are far less effective. Consequent risk of lockdowns and closures.
I know where I stand.
Apart from the fact that I want to go to see my family in Thailand, probably early in 2022. Of course, Thailand is practically Covid-free.1 -
They will gain protection (probably) through the rest of us doing the work and bothering to get vaccinated. Annoying to say the least.squareroot2 said:
Neighbours of mine are antivaccers, the force with which they present their ludicrous arguments is staggering. We now have even more reason to avoid them as they are a risk to everyone else.Morris_Dancer said:I am flabbergasted that confidence in the Oxford vaccine has declined in the EU after they subjected it to more totally unproven allegations.
0 -
AIUI the AZ vaccine is "grown" like a crop so its difficult to predict yield - the UK started working on improving yield months ahead of the EU, which - apart from agreeing contracts earlier, is another reason why we're ahead.JonathanD said:
The US stockpile of AZ is only about 30 million I think. Oxford /AZ seems to be a good vaccine but the production of it seems to be much more difficult than Pfizers jab given the millions more of that which has been produced. An inherent problem with the vaccine or just AZ not being used to vaccine manufacture?moonshine said:
Is it correct that the US could meet Biden’s new vaccine target without AZN? But with it they have a whopping surplus? Interesting. Most interesting...CarlottaVance said:US AZ results out - works among over 65s as well as younger people and 100% effective against serious illness seventy something against symptomatic infection.
2 -
As someone who can't wait to get away to a beach in Greece or Italy I think putting our domestic unlockdown at risk would be completely idiotic. Until we can be sure that our vaccines protect us to a high degree from the variants out there we should hold firm on overseas travel and keep our domestic economy open fully.MarqueeMark said:
Pop Quiz: do you prefer:Fishing said:
This is a risk we should take. With tests at the airport and a few days later it is manageable. There will always be some danger of infection, but we can't put normal life on hold forever.rottenborough said:
Just say no.Scott_xP said:
Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.
a) UK life largely back to normal for 2021, very limited risk of more lockdowns, social life back to having no limitations, pubs, theatres, cinemas, restaurants all open, freedom to holiday anywhere in the UK - just not foreign holibobs until 2022;
or
b) foreign holibobs for Brits allowed from June 2021, but that comes with a material risk that a new variant comes into the UK to which our vaccines are far less effective. Consequent risk of lockdowns and closures.
I know where I stand.2 -
0
-
Portexit? Pexit?Floater said:0 -
I'd suggest your bigger concern would be about whether or not Thailand will let you in (they may do as I guess their economy is suffering badly from no tourism).OldKingCole said:
You may be surprised to learn Mr M, that I agree with you.MarqueeMark said:
Pop Quiz: do you prefer:Fishing said:
This is a risk we should take. With tests at the airport and a few days later it is manageable. There will always be some danger of infection, but we can't put normal life on hold forever.rottenborough said:
Just say no.Scott_xP said:
Johnson's cabinet need to hold the line on this. No bloody foreign holidays this summer. Having such a holiday is very nice but it is a First World thing. People can live without it.
a) UK life largely back to normal for 2021, very limited risk of more lockdowns, social life back to having no limitations, pubs, theatres, cinemas, restaurants all open, freedom to holiday anywhere in the UK - just not foreign holibobs until 2022;
or
b) foreign holibobs for Brits allowed from June 2021, but that comes with a material risk that a new variant comes into the UK to which our vaccines are far less effective. Consequent risk of lockdowns and closures.
I know where I stand.
Apart from the fact that I want to go to see my family in Thailand, probably early in 2022. Of course, Thailand is practically Covid-free.
That's what I don't get about this whole debate. It's all well and good focussing on our government and what they think, but who wants to go to a country that's in lockdown?!0 -
1
-
How did you feel about a Labour "majority" in 2005 with 36% of the vote? Outraged at the unfairness? Quite right too.DavidL said:
For me, as we discussed yesterday, the best features of FPTP at national level are its tendency to produce decisive governments and to discourage fragmentation. I would not want a Belgian style situation where it takes a year to form a new government.Gallowgate said:
Sure. It is pragmatic. But it does certainly lend support to the idea that the main and dominant reason Conservatives really like FPTP at Westminster is because it benefits them.DavidL said:
You say hypocritical, I say pragmatic.Gallowgate said:
Whilst I know your opinion on voting systems is nuanced with a preference for more proportionate systems the more "local" the government, with all due respect it does seem a little hypocritical to support FPTP at Westminster while opposing it at Holyrood for the main reason (possibly sole?) that it would likely give the SNP massive majorities...DavidL said:
Just not politically possible and highly undesirable in any event. You only need to look at the result of the Westminster FPTP system in Scotland to show the risks. Do we really want to risk an opposition to the SNP government of 3? Given that a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the borders and the NE) support independence this would guarantee massive SNP majorities.Gallowgate said:@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?
Inflammatory to say the least...
Indeed, I would go further. Rather than some smart super forecaster finding some Tory advantage this focus on FPTP elections is a bungle that should be quietly forgotten about as soon as possible.
There is a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the major cities) that support the Conservative Party...
FWIW I have always supported PR, even during the last Labour government. In fact it is my biggest criticism of Tony Blair, other than the Iraq War obviously, that he failed to follow through with the manifesto commitment of changing the voting system.
@Pagan2 also made the point yesterday that PR systems with fragmented parties means that you vote for a manifesto that you like but it doesn't get implemented. All the power to decide what a government actually does is taken from the electorate to the politicians in what these days are no doubt well ventilated rooms away from the public gaze. I don't see that as an improvement.1 -
That’s meaningless without contextCorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1373904704451776513
An interesting point.
I would say Brexit is important but COVID is the top issue facing the country. It’s what is more important than brexit that matters0 -
I believe their argument was it was our fault they had broken their contract... hmm that sounds familiarDavidL said:
And they had to pay up for the broken lease. Even went to court about it.Charles said:
We wanted to keep it and proposed that we be an associate member.OldKingCole said:
Could be, although I recall going to a Retired Pharmacists meeting in Nov 2018 where a speaker, a retired EMA scientist, urged us to lobby out Govt. to keep the EMA as it was.Morris_Dancer said:King Cole, I thought we'd offered to retain it until they had time to sort things but the EU wanted to take the EMA out quickly.
They said no, broke their lease and moved. Over 1/3 staff said they would rather stay in London3 -
AZ Press release:
The AstraZeneca US Phase III trial of AZD1222 demonstrated statistically significant vaccine efficacy of 79% at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 and 100% efficacy at preventing severe disease and hospitalisation.
This interim safety and efficacy analysis was based on 32,449 participants accruing 141 symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The trial had a 2:1 randomisation of vaccine to placebo.
Vaccine efficacy was consistent across ethnicity and age. Notably, in participants aged 65 years and over, vaccine efficacy was 80%.
The vaccine was well tolerated, and the independent data safety monitoring board (DSMB) identified no safety concerns related to the vaccine. The DSMB conducted a specific review of thrombotic events, as well as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) with the assistance of an independent neurologist. The DSMB found no increased risk of thrombosis or events characterised by thrombosis among the 21,583 participants receiving at least one dose of the vaccine. The specific search for CVST found no events in this trial.
https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/astraz/media-centre/press-releases/2021/astrazeneca-us-vaccine-trial-met-primary-endpoint.html0 -
The logical conclusion is that a strong SNP majority on 36% of the vote in Scotland should be seen as a good thing.Mexicanpete said:
How did you feel about a Labour "majority" in 2005 with 36% of the vote? Outraged at the unfairness? Quite right too.DavidL said:
For me, as we discussed yesterday, the best features of FPTP at national level are its tendency to produce decisive governments and to discourage fragmentation. I would not want a Belgian style situation where it takes a year to form a new government.Gallowgate said:
Sure. It is pragmatic. But it does certainly lend support to the idea that the main and dominant reason Conservatives really like FPTP at Westminster is because it benefits them.DavidL said:
You say hypocritical, I say pragmatic.Gallowgate said:
Whilst I know your opinion on voting systems is nuanced with a preference for more proportionate systems the more "local" the government, with all due respect it does seem a little hypocritical to support FPTP at Westminster while opposing it at Holyrood for the main reason (possibly sole?) that it would likely give the SNP massive majorities...DavidL said:
Just not politically possible and highly undesirable in any event. You only need to look at the result of the Westminster FPTP system in Scotland to show the risks. Do we really want to risk an opposition to the SNP government of 3? Given that a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the borders and the NE) support independence this would guarantee massive SNP majorities.Gallowgate said:@MattW are you suggesting that Westminster will unilaterally change the voting system of the Scottish Parliament?
Inflammatory to say the least...
Indeed, I would go further. Rather than some smart super forecaster finding some Tory advantage this focus on FPTP elections is a bungle that should be quietly forgotten about as soon as possible.
There is a significant minority spread across the country (with modest soft spots in the major cities) that support the Conservative Party...
FWIW I have always supported PR, even during the last Labour government. In fact it is my biggest criticism of Tony Blair, other than the Iraq War obviously, that he failed to follow through with the manifesto commitment of changing the voting system.
@Pagan2 also made the point yesterday that PR systems with fragmented parties means that you vote for a manifesto that you like but it doesn't get implemented. All the power to decide what a government actually does is taken from the electorate to the politicians in what these days are no doubt well ventilated rooms away from the public gaze. I don't see that as an improvement.
Strong governments are better remember.2
This discussion has been closed.