Howdy, Stranger!

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

Can Johnson survive the Tory LE2022 flop? – politicalbetting.com

12345679»

Comments

  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 1,929
    Penddu2 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Serious question about the STV process - if party A has 12,000 votes against a quota of 10,000 votes - leaving 2,000 votes to be redistributed - which 2,000 are selected? Is it proportionate to the 12,000 or is it an arbitrary 2,000 ??

    It's proportionate. So if say, the DUP top candidate gets 12,000 votes, and his second preferences are another DUP, 9,000, UUP, 1,800, Others 1,200, the 2,000 surplus goes DUP 1,500, UUP 300, Others 200.
    Thanks. I was puzzled. Seems to be crying out for automated counting .....
    Automated counting is why Scotland’s STV voting was all counted yesterday whilst NI are still counting.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,811
    Russian MP clarifies that denazification means destruction:

    https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1522939116404543495
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,520
    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    Farooq said:

    https://twitter.com/EdinburghElect/status/1522885845367365632

    Edinburgh Council first preference vote shares 🗳

    🟨 SNP 25.9% (19 seats, 30.2% of seats)
    🟧 Lib Dem 20.5% (12 seats, 19%)
    🟥 Labour 19.1% (13 seats, 20.6%)
    🟦 Conservative 17.5% (9 seats, 14.3%)
    🟩 Green 14.2% (10 seats, 19%)
    ⬛ Other 1.9% (0 seats)
    ⬜ Independents 0.9% (0)

    I believe this is a partial glimpse into the transfers. Don't read too much into the overrepresentation of the SNP, that can come about from being the largest party. Look instead down the list at the Conservatives and Greens. I have a strong suspicion that we're seeing transfers across the union/indy divide more than previously, and unionist tactical voting reduced. Simply: Labour and Lib Dems favouring Greens more and Conservative less than last time.

    Caveat: still just a hunch; I haven't dug into the data properly and this is just one council.

    There is no question that the Tories were a lot less transfer friendly this time than in the last several elections. Anger at Boris, the fading memory of Ruth, the inconsistencies of Ross and a budget that in the face of a cost of living crisis did not seem to give a damn about the least well off all sickened people. The Tory brand has been retoxified and the price for that in Scotland with its STV and other proportional systems is going to be particularly high.
    Are you sure? I'd arsgue that the Scottish setup is actually quite Tory-friendly; the Tories have clung on in ways which would be impossible in full FPTP systems, even to the extent of having senior MSPs totally dependent on the list system for being there in Holyrood at all. Just look at Ms-as-was Davidson and Prof Tomkins - only some of the time did she, at least, have a FPTP seat.
    Quite agree, devolution, Holyrood and various associated voting systems have been the making of SCons, more so than the Ruth effect or whatever. Their negativity towards all or some of these things strikes me as most ungrateful.

    Without STV this lad wouldn't have been elected in the first place to one of the poorest wards in Glasgow, let alone reelected when his colleagues were being flushed down the toilet all over Scotland.


    He doesn't look like someone with a burning desire to improve the lot of the working class. Not to me he doesn't anyway.
    Screw the working class! Wish I looked that good in a suit!! AND had that much hair to muck about with!!!

    Perhaps he should inquire the name of Rishi Sunak's tailor next time they bump into one another?
    On that subject - tailoring - I'm about to embark on getting a bespoke suit for the 1st time ever. I'll be going for a snug fit (like Rishi) but not the supershort trousers. Don't think I could carry that off the way he does.
    I never noticed. Are you going for empire-builder length?
    I don't know what that means but based on the sound of it - no. It's a journey into the unknown, in fact. Quite looking forward to it.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,112
    edit
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,398
    kinabalu said:

    kjh said:

    kinabalu said:

    kjh said:

    kinabalu said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Wow.

    As ever John Harris adds something to the conversation that is worth sitting up and listening to. No one in political journalism does more thinking and scratching around beneath the headlines than this guy imho.

    Thread of the evening.


    John Harris
    @johnharris1969
    ·
    4h
    You won't hear much political sociology in reporting of these election results. But a lot of them tell you about how a large chunk of the English middle class no longer meets old-fashioned stereotypes. (1)

    John Harris
    @johnharris1969
    ·
    4h
    Replying to
    @johnharris1969
    It's increasingly liberal & worldly, thanks partly to the expansion of Higher Education, but also to how far cities' cultures now stretch well into suburbia and the commuter belt (2)


    John Harris
    @johnharris1969
    P.s Blair's expansion of Higher Education May yet prove to be as transformative as Thatcher's sale of council houses

    https://twitter.com/johnharris1969/status/1522652701544394760

    Its a combination of the expansion of graduates with degrees of little use and the massive expansion of debt they're stuck with to get those degrees of little use.

    The result is a huge number of new graduates each year who having been to university think they're entitled to a middle class lifestyle but don't have the skillset to achieve it.

    Which inevitably leads them to blaming the government, the economic system, society as a whole.

    And produces a class of people who require the creation of public sector middle class non-jobs for them to achieve the middle class lifestyle they think they're entitled to.
    They can certainly still be middle class even if not necessarily upper middle class or rich enough to be in the top 10% of earners. That would largely have required them to go to Russell Group universities only to study law, medicine, economics or a STEM subject.

    What is clear too is the expansion if graduates from about 10% of 25 year olds 40 years ago to about 40% now has also turned Labour from the party of the working class to the party of university graduates.

    The Tories can still win graduates with a Cameron like leader but not a Boris type leader, although Boris has far more appeal and still does to the skilled working class voters in particular who have left Labour
    That depends upon how you define middle class.

    For me if you cannot afford to buy the average home in your area then you're not middle class.

    That's a problem the Conservatives will have to deal with in southern England.

    And promises about possible future inheritances aren't going to help.
    Reading @another_richard and @HYUFD private dialogue is like dipping back into the 1950s and watching a smoke filled talking heads debate on a black and white TV

    "Class depends on where one was educated, or what sort of a home one can afford". What a load of old nonsense.

    Educate as many as one can to a high standard it drags up society, a nation of fewer hooligans and reprobates. Who cares if all the Baristas have a Sociology degree from the University of Worcester? Good on them.
    That's fine as long as you make clear to those getting Sociology degrees from the University of Worcester that all their degree is good for is a life as a Barista. Stop coning people into thinking a degree is a gateway to a better job and a better life whilst at the same time so completely trashing the value of those degrees that in effect you are lying to them and that all you are really giving them is a lifetime of debt and low pay.
    No, we must encourage employers to treat all graduates equally. It will be good for both sides and the country. Unless there really is something about an Oxford humanities degree that qualifies one to run a hedge fund or a country.
    That is utter rubbish. Why should an employer put any value on a qualification which has no intrinsic value in itself and which does not in any way reflect the abilities of the candidate as a potential employee.

    There are plenty of degrees that do have real world value in the specific areas they relate to but the idea that as an employer i should look favourably on someone simply because they have been through the degree factory and stayed out of gainful employment for an extra 3 years is idiotic.

    Or put it the other way. Why should I look less favourably on someone who left school at 18 and went out and got a job so that by 21 they have 3 years experience of real employment compared with a graduate? That is what you are actually asking employers to do.
    Or why should someone with 2 E grade A levels and straight Cs at GCSE at a new university be put on an equal plane for a job as a lawyer or doctor with someone with straight A*s at A level and GCSE with a degree from Oxbridge or another Russell Group university
    In case you hadn't noticed, there are no Cs at GCSE any more.
    Also I didn't know anyone with an A* when I was there, let alone straight A*s.

    I did know lots of people with 2 E offers.
    I had one friend who went to Warwick with a 2 Es offer after failing to get a place at Cambridge. None from my school got the offer of 2 Es for Oxbridge. I'm guessing they had prowess in sport or music?
    It was back in the days of fourth-term entrance; you did three entrance exams set by Oxford and if they still liked you after the interview(s) then you got an "unconditional" (in practice 2 E) offer.

    It made for an unstressed Y13 after Christmas...
    And 2/3 of Oxbridge students got straight A*s anyway
    Nope: none of those with a 2 E offer did.
    Actually I know someone with an E grade offer who did indeed still get straight A*s.

    And the 2 E offer is rarely given to more than a small minority of those given Oxbridge offers. The standard offer is normally at least 2 or 3 A* grades
    The entrance exam was phased out in 1997; the A* was introduced in 2010.
    E grade offers are still given in a few cases even without the entrance exam. Plus the most popular courses like law now have their own entry tests too as has been mentioned
    My son's offer from Cambridge was lower than any other offer he received, but then he had won an international prize from Cambridge in the lower 6th for a paper he had written on game theory and did reach the final stage (all done at Cambridge) on 3 different subjects (Physics, Chemistry, Informatics) to try and get into the British Olympiad team for each of those subjects, so they did sort of know him.
    Chip off ... :smile:
    Sadly not. I haven't a clue what he is talking about most of the time. At least I have a maths background, my wife is even more baffled. All pure maths which loses me after the topic title. Very proud though. Has received lots of scholarships in his time, was in his College University Challenge team, etc, etc. My daughter is of normal intelligence and having someone who achieves so much is a challenge for her, but handled.
    It's great so long as it's accompanied by happiness and balance. In my family it's my youngest brother. He's genius level maths. Top 1st at Imperial with hardly any work, then PHD and very young Prof and a specialism in something so outre in the field of topology that he can only talk about it with about a dozen people in the world. But, same time, marriage, hobbies, kids, normal life. And a plain nice guy. He used to look UP to me, can you believe, when I was 25 and he was 15.
    Yep, he has that I think. Romanian girl friend who represented Romania in the Olympiad (so someone he can talk to who has some clue about what he is talking about). Both at Cambridge doing their PhDs. She has now been offered a fellowship. They seem happy. Not driven by money. He was headhunted in his 2nd year and then again by another company in his 3rd year both of whom paid him eye watering amounts of money to work over the summer break. He used that to pay off his loan and put some aside and now they live off the meagre amount the Uni pays them and seem happy. Has no desire to go back to the big money sources.
    Great to hear. And shades of my brother again. He was offered mega money to switch from academia to the City but didn't do so. Good decision imo. Leave that to grubbers like me.
    I don't remember this happening in my day, but maybe I and the people I associated were too stupid to attract headhunters. Not that we needed to but we thought it wise to point out these were sums of money neither of us had ever earned so as to ground him. I'm surprised they pay this from day 1 but they also put him to work instantly. No induction. He has an open offer to return. Also certain high tech companies have paid sums to distribute to people in his department, which doubled his PhD grant, which was useful.
  • JonathanBarnesJonathanBarnes Posts: 70
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    NI so far:

    SF 18 nc
    DUP 17 -1
    All 11 +4
    UUP 5 -1
    SDLP 3 -1
    oth 2 nc

    So Unionist parties 23 seats (including DUP and UUP and 1 for TUV) and Nationalist parties 21 seats combining SF and SDLP.

    Almost neck and neck after transfers for largest party now too between SF and DUP
    I think the DUP will lose three in the end, one to Alliance, and two to indpendent Unionists, and the UUP will lose one. But, it's just possible they could lose a seat to Alliance in North Antrim.

    Sinn Fein may gain from SDLP in Upper Bann and Fermanagh South Tyrone.
    The general trend then is almost no change between the Unionist and Nationalist seat totals.

    The main shift is DUP to TUV and DUP and UUP to Alliance and SDLP to SF and Alliance
    Alliance have just squeezed home in North Antrim, so I guess the Unionists and Nationalists will each be down 3 seats.
    North Antrim = 1 UUP, 1 SF, 1 TUV, 1 DUP, 1 Alliance

    Problematic from standpoint of Unilateralist Unionist Redoubt of North Antrim?
    A not inconsiderable number of UUP voters transferred to Alliance in preference to DUP. There were four Unionist quotas in first preference votes.
    At the moment the combined Unionist parties (DUP, UUP and TUV) are on 26 seats to 25 for the combined Nationalist parties (SF and SDLP).

    In 2017 the combined Unionist and Nationalist parties were each on 39 seats. So if anything there has been a tiny swing from Nationalists to Unionists at present
    The main story seems to be Alliance damaging the Greens (who are getting wiped out) and the SDLP plus the UUP getting squeezed.

    Sinn Fein has done really well but is only up 1.1%.

    TUV has done taken a load of DUP votes but are stuck with just Jim Allister.

    Also a strong vote for ex DUP independent Alex Easton in North Down.

  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,773

    Sean_F said:

    After Count 9, there's no chance of the SDLP retaining their seat in North Belfast, which will be another Alliance gain.

    Any system that requires 9 counts is ridiculous
    That maybe your opinion but it isn't mine. Any system that only requires the mark of an illiterate, "X", is sadly lacking and produces appallingly undemocratic results, with many wasted votes. In one constituency in NI 97% of the vote went to the 5 winners and the last runner up. Now that's democratic!
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,849

    nova said:

    I mentioned this on a previous thread but Aston Villa's 5 remaining premier league games include Liverpool, Manchester City and Burnley twice. So Steven Gerrard could try and do his old club a favour on the last day of the season as well as helping Everton to stay up.

    Surely it's in his power to do Liverpool a favour when the teams play each other, but I'm assuming he's trying his hardest to win most games - would be odd to think he's saving his best for the last day of the season.
    Gerrard and indeed Liverpool FC always strike me as having footballing integrity and doubt either would want Liverpool to win unfairly. Gerrard values loyalty as well and his loyalty will be with AV whilst employed by them
    Currently 2-0 up against Burnley. I'm sure Everton fans will be grateful.
    They are winning , thats what they are supposed to try and do . What I meant is that they will try to win against Liverpool
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    Sean_F said:

    My advice for the Conservatives (other than ditching Boris. I don't share loathing that some here have for the man, but he is plainly corrupt) is:-

    1. Encourage lots of house-building. My own view is that owner occupation is absolutely key to future Conservative voting. If that pisses off the NIMBY's, tough.

    2. Rebalance tax away from income towards capital. I'm arguing against my own interests, here, as I'll likely inherit a lot of money in the next decade, but my need is less than the needs of my own step-children, and my nephews and nieces. Work has to pay, and it doesn't when people are facing high marginal rates of income tax.

    3. Put a few hundred million pounds into fixing the criminal justice system. That does not mean more police. It means providing sufficient resources to enable justice to be delivered swiftly, which is fair to both victims and defendants. This is an area that has been shamefully neglected since 2010.

    None of these things guarantee victory, but they are worth doing in themselves, and 1 and 2 will yield dividends for the Conservatives in the future.

    Point 3 is vital. So much false economy that has had shameful consequences. I was a fan of the coalition years but that was not a good area and still isnt.
    Roger said:

    Will Johnson outlast Ross?

    - “Douglas Ross under threat as Tory colleagues plot to dump him as Scottish Conservatives leader”

    Record

    Good move if they do. He's made one notable contribution which earned him plaudits throughout the land. He said Johnson was unfit to be Prime Minister and he had to go.

    Two weeks and one visit from Johnson later he took it back and has looked like an idiot ever since.
    An act with no upsides for him.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    Sean_F said:

    My advice for the Conservatives (other than ditching Boris. I don't share loathing that some here have for the man, but he is plainly corrupt) is:-

    1. Encourage lots of house-building. My own view is that owner occupation is absolutely key to future Conservative voting. If that pisses off the NIMBY's, tough.

    2. Rebalance tax away from income towards capital. I'm arguing against my own interests, here, as I'll likely inherit a lot of money in the next decade, but my need is less than the needs of my own step-children, and my nephews and nieces. Work has to pay, and it doesn't when people are facing high marginal rates of income tax.

    3. Put a few hundred million pounds into fixing the criminal justice system. That does not mean more police. It means providing sufficient resources to enable justice to be delivered swiftly, which is fair to both victims and defendants. This is an area that has been shamefully neglected since 2010.

    None of these things guarantee victory, but they are worth doing in themselves, and 1 and 2 will yield dividends for the Conservatives in the future.

    Point 3 is vital. So much false economy that has had shameful consequences. I was a fan of the coalition years but that was not a good area and still isnt.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,457
    Sean_F said:

    TimT said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kjh said:

    Alistair said:

    I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.

    What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
    He was caught saying he'd like to wipe Jews off the planet.

    His outlook is similar to that of his near namesake, Paul Joseph Goebbels.
    I wonder what prompted it. Vlad not having the best of times against Jewish Zelenskyy?
    You know who else had Jewish blood?
    Reinhard Heydrich's case proves the opposite of what Lavrov was trying to prove. That even the hint of Jewishness instigated by one's political rivals had the potential to discredit you as a Nazi.
    Even Martin Bormann came under fire, when one Nazi, Wilhelm Kube, accused his father in law of being Jewish. However, Kube came off worst.

    Kube's death was an amusing one. He was made the governor of Minsk, and decided that gorgeous, blonde, Belorussian women must in reality be Aryans. He had numerous affairs, until one of his lovers placed an anti-personnel mine in his bed, cunningly disguised as a hot water bottle.
    Brave Lady, I hope she made it out alive, but suspect not?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 47,122

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    NI so far:

    SF 18 nc
    DUP 17 -1
    All 11 +4
    UUP 5 -1
    SDLP 3 -1
    oth 2 nc

    So Unionist parties 23 seats (including DUP and UUP and 1 for TUV) and Nationalist parties 21 seats combining SF and SDLP.

    Almost neck and neck after transfers for largest party now too between SF and DUP
    I think the DUP will lose three in the end, one to Alliance, and two to indpendent Unionists, and the UUP will lose one. But, it's just possible they could lose a seat to Alliance in North Antrim.

    Sinn Fein may gain from SDLP in Upper Bann and Fermanagh South Tyrone.
    The general trend then is almost no change between the Unionist and Nationalist seat totals.

    The main shift is DUP to TUV and DUP and UUP to Alliance and SDLP to SF and Alliance
    Alliance have just squeezed home in North Antrim, so I guess the Unionists and Nationalists will each be down 3 seats.
    North Antrim = 1 UUP, 1 SF, 1 TUV, 1 DUP, 1 Alliance

    Problematic from standpoint of Unilateralist Unionist Redoubt of North Antrim?
    A not inconsiderable number of UUP voters transferred to Alliance in preference to DUP. There were four Unionist quotas in first preference votes.
    At the moment the combined Unionist parties (DUP, UUP and TUV) are on 26 seats to 25 for the combined Nationalist parties (SF and SDLP).

    In 2017 the combined Unionist and Nationalist parties were each on 39 seats. So if anything there has been a tiny swing from Nationalists to Unionists at present
    The main story seems to be Alliance damaging the Greens (who are getting wiped out) and the SDLP plus the UUP getting squeezed.

    Sinn Fein has done really well but is only up 1.1%.

    TUV has done taken a load of DUP votes but are stuck with just Jim Allister.

    Also a strong vote for ex DUP independent Alex Easton in North Down.

    You really really really try my patience Jonathan/Gary. All I require is a simple email and acknowledgement. rcs1000 gmail.

    This is a last chance before I geoblock you, and then you won't be able to create new IDs.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,849
    edited May 7

    Sean_F said:

    After Count 9, there's no chance of the SDLP retaining their seat in North Belfast, which will be another Alliance gain.

    Any system that requires 9 counts is ridiculous
    That maybe your opinion but it isn't mine. Any system that only requires the mark of an illiterate, "X", is sadly lacking and produces appallingly undemocratic results, with many wasted votes. In one constituency in NI 97% of the vote went to the 5 winners and the last runner up. Now that's democratic!
    You can have PR systems that dont require 9 or more counts - The EU use a reasonable one for their elections. If 90% of the electorate cannot explain how the votes are counted it is not transparent imo
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,368
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    My advice for the Conservatives (other than ditching Boris. I don't share loathing that some here have for the man, but he is plainly corrupt) is:-

    1. Encourage lots of house-building. My own view is that owner occupation is absolutely key to future Conservative voting. If that pisses off the NIMBY's, tough.

    2. Rebalance tax away from income towards capital. I'm arguing against my own interests, here, as I'll likely inherit a lot of money in the next decade, but my need is less than the needs of my own step-children, and my nephews and nieces. Work has to pay, and it doesn't when people are facing high marginal rates of income tax.

    3. Put a few hundred million pounds into fixing the criminal justice system. That does not mean more police. It means providing sufficient resources to enable justice to be delivered swiftly, which is fair to both victims and defendants. This is an area that has been shamefully neglected since 2010.

    None of these things guarantee victory, but they are worth doing in themselves, and 1 and 2 will yield dividends for the Conservatives in the future.

    The Tory core vote of pensioners is still voting Tory because greenbelt land is not over developed and their capital is not too heavily taxed, see how badly the dementia tax went down.

    Start building on greenbelt land as well as brown belt and taxing wealth and inheritance and property more and they will go LD, Independent or RefUK or even Labour and assuming the young still vote Labour and they cannot win back the middle aged they have lost since 2019 the Tories would be left with nobody and facing 1997 style wipeout.

    I agree with you on 3 though
    The Conservatives won't have a future if they base their electoral strategy on appealing to current pensioners. From the 1920's to the 1980's, the Conservatives understood very well that if they wished to grow their vote, housebuilding was key.
    Indeed.
    The Tories of the past knew that the way votes shifted towards them as people aged from youth to becoming older wasn’t a law of nature, but required nurture.
    It’s well known that the cohorts that were anti-Tory in their youth in the Seventies became gradually more and more Tory as they aged and became more affluent. But that required awareness of how to lay the road for this to happen, to monitor it, and to maintain that road. Otherwise it could cut off.

    And right now, the traffic on that road is getting patchier and patchier on the earlier miles. It’s still very busy in its latter stretches, but you frequently have to look further down that road than in previous times.

    HYUFD seems to be aiming to ringfence those in the latter miles and assume the earlier miles will just refresh without assistance as if it were an automatic rule.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,773
    Penddu2 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Serious question about the STV process - if party A has 12,000 votes against a quota of 10,000 votes - leaving 2,000 votes to be redistributed - which 2,000 are selected? Is it proportionate to the 12,000 or is it an arbitrary 2,000 ??

    It's proportionate. So if say, the DUP top candidate gets 12,000 votes, and his second preferences are another DUP, 9,000, UUP, 1,800, Others 1,200, the 2,000 surplus goes DUP 1,500, UUP 300, Others 200.
    Thanks. I was puzzled. Seems to be crying out for automated counting .....
    It is a available in the UK, Scottish local elections count STV and they all completed within 8 hours!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,451

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    NI so far:

    SF 18 nc
    DUP 17 -1
    All 11 +4
    UUP 5 -1
    SDLP 3 -1
    oth 2 nc

    So Unionist parties 23 seats (including DUP and UUP and 1 for TUV) and Nationalist parties 21 seats combining SF and SDLP.

    Almost neck and neck after transfers for largest party now too between SF and DUP
    I think the DUP will lose three in the end, one to Alliance, and two to indpendent Unionists, and the UUP will lose one. But, it's just possible they could lose a seat to Alliance in North Antrim.

    Sinn Fein may gain from SDLP in Upper Bann and Fermanagh South Tyrone.
    The general trend then is almost no change between the Unionist and Nationalist seat totals.

    The main shift is DUP to TUV and DUP and UUP to Alliance and SDLP to SF and Alliance
    Alliance have just squeezed home in North Antrim, so I guess the Unionists and Nationalists will each be down 3 seats.
    North Antrim = 1 UUP, 1 SF, 1 TUV, 1 DUP, 1 Alliance

    Problematic from standpoint of Unilateralist Unionist Redoubt of North Antrim?
    A not inconsiderable number of UUP voters transferred to Alliance in preference to DUP. There were four Unionist quotas in first preference votes.
    At the moment the combined Unionist parties (DUP, UUP and TUV) are on 26 seats to 25 for the combined Nationalist parties (SF and SDLP).

    In 2017 the combined Unionist and Nationalist parties were each on 39 seats. So if anything there has been a tiny swing from Nationalists to Unionists at present
    The main story seems to be Alliance damaging the Greens (who are getting wiped out) and the SDLP plus the UUP getting squeezed.

    Sinn Fein has done really well but is only up 1.1%.

    TUV has done taken a load of DUP votes but are stuck with just Jim Allister.

    Also a strong vote for ex DUP independent Alex Easton in North Down.

    I think Sinn Fein's only chance of a gain is in Fermanagh/South Tyrone, where they may gain the third nationalist seat from SDLP.

    Sadly, this election has been a nightmare for SDLP, who will lose between 4 and 6 seats.

    TUV have polled well, but not well enough to gain any seats, so their voters transfer back to the DUP.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,994
    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    Farooq said:

    https://twitter.com/EdinburghElect/status/1522885845367365632

    Edinburgh Council first preference vote shares 🗳

    🟨 SNP 25.9% (19 seats, 30.2% of seats)
    🟧 Lib Dem 20.5% (12 seats, 19%)
    🟥 Labour 19.1% (13 seats, 20.6%)
    🟦 Conservative 17.5% (9 seats, 14.3%)
    🟩 Green 14.2% (10 seats, 19%)
    ⬛ Other 1.9% (0 seats)
    ⬜ Independents 0.9% (0)

    I believe this is a partial glimpse into the transfers. Don't read too much into the overrepresentation of the SNP, that can come about from being the largest party. Look instead down the list at the Conservatives and Greens. I have a strong suspicion that we're seeing transfers across the union/indy divide more than previously, and unionist tactical voting reduced. Simply: Labour and Lib Dems favouring Greens more and Conservative less than last time.

    Caveat: still just a hunch; I haven't dug into the data properly and this is just one council.

    There is no question that the Tories were a lot less transfer friendly this time than in the last several elections. Anger at Boris, the fading memory of Ruth, the inconsistencies of Ross and a budget that in the face of a cost of living crisis did not seem to give a damn about the least well off all sickened people. The Tory brand has been retoxified and the price for that in Scotland with its STV and other proportional systems is going to be particularly high.
    Are you sure? I'd arsgue that the Scottish setup is actually quite Tory-friendly; the Tories have clung on in ways which would be impossible in full FPTP systems, even to the extent of having senior MSPs totally dependent on the list system for being there in Holyrood at all. Just look at Ms-as-was Davidson and Prof Tomkins - only some of the time did she, at least, have a FPTP seat.
    Quite agree, devolution, Holyrood and various associated voting systems have been the making of SCons, more so than the Ruth effect or whatever. Their negativity towards all or some of these things strikes me as most ungrateful.

    Without STV this lad wouldn't have been elected in the first place to one of the poorest wards in Glasgow, let alone reelected when his colleagues were being flushed down the toilet all over Scotland.


    He doesn't look like someone with a burning desire to improve the lot of the working class. Not to me he doesn't anyway.
    Screw the working class! Wish I looked that good in a suit!! AND had that much hair to muck about with!!!

    Perhaps he should inquire the name of Rishi Sunak's tailor next time they bump into one another?
    On that subject - tailoring - I'm about to embark on getting a bespoke suit for the 1st time ever. I'll be going for a snug fit (like Rishi) but not the supershort trousers. Don't think I could carry that off the way he does.
    I never noticed. Are you going for empire-builder length?
    I don't know what that means but based on the sound of it - no. It's a journey into the unknown, in fact. Quite looking forward to it.
    https://www.facebook.com/365555366788383/photos/tunisia-1943surrounded-by-advancing-british-imperial-forces-and-trapped-by-the-s/613042078706376/
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    edited May 7
    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    kjh said:

    Alistair said:

    I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.

    What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
    He was caught saying he'd like to wipe Jews off the planet.

    His outlook is similar to that of his near namesake, Paul Joseph Goebbels.
    Ah the horse shoe of politics, where the far left and far right are much closer to each other, than to more mainstream and centrist viewpoints.
    Some people react against that theory, but it seems pretty solidly proven to me. Objections generally seem focused on the purported motivations or ideologies of the sides, rather than looking at their actions and behaviour. So I dont really buy Farooqs take that it doesn't stand up. The details are different but the broad thrusts align a lot.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,520
    Sean_F said:

    Farooq said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    kjh said:

    Alistair said:

    I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.

    What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
    He was caught saying he'd like to wipe Jews off the planet.

    His outlook is similar to that of his near namesake, Paul Joseph Goebbels.
    Ah the horse shoe of politics, where the far left and far right are much closer to each other, than to more mainstream and centrist viewpoints.
    I understand why people like this view, but it has a troubling lack of traction in reality.
    When I put my ideological hat on, I see the horseshoe very clearly. I'm a centrist and I see overlaps between people on the extremes in both directions, but when you study history you get a very different picture. To dive straight into the the headline-grabbing example, Fascism and Communism, you see two ideologies that were bitterly and violently in opposition.
    I know some people like to fall back on "sibling rivalry" as an explanation for why they went around murdering each other and ended up in a war of annihilation, but that doesn't stack up. To take the views of the proponents of both at face value is to see a an extremely bitter enmity on the most fundamental level. They very thing that makes humans more than just an animal, the way we organise ourselves into groups with a common agenda, are completely different under both ideologies. The unrelenting horizontality of Communism, where even the concept of private property is sacrificed under the guise of freeing the worker from exploitative relations of production. And with fascism, the unyielding verticality. The racial tribe is a unit that must work under the direction of a quasi-religious leader, the total submission of the individual to that authority, the preservation of some mythical purity.
    To put it another way, the denial of difference versus the paranoid fear of those who are different.

    These are fundamentally different world views.

    Part of this is muddied by the practice of authoritarianism. It's easy to see the similarity when you only think of the repressive, murderous nature of governments that are riddled with these toxic ideologies. The horrifying violence that came with both is in some ways intrinsic to them because both Communism and Fascism are unnatural and they need violence to preserve themselves. But the key point here is that authoritarianism is much wider than that again. Non-Communist non-Fascist regimes have also been that way. Indeed, probably a majority of states across the sweep of human history have been authoritarian in nature, the horror only mitigated by the level of technological advancement limiting how far and fast a psychopathic leader can stamp his authority on a people.

    Democracy is right because it is fundamentally more peaceful. Power is vested in the people and the government serves at their pleasure. Communism and Fascism occupy the space outside that circle, but so does everything else. Is there really a case for saying they are similar in many other ways? I don't see it. The horseshoe doesn't work as a model once you have taken account of democracy and non-democracy. Within that non-democratic space are some pretty wild creatures, and Communism and Fascism are two big, nasty, and quite separate beasts, not the near neighbours some people want to imagine them to be.
    Communists and fascists hate each other, of course, but they hate more moderate members of their own "side" far more. On a number of issues, you'll find a kind of Red/Brown alliance, at least online. Whereas, overall, 80% of left wing voters supported Macron to 20% in round 2, those who self-identified as far left divided almost evenly between the two.
    True. You do get people on the left who absolutely despise 'centrists' and in an election will support a right wing candidate against one of them. Eg Bernie Sanders supporters voting for Trump. 2 reasons for this in general, one rational, one irrational. The rational one is that if an extreme right wing candidate is elected it increases the chance of an extreme left wing victory next time - via pendulum and disillusionment. The irrational one is they blame the centrist for stitching things up and denying their guy his shot. BJO on here is like this with Starmer.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054

    Sean_F said:

    After Count 9, there's no chance of the SDLP retaining their seat in North Belfast, which will be another Alliance gain.

    Any system that requires 9 counts is ridiculous
    That maybe your opinion but it isn't mine. Any system that only requires the mark of an illiterate, "X", is sadly lacking and produces appallingly undemocratic results, with many wasted votes. In one constituency in NI 97% of the vote went to the 5 winners and the last runner up. Now that's democratic!
    You can have PR systems that dont require 9 or more counts - The EU use a reasonable one for their elections. If 90% of the electorate cannot explain how the votes are counted it is not transparent imo
    The EU elections were terrible - you would vote only for a party, and the party would decide the order in which their candidates were elected.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,451
    BigRich said:

    Sean_F said:

    TimT said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kjh said:

    Alistair said:

    I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.

    What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
    He was caught saying he'd like to wipe Jews off the planet.

    His outlook is similar to that of his near namesake, Paul Joseph Goebbels.
    I wonder what prompted it. Vlad not having the best of times against Jewish Zelenskyy?
    You know who else had Jewish blood?
    Reinhard Heydrich's case proves the opposite of what Lavrov was trying to prove. That even the hint of Jewishness instigated by one's political rivals had the potential to discredit you as a Nazi.
    Even Martin Bormann came under fire, when one Nazi, Wilhelm Kube, accused his father in law of being Jewish. However, Kube came off worst.

    Kube's death was an amusing one. He was made the governor of Minsk, and decided that gorgeous, blonde, Belorussian women must in reality be Aryans. He had numerous affairs, until one of his lovers placed an anti-personnel mine in his bed, cunningly disguised as a hot water bottle.
    Brave Lady, I hope she made it out alive, but suspect not?
    Happily, Yelena Mazanik, Heroine of the Soviet Union, lived to be 82.

    But, the Nazis took cruel revenge on the local population.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,773

    Sean_F said:

    After Count 9, there's no chance of the SDLP retaining their seat in North Belfast, which will be another Alliance gain.

    Any system that requires 9 counts is ridiculous
    That maybe your opinion but it isn't mine. Any system that only requires the mark of an illiterate, "X", is sadly lacking and produces appallingly undemocratic results, with many wasted votes. In one constituency in NI 97% of the vote went to the 5 winners and the last runner up. Now that's democratic!
    You can have PR systems that dont require 9 or more counts - The EU use a reasonable one for their elections. If 90% of the electorate cannot explain how the votes are counted it is not transparent imo
    The EU use various types, including STV. The list method is ok but it excludes the voters from choosing within a party. STV allows preference within the slate. I think you underestimate the abilities of the people of Ireland North and South to count up to 10!
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,849
    edited May 7
    EPG said:

    Farooq said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Serious question about the STV process - if party A has 12,000 votes against a quota of 10,000 votes - leaving 2,000 votes to be redistributed - which 2,000 are selected? Is it proportionate to the 12,000 or is it an arbitrary 2,000 ??

    All of them, divide by 6 in this case I think.
    So the the all 12000 votes are reallocated, multiplied by the 2000 that are excess, divided by the 12000 original 1st choices.

    So if the second choices are 3000 for the Silly Party and 9000 for the Sensible Party, you end up with 500 transfers to Silly and 1500 to Sensible = 2000 transfers
    This is only true in some systems, usually with electronic voting and/or small constituencies like student union elections, because although very fair, it becomes quite impractical to multiply a single vote by many fractional coefficients, by hand, in an election with 10,000+ ballot papers.

    In paper elections, most jurisdictions count out the second preferences and take a pro-rata share of the papers that total up to the excess over quota. Some jurisdictions will _also_ try to randomise the papers that get transferred so they don't disproportionately come from certain ballot boxes (which would perhaps skew later transfers, e.g. geographically).

    Final thing to mention: if this candidate was elected later on, by transfers and not just first preferences, typically systems will say that only the last bundle of transfers get sent onward, and not the votes the successful candidate won earlier in the process. So you will sometimes see what looks like weird behaviour, that is really arising because e.g. the Tory party "surplus" is actually coming from a Plaid Cymru transfer.
    sorry but this is where logic and going to the nth degree (literally) to achieve "fairness" can get detached from reality - when 90% plus of voters have no clue on how the votes are cast and it is too complicated for human counters then it is a ridiculous system
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,645

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    My advice for the Conservatives (other than ditching Boris. I don't share loathing that some here have for the man, but he is plainly corrupt) is:-

    1. Encourage lots of house-building. My own view is that owner occupation is absolutely key to future Conservative voting. If that pisses off the NIMBY's, tough.

    2. Rebalance tax away from income towards capital. I'm arguing against my own interests, here, as I'll likely inherit a lot of money in the next decade, but my need is less than the needs of my own step-children, and my nephews and nieces. Work has to pay, and it doesn't when people are facing high marginal rates of income tax.

    3. Put a few hundred million pounds into fixing the criminal justice system. That does not mean more police. It means providing sufficient resources to enable justice to be delivered swiftly, which is fair to both victims and defendants. This is an area that has been shamefully neglected since 2010.

    None of these things guarantee victory, but they are worth doing in themselves, and 1 and 2 will yield dividends for the Conservatives in the future.

    The Tory core vote of pensioners is still voting Tory because greenbelt land is not over developed and their capital is not too heavily taxed, see how badly the dementia tax went down.

    Start building on greenbelt land as well as brown belt and taxing wealth and inheritance and property more and they will go LD, Independent or RefUK or even Labour and assuming the young still vote Labour and they cannot win back the middle aged they have lost since 2019 the Tories would be left with nobody and facing 1997 style wipeout.

    I agree with you on 3 though
    The Conservatives won't have a future if they base their electoral strategy on appealing to current pensioners. From the 1920's to the 1980's, the Conservatives understood very well that if they wished to grow their vote, housebuilding was key.
    Indeed.
    The Tories of the past knew that the way votes shifted towards them as people aged from youth to becoming older wasn’t a law of nature, but required nurture.
    It’s well known that the cohorts that were anti-Tory in their youth in the Seventies became gradually more and more Tory as they aged and became more affluent. But that required awareness of how to lay the road for this to happen, to monitor it, and to maintain that road. Otherwise it could cut off.

    And right now, the traffic on that road is getting patchier and patchier on the earlier miles. It’s still very busy in its latter stretches, but you frequently have to look further down that road than in previous times.

    HYUFD seems to be aiming to ringfence those in the latter miles and assume the earlier miles will just refresh without assistance as if it were an automatic rule.
    As Thatcher said the facts of life are conservative.

    By stopping young people getting houses at an earlier age the Cons are just hurting themselves. A mortgage is a fast track to growing up..
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,994
    Apparently it is worldnakedgardeningday2022 on Twitter for some folk. Obvs they don't have midges or a cold wind off the North Sea where they live. Or nettles.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    After Count 9, there's no chance of the SDLP retaining their seat in North Belfast, which will be another Alliance gain.

    Any system that requires 9 counts is ridiculous
    That maybe your opinion but it isn't mine. Any system that only requires the mark of an illiterate, "X", is sadly lacking and produces appallingly undemocratic results, with many wasted votes. In one constituency in NI 97% of the vote went to the 5 winners and the last runner up. Now that's democratic!
    You can have PR systems that dont require 9 or more counts - The EU use a reasonable one for their elections. If 90% of the electorate cannot explain how the votes are counted it is not transparent imo
    The EU elections were terrible - you would vote only for a party, and the party would decide the order in which their candidates were elected.
    I do love it when political geeks discuss voting systems as if Arrow's theorem doesn't exist.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 4,637

    EPG said:

    Farooq said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Serious question about the STV process - if party A has 12,000 votes against a quota of 10,000 votes - leaving 2,000 votes to be redistributed - which 2,000 are selected? Is it proportionate to the 12,000 or is it an arbitrary 2,000 ??

    All of them, divide by 6 in this case I think.
    So the the all 12000 votes are reallocated, multiplied by the 2000 that are excess, divided by the 12000 original 1st choices.

    So if the second choices are 3000 for the Silly Party and 9000 for the Sensible Party, you end up with 500 transfers to Silly and 1500 to Sensible = 2000 transfers
    This is only true in some systems, usually with electronic voting and/or small constituencies like student union elections, because although very fair, it becomes quite impractical to multiply a single vote by many fractional coefficients, by hand, in an election with 10,000+ ballot papers.

    In paper elections, most jurisdictions count out the second preferences and take a pro-rata share of the papers that total up to the excess over quota. Some jurisdictions will _also_ try to randomise the papers that get transferred so they don't disproportionately come from certain ballot boxes (which would perhaps skew later transfers, e.g. geographically).

    Final thing to mention: if this candidate was elected later on, by transfers and not just first preferences, typically systems will say that only the last bundle of transfers get sent onward, and not the votes the successful candidate won earlier in the process. So you will sometimes see what looks like weird behaviour, that is really arising because e.g. the Tory party "surplus" is actually coming from a Plaid Cymru transfer.
    sorry but this is where logic and going to the nth degree to achieve "fairness" (literally) can can detached from reality - when 90% plus of voters are no clue on how the votes are cast and it is too complicated for human counters then it is a ridiculous system
    What do you mean? Of course 90%+ of UK voters are not clear because they have never used this system. In jurisdictions where the system is used regularly, it works fine.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,994
    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    After Count 9, there's no chance of the SDLP retaining their seat in North Belfast, which will be another Alliance gain.

    Any system that requires 9 counts is ridiculous
    That maybe your opinion but it isn't mine. Any system that only requires the mark of an illiterate, "X", is sadly lacking and produces appallingly undemocratic results, with many wasted votes. In one constituency in NI 97% of the vote went to the 5 winners and the last runner up. Now that's democratic!
    You can have PR systems that dont require 9 or more counts - The EU use a reasonable one for their elections. If 90% of the electorate cannot explain how the votes are counted it is not transparent imo
    The EU elections were terrible - you would vote only for a party, and the party would decide the order in which their candidates were elected.
    Including the list part of the Holyrood system, courtesy of Messrs Dewar and Wallace.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    NI so far:

    SF 18 nc
    DUP 17 -1
    All 11 +4
    UUP 5 -1
    SDLP 3 -1
    oth 2 nc

    So Unionist parties 23 seats (including DUP and UUP and 1 for TUV) and Nationalist parties 21 seats combining SF and SDLP.

    Almost neck and neck after transfers for largest party now too between SF and DUP
    I think the DUP will lose three in the end, one to Alliance, and two to indpendent Unionists, and the UUP will lose one. But, it's just possible they could lose a seat to Alliance in North Antrim.

    Sinn Fein may gain from SDLP in Upper Bann and Fermanagh South Tyrone.
    The general trend then is almost no change between the Unionist and Nationalist seat totals.

    The main shift is DUP to TUV and DUP and UUP to Alliance and SDLP to SF and Alliance
    Alliance have just squeezed home in North Antrim, so I guess the Unionists and Nationalists will each be down 3 seats.
    North Antrim = 1 UUP, 1 SF, 1 TUV, 1 DUP, 1 Alliance

    Problematic from standpoint of Unilateralist Unionist Redoubt of North Antrim?
    A not inconsiderable number of UUP voters transferred to Alliance in preference to DUP. There were four Unionist quotas in first preference votes.
    At the moment the combined Unionist parties (DUP, UUP and TUV) are on 26 seats to 25 for the combined Nationalist parties (SF and SDLP).

    In 2017 the combined Unionist and Nationalist parties were each on 39 seats. So if anything there has been a tiny swing from Nationalists to Unionists at present
    The main story seems to be Alliance damaging the Greens (who are getting wiped out) and the SDLP plus the UUP getting squeezed.

    Sinn Fein has done really well but is only up 1.1%.

    TUV has done taken a load of DUP votes but are stuck with just Jim Allister.

    Also a strong vote for ex DUP independent Alex Easton in North Down.

    So dramatic, but not as much as mere fire shares might suggest.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,849
    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    Farooq said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Serious question about the STV process - if party A has 12,000 votes against a quota of 10,000 votes - leaving 2,000 votes to be redistributed - which 2,000 are selected? Is it proportionate to the 12,000 or is it an arbitrary 2,000 ??

    All of them, divide by 6 in this case I think.
    So the the all 12000 votes are reallocated, multiplied by the 2000 that are excess, divided by the 12000 original 1st choices.

    So if the second choices are 3000 for the Silly Party and 9000 for the Sensible Party, you end up with 500 transfers to Silly and 1500 to Sensible = 2000 transfers
    This is only true in some systems, usually with electronic voting and/or small constituencies like student union elections, because although very fair, it becomes quite impractical to multiply a single vote by many fractional coefficients, by hand, in an election with 10,000+ ballot papers.

    In paper elections, most jurisdictions count out the second preferences and take a pro-rata share of the papers that total up to the excess over quota. Some jurisdictions will _also_ try to randomise the papers that get transferred so they don't disproportionately come from certain ballot boxes (which would perhaps skew later transfers, e.g. geographically).

    Final thing to mention: if this candidate was elected later on, by transfers and not just first preferences, typically systems will say that only the last bundle of transfers get sent onward, and not the votes the successful candidate won earlier in the process. So you will sometimes see what looks like weird behaviour, that is really arising because e.g. the Tory party "surplus" is actually coming from a Plaid Cymru transfer.
    sorry but this is where logic and going to the nth degree to achieve "fairness" (literally) can can detached from reality - when 90% plus of voters are no clue on how the votes are cast and it is too complicated for human counters then it is a ridiculous system
    What do you mean? Of course 90%+ of UK voters are not clear because they have never used this system. In jurisdictions where the system is used regularly, it works fine.
    You are saying that if you asked the average NI voter they could explain the detail of how the votes are counted ? I doubt it very much - counting needs to be transparent - there are systems that can achieve fairness but still be understood by the average voter
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 6,506
    Can anyone explain what would be wrong with Nato vessels escorting commercial ships out of Odessa and into Romanian territorial waters?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843

    EPG said:

    Farooq said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Serious question about the STV process - if party A has 12,000 votes against a quota of 10,000 votes - leaving 2,000 votes to be redistributed - which 2,000 are selected? Is it proportionate to the 12,000 or is it an arbitrary 2,000 ??

    All of them, divide by 6 in this case I think.
    So the the all 12000 votes are reallocated, multiplied by the 2000 that are excess, divided by the 12000 original 1st choices.

    So if the second choices are 3000 for the Silly Party and 9000 for the Sensible Party, you end up with 500 transfers to Silly and 1500 to Sensible = 2000 transfers
    This is only true in some systems, usually with electronic voting and/or small constituencies like student union elections, because although very fair, it becomes quite impractical to multiply a single vote by many fractional coefficients, by hand, in an election with 10,000+ ballot papers.

    In paper elections, most jurisdictions count out the second preferences and take a pro-rata share of the papers that total up to the excess over quota. Some jurisdictions will _also_ try to randomise the papers that get transferred so they don't disproportionately come from certain ballot boxes (which would perhaps skew later transfers, e.g. geographically).

    Final thing to mention: if this candidate was elected later on, by transfers and not just first preferences, typically systems will say that only the last bundle of transfers get sent onward, and not the votes the successful candidate won earlier in the process. So you will sometimes see what looks like weird behaviour, that is really arising because e.g. the Tory party "surplus" is actually coming from a Plaid Cymru transfer.
    sorry but this is where logic and going to the nth degree (literally) to achieve "fairness" can get detached from reality - when 90% plus of voters have no clue on how the votes are cast and it is too complicated for human counters then it is a ridiculous system
    Public understanding is important. I do not think that means you need FPTP, people can understand other systems, but it need not be so protracted and complicated either.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,950
    edited May 7

    Sean_F said:

    After Count 9, there's no chance of the SDLP retaining their seat in North Belfast, which will be another Alliance gain.

    Any system that requires 9 counts is ridiculous
    That maybe your opinion but it isn't mine. Any system that only requires the mark of an illiterate, "X", is sadly lacking and produces appallingly undemocratic results, with many wasted votes. In one constituency in NI 97% of the vote went to the 5 winners and the last runner up. Now that's democratic!
    My favourite voting system is NP-Complete.

    Every head to head matchup has to be given a vote.

    So 2 candidates needs 1 vote, 3 candidates 3 votes, 4 candidates 6 votes etc.

    Every match up must be filled in or your entire vote slip is voided.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,398

    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    Farooq said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Serious question about the STV process - if party A has 12,000 votes against a quota of 10,000 votes - leaving 2,000 votes to be redistributed - which 2,000 are selected? Is it proportionate to the 12,000 or is it an arbitrary 2,000 ??

    All of them, divide by 6 in this case I think.
    So the the all 12000 votes are reallocated, multiplied by the 2000 that are excess, divided by the 12000 original 1st choices.

    So if the second choices are 3000 for the Silly Party and 9000 for the Sensible Party, you end up with 500 transfers to Silly and 1500 to Sensible = 2000 transfers
    This is only true in some systems, usually with electronic voting and/or small constituencies like student union elections, because although very fair, it becomes quite impractical to multiply a single vote by many fractional coefficients, by hand, in an election with 10,000+ ballot papers.

    In paper elections, most jurisdictions count out the second preferences and take a pro-rata share of the papers that total up to the excess over quota. Some jurisdictions will _also_ try to randomise the papers that get transferred so they don't disproportionately come from certain ballot boxes (which would perhaps skew later transfers, e.g. geographically).

    Final thing to mention: if this candidate was elected later on, by transfers and not just first preferences, typically systems will say that only the last bundle of transfers get sent onward, and not the votes the successful candidate won earlier in the process. So you will sometimes see what looks like weird behaviour, that is really arising because e.g. the Tory party "surplus" is actually coming from a Plaid Cymru transfer.
    sorry but this is where logic and going to the nth degree to achieve "fairness" (literally) can can detached from reality - when 90% plus of voters are no clue on how the votes are cast and it is too complicated for human counters then it is a ridiculous system
    What do you mean? Of course 90%+ of UK voters are not clear because they have never used this system. In jurisdictions where the system is used regularly, it works fine.
    You are saying that if you asked the average NI voter they could explain the detail of how the votes are counted ? I doubt it very much - counting needs to be transparent - there are systems that can achieve fairness but still be understood by the average voter
    Why do you think they wouldn't understand. I have never met anyone who has used stv who hasn't understood it.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 4,637

    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    Farooq said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Serious question about the STV process - if party A has 12,000 votes against a quota of 10,000 votes - leaving 2,000 votes to be redistributed - which 2,000 are selected? Is it proportionate to the 12,000 or is it an arbitrary 2,000 ??

    All of them, divide by 6 in this case I think.
    So the the all 12000 votes are reallocated, multiplied by the 2000 that are excess, divided by the 12000 original 1st choices.

    So if the second choices are 3000 for the Silly Party and 9000 for the Sensible Party, you end up with 500 transfers to Silly and 1500 to Sensible = 2000 transfers
    This is only true in some systems, usually with electronic voting and/or small constituencies like student union elections, because although very fair, it becomes quite impractical to multiply a single vote by many fractional coefficients, by hand, in an election with 10,000+ ballot papers.

    In paper elections, most jurisdictions count out the second preferences and take a pro-rata share of the papers that total up to the excess over quota. Some jurisdictions will _also_ try to randomise the papers that get transferred so they don't disproportionately come from certain ballot boxes (which would perhaps skew later transfers, e.g. geographically).

    Final thing to mention: if this candidate was elected later on, by transfers and not just first preferences, typically systems will say that only the last bundle of transfers get sent onward, and not the votes the successful candidate won earlier in the process. So you will sometimes see what looks like weird behaviour, that is really arising because e.g. the Tory party "surplus" is actually coming from a Plaid Cymru transfer.
    sorry but this is where logic and going to the nth degree to achieve "fairness" (literally) can can detached from reality - when 90% plus of voters are no clue on how the votes are cast and it is too complicated for human counters then it is a ridiculous system
    What do you mean? Of course 90%+ of UK voters are not clear because they have never used this system. In jurisdictions where the system is used regularly, it works fine.
    You are saying that if you asked the average NI voter they could explain the detail of how the votes are counted ? I doubt it very much - counting needs to be transparent - there are systems that can achieve fairness but still be understood by the average voter
    At this point we are in the realm of head-canon.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,813
    pm215 said:

    kinabalu said:

    So, our example, uni places -

    Durham announces 50% of their intake will be working class. This defined as applicants whose parents are financially stressed (as per our definition). Now, agree or not with this policy (which is by the by) the point is it's meaningful and practical. This isn't the case otherwise. The various other wider definitions aren't workable in this sense. They can't be used for policy. Mine can. It's only mine that can.

    But why should Durham announce a "50% working class" policy when they could more straightforwardly announce a "50% financially stressed families" policy that's clearer about what it means and doesn't get them into a pointless "class war" narrative in the tabloids?

    I would argue that the wider definition *could* be used for policy purposes, if you want to try to tackle some of the systemic reasons that class and wealth and education are correlated. To continue our university example, you might have a policy that allots places to students who don't have parents who had a university education. And maybe you have policies in other areas that try to increase social mobility by other means, using other not-necessarily-wealth-based criteria (eg "let council housing tenants buy their houses at a discount"). Sometimes "help the working class" might bottom out to "do something that's linked to income", sometimes to "based on wealth", sometimes to something not specifically monetary. If you equate "working class" with "poor" by fiat you're either restricting your field of options, or else you really meant "poor" in your political philosophy all along, and you'd be better off just saying so.
    I don't think any of these policies are very practical.

    For example, how is a University meant to check whether "a parent has had a university education." How do it even check who the parent is ? How is it meant to verify claims as to whether a family is "financially stressed"?

    Presumably, all this would have to be self-certified. So, unless the University runs a private investigation bureau, all of this is wide open to abuse.

    In practice, many parents will try and game *any* system.

    We already see this very clearly in admissions to high-performing state schools. The parents of one family of my acquaintance announced they were separating, so the father could "live" in a rented flat in the catchment area of a high performing school. Obviously, once their son was safely in the school, they reconciled.

    And of course, the great fiddle in entrance to Oxbridge is many parents take their kids out of private school and send the to a state sixth form (obviously, a very good one). They then can count as "state-school applicants" for posh Universities like Oxbridge.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,849
    edited May 7
    kjh said:

    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    Farooq said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Serious question about the STV process - if party A has 12,000 votes against a quota of 10,000 votes - leaving 2,000 votes to be redistributed - which 2,000 are selected? Is it proportionate to the 12,000 or is it an arbitrary 2,000 ??

    All of them, divide by 6 in this case I think.
    So the the all 12000 votes are reallocated, multiplied by the 2000 that are excess, divided by the 12000 original 1st choices.

    So if the second choices are 3000 for the Silly Party and 9000 for the Sensible Party, you end up with 500 transfers to Silly and 1500 to Sensible = 2000 transfers
    This is only true in some systems, usually with electronic voting and/or small constituencies like student union elections, because although very fair, it becomes quite impractical to multiply a single vote by many fractional coefficients, by hand, in an election with 10,000+ ballot papers.

    In paper elections, most jurisdictions count out the second preferences and take a pro-rata share of the papers that total up to the excess over quota. Some jurisdictions will _also_ try to randomise the papers that get transferred so they don't disproportionately come from certain ballot boxes (which would perhaps skew later transfers, e.g. geographically).

    Final thing to mention: if this candidate was elected later on, by transfers and not just first preferences, typically systems will say that only the last bundle of transfers get sent onward, and not the votes the successful candidate won earlier in the process. So you will sometimes see what looks like weird behaviour, that is really arising because e.g. the Tory party "surplus" is actually coming from a Plaid Cymru transfer.
    sorry but this is where logic and going to the nth degree to achieve "fairness" (literally) can can detached from reality - when 90% plus of voters are no clue on how the votes are cast and it is too complicated for human counters then it is a ridiculous system
    What do you mean? Of course 90%+ of UK voters are not clear because they have never used this system. In jurisdictions where the system is used regularly, it works fine.
    You are saying that if you asked the average NI voter they could explain the detail of how the votes are counted ? I doubt it very much - counting needs to be transparent - there are systems that can achieve fairness but still be understood by the average voter
    Why do you think they wouldn't understand. I have never met anyone who has used stv who hasn't understood it.
    i dont mean most voters cannot understand HOW to vote in terms of numbers ( although it does preclude and spoil some votes the more complicated a system which is not a good thing ) but most voters could then not explain how the votes are COUNTED - that is not transparent and not a good system therefore
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,773
    kle4 said:

    EPG said:

    Farooq said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Serious question about the STV process - if party A has 12,000 votes against a quota of 10,000 votes - leaving 2,000 votes to be redistributed - which 2,000 are selected? Is it proportionate to the 12,000 or is it an arbitrary 2,000 ??

    All of them, divide by 6 in this case I think.
    So the the all 12000 votes are reallocated, multiplied by the 2000 that are excess, divided by the 12000 original 1st choices.

    So if the second choices are 3000 for the Silly Party and 9000 for the Sensible Party, you end up with 500 transfers to Silly and 1500 to Sensible = 2000 transfers
    This is only true in some systems, usually with electronic voting and/or small constituencies like student union elections, because although very fair, it becomes quite impractical to multiply a single vote by many fractional coefficients, by hand, in an election with 10,000+ ballot papers.

    In paper elections, most jurisdictions count out the second preferences and take a pro-rata share of the papers that total up to the excess over quota. Some jurisdictions will _also_ try to randomise the papers that get transferred so they don't disproportionately come from certain ballot boxes (which would perhaps skew later transfers, e.g. geographically).

    Final thing to mention: if this candidate was elected later on, by transfers and not just first preferences, typically systems will say that only the last bundle of transfers get sent onward, and not the votes the successful candidate won earlier in the process. So you will sometimes see what looks like weird behaviour, that is really arising because e.g. the Tory party "surplus" is actually coming from a Plaid Cymru transfer.
    sorry but this is where logic and going to the nth degree (literally) to achieve "fairness" can get detached from reality - when 90% plus of voters have no clue on how the votes are cast and it is too complicated for human counters then it is a ridiculous system
    Public understanding is important. I do not think that means you need FPTP, people can understand other systems, but it need not be so protracted and complicated either.
    It is not complicated. The rules are specific, and all transfers are calculated on the basis of all votes. If necessary encode the papers like in Scotland and it takes a matter of hours.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,398
    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    After Count 9, there's no chance of the SDLP retaining their seat in North Belfast, which will be another Alliance gain.

    Any system that requires 9 counts is ridiculous
    That maybe your opinion but it isn't mine. Any system that only requires the mark of an illiterate, "X", is sadly lacking and produces appallingly undemocratic results, with many wasted votes. In one constituency in NI 97% of the vote went to the 5 winners and the last runner up. Now that's democratic!
    You can have PR systems that dont require 9 or more counts - The EU use a reasonable one for their elections. If 90% of the electorate cannot explain how the votes are counted it is not transparent imo
    The EU elections were terrible - you would vote only for a party, and the party would decide the order in which their candidates were elected.
    I was always sceptical that system was introduced to discredit PR. I agree it is rubbish.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    kjh said:

    Alistair said:

    I see PB favourite Paul Joseph Watson has been caught airing some views that were all the rage in early 1940s Germany.

    What has he said? I used to follow him, but don't now. He is always good for a laugh provided you are not easily converted by cults (I did spell that correctly). I got introduced to him by Plato.
    He was caught saying he'd like to wipe Jews off the planet.

    His outlook is similar to that of his near namesake, Paul Joseph Goebbels.
    Ah the horse shoe of politics, where the far left and far right are much closer to each other, than to more mainstream and centrist viewpoints.
    Some people react against that theory, but it seems pretty solidly proven to me. Objections generally seem focused on the purported motivations or ideologies of the sides, rather than looking at their actions and behaviour. So I dont really buy Farooqs take that it doesn't stand up. The details are different but the broad thrusts align a lot.
    Yes, the communists and fascists will say they are very different - but in practice they are both violent authoritarians who cannot accept dissent, and hate Jews.
  • JonathanBarnesJonathanBarnes Posts: 70
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    NI so far:

    SF 18 nc
    DUP 17 -1
    All 11 +4
    UUP 5 -1
    SDLP 3 -1
    oth 2 nc

    So Unionist parties 23 seats (including DUP and UUP and 1 for TUV) and Nationalist parties 21 seats combining SF and SDLP.

    Almost neck and neck after transfers for largest party now too between SF and DUP
    I think the DUP will lose three in the end, one to Alliance, and two to indpendent Unionists, and the UUP will lose one. But, it's just possible they could lose a seat to Alliance in North Antrim.

    Sinn Fein may gain from SDLP in Upper Bann and Fermanagh South Tyrone.
    The general trend then is almost no change between the Unionist and Nationalist seat totals.

    The main shift is DUP to TUV and DUP and UUP to Alliance and SDLP to SF and Alliance
    Alliance have just squeezed home in North Antrim, so I guess the Unionists and Nationalists will each be down 3 seats.
    North Antrim = 1 UUP, 1 SF, 1 TUV, 1 DUP, 1 Alliance

    Problematic from standpoint of Unilateralist Unionist Redoubt of North Antrim?
    A not inconsiderable number of UUP voters transferred to Alliance in preference to DUP. There were four Unionist quotas in first preference votes.
    At the moment the combined Unionist parties (DUP, UUP and TUV) are on 26 seats to 25 for the combined Nationalist parties (SF and SDLP).

    In 2017 the combined Unionist and Nationalist parties were each on 39 seats. So if anything there has been a tiny swing from Nationalists to Unionists at present
    The main story seems to be Alliance damaging the Greens (who are getting wiped out) and the SDLP plus the UUP getting squeezed.

    Sinn Fein has done really well but is only up 1.1%.

    TUV has done taken a load of DUP votes but are stuck with just Jim Allister.

    Also a strong vote for ex DUP independent Alex Easton in North Down.

    I think Sinn Fein's only chance of a gain is in Fermanagh/South Tyrone, where they may gain the third nationalist seat from SDLP.

    Sadly, this election has been a nightmare for SDLP, who will lose between 4 and 6 seats.

    TUV have polled well, but not well enough to gain any seats, so their voters transfer back to the DUP.
    Yes, I was surprised the SDLP got so strongly squeezed as I thought Colum Eastwood had good debates. I didn't necessarily expect the SDLP to lose more than two seats and to lose North Belfast in particular.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    edited May 7
    Alistair said:

    Sean_F said:

    After Count 9, there's no chance of the SDLP retaining their seat in North Belfast, which will be another Alliance gain.

    Any system that requires 9 counts is ridiculous
    That maybe your opinion but it isn't mine. Any system that only requires the mark of an illiterate, "X", is sadly lacking and produces appallingly undemocratic results, with many wasted votes. In one constituency in NI 97% of the vote went to the 5 winners and the last runner up. Now that's democratic!
    My favourite voting system is NP-Complete.

    Every head to head matchup has to be given a vote.

    So 2 candidates needs 1 vote, 3 candidates 3 votes, 4 candidates 6 votes etc.

    Every match up must be filled in or your entire vote slip is voided.
    Doesn't that risk a Condorcet cycle?
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 416

    I don't think any of these policies are very practical.

    I'm not really trying to argue that they're necessarily practical or even a good idea. I'm just trying to argue that if your underlying goal is "improve the lot of the working class" this doesn't have to inherently collapse into "improve the lot of the poor" before you can start thinking about policies.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,239
    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    After Count 9, there's no chance of the SDLP retaining their seat in North Belfast, which will be another Alliance gain.

    Any system that requires 9 counts is ridiculous
    That maybe your opinion but it isn't mine. Any system that only requires the mark of an illiterate, "X", is sadly lacking and produces appallingly undemocratic results, with many wasted votes. In one constituency in NI 97% of the vote went to the 5 winners and the last runner up. Now that's democratic!
    You can have PR systems that dont require 9 or more counts - The EU use a reasonable one for their elections. If 90% of the electorate cannot explain how the votes are counted it is not transparent imo
    The EU elections were terrible - you would vote only for a party, and the party would decide the order in which their candidates were elected.
    I know, that’s almost as bad as the British system where small unaccountable party cliques pick the MPs for most seats behind closed doors.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,520
    pm215 said:

    kinabalu said:

    So, our example, uni places -

    Durham announces 50% of their intake will be working class. This defined as applicants whose parents are financially stressed (as per our definition). Now, agree or not with this policy (which is by the by) the point is it's meaningful and practical. This isn't the case otherwise. The various other wider definitions aren't workable in this sense. They can't be used for policy. Mine can. It's only mine that can.

    But why should Durham announce a "50% working class" policy when they could more straightforwardly announce a "50% financially stressed families" policy that's clearer about what it means and doesn't get them into a pointless "class war" narrative in the tabloids?

    I would argue that the wider definition *could* be used for policy purposes, if you want to try to tackle some of the systemic reasons that class and wealth and education are correlated. To continue our university example, you might have a policy that allots places to students who don't have parents who had a university education. And maybe you have policies in other areas that try to increase social mobility by other means, using other not-necessarily-wealth-based criteria (eg "let council housing tenants buy their houses at a discount"). Sometimes "help the working class" might bottom out to "do something that's linked to income", sometimes to "based on wealth", sometimes to something not specifically monetary. If you equate "working class" with "poor" by fiat you're either restricting your field of options, or else you really meant "poor" in your political philosophy all along, and you'd be better off just saying so.
    That's fine - badge such measures without the dreaded 'class' word. I agree it stirs up the horses and why do that. And, ok, maybe there are some instances of non-monetary based societal disadvantage you can tailor policy to address but this is pretty marginal imo c.f. the importance of money. Or to put it another way, if we target policy to help people who are working class on my narrow quantitative metric we will be covering the majority of those who are working class on your wider qualitative one. And it has the (often underrated) benefit of simplicity and transparency.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    edited May 7
    Interesting thread on the Russian economy and sanctions

    https://twitter.com/samagreene/status/1522751751681904640?cxt=HHwWgMDUgc-p86EqAAAA

    Folks, we played this game with the post-Crimea sanctions, the post-MH17 sanctions, the post-Skripal sanctions: they were imposed for specific reasons, about which pundits and others quickly forgot, and then started measuring effectiveness by totally different yardsticks...

    Now, I'm not here to say that sanctions are always or even often effective. They most often aren't, even if there isn't often a better alternative -- and doing nothing is usually worse. I'm just here to call for honest analysis and a bit or memory (or at least Googling)
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    After Count 9, there's no chance of the SDLP retaining their seat in North Belfast, which will be another Alliance gain.

    Any system that requires 9 counts is ridiculous
    That maybe your opinion but it isn't mine. Any system that only requires the mark of an illiterate, "X", is sadly lacking and produces appallingly undemocratic results, with many wasted votes. In one constituency in NI 97% of the vote went to the 5 winners and the last runner up. Now that's democratic!
    You can have PR systems that dont require 9 or more counts - The EU use a reasonable one for their elections. If 90% of the electorate cannot explain how the votes are counted it is not transparent imo
    The EU elections were terrible - you would vote only for a party, and the party would decide the order in which their candidates were elected.
    I know, that’s almost as bad as the British system where small unaccountable party cliques pick the MPs for most seats behind closed doors.
    Amazing that after the last 10 years, people still think safe seats are a thing.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    After Count 9, there's no chance of the SDLP retaining their seat in North Belfast, which will be another Alliance gain.

    Any system that requires 9 counts is ridiculous
    That maybe your opinion but it isn't mine. Any system that only requires the mark of an illiterate, "X", is sadly lacking and produces appallingly undemocratic results, with many wasted votes. In one constituency in NI 97% of the vote went to the 5 winners and the last runner up. Now that's democratic!
    You can have PR systems that dont require 9 or more counts - The EU use a reasonable one for their elections. If 90% of the electorate cannot explain how the votes are counted it is not transparent imo
    The EU elections were terrible - you would vote only for a party, and the party would decide the order in which their candidates were elected.
    I know, that’s almost as bad as the British system where small unaccountable party cliques pick the MPs for most seats behind closed doors.
    I don't think that is a credible criticism of the voting system. The party are not picking the MPs behind closed doors, the public can still select the specific individual they want (rather than hoping the candidate they like is higher up on the party list) - the problem with the system is the devolving into so many safe seats, but the actual choice is still with the voters, who can react against an individual if they want. They just don't want to enough for my tastes, and I'd prefer a more proportional system.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,053

    This thread has just been eliminated from the STV count!

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,843
    Applicant said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    After Count 9, there's no chance of the SDLP retaining their seat in North Belfast, which will be another Alliance gain.

    Any system that requires 9 counts is ridiculous
    That maybe your opinion but it isn't mine. Any system that only requires the mark of an illiterate, "X", is sadly lacking and produces appallingly undemocratic results, with many wasted votes. In one constituency in NI 97% of the vote went to the 5 winners and the last runner up. Now that's democratic!
    You can have PR systems that dont require 9 or more counts - The EU use a reasonable one for their elections. If 90% of the electorate cannot explain how the votes are counted it is not transparent imo
    The EU elections were terrible - you would vote only for a party, and the party would decide the order in which their candidates were elected.
    I know, that’s almost as bad as the British system where small unaccountable party cliques pick the MPs for most seats behind closed doors.
    Amazing that after the last 10 years, people still think safe seats are a thing.
    They absolutely are still a thing. Yes, there's no such thing as a guaranteed seat (unless you live in East Ham), but even with the gradual shift in the Red Wall which tipped over the line in 2019, and even with the SNP revolution, most seats that were safe before for each party are still safe now.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 630
    Malmesbury said: "The housing shortage isn’t down to problems with actually building houses. It is about a shortage of sites where you can build houses."

    That's true in many parts of the United States, too, including where I live, a suburb of Seattle. It is quite common here for older modest homes suitable for young families to be torn down and replaced by houses that are often inappropriately large for their lots.

    In the short run, the Boxabl people hope to get around the site shortage by selling what they are calling "Accessory Dwelling Units", which can be added to an existing lot. And in some places, regulations have been changed to allow them, even in places as reactionary as the San Francisco Bay area.

    Think of them as homes for a nanny, a grandparent, or even a young couple, being subsidized by parents.

    Eventually, we will have to solve the site shortage by repealing many restrictive laws and regulations. (In this area, the main culprit is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Growth_Management_Act )

    Those laws and regulation have meant enormous profits for many, including our junior senator, Maria Cantwell, who helped write the law, back when she was in the state legislature.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,239
    kjh said:

    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    Farooq said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Serious question about the STV process - if party A has 12,000 votes against a quota of 10,000 votes - leaving 2,000 votes to be redistributed - which 2,000 are selected? Is it proportionate to the 12,000 or is it an arbitrary 2,000 ??

    All of them, divide by 6 in this case I think.
    So the the all 12000 votes are reallocated, multiplied by the 2000 that are excess, divided by the 12000 original 1st choices.

    So if the second choices are 3000 for the Silly Party and 9000 for the Sensible Party, you end up with 500 transfers to Silly and 1500 to Sensible = 2000 transfers
    This is only true in some systems, usually with electronic voting and/or small constituencies like student union elections, because although very fair, it becomes quite impractical to multiply a single vote by many fractional coefficients, by hand, in an election with 10,000+ ballot papers.

    In paper elections, most jurisdictions count out the second preferences and take a pro-rata share of the papers that total up to the excess over quota. Some jurisdictions will _also_ try to randomise the papers that get transferred so they don't disproportionately come from certain ballot boxes (which would perhaps skew later transfers, e.g. geographically).

    Final thing to mention: if this candidate was elected later on, by transfers and not just first preferences, typically systems will say that only the last bundle of transfers get sent onward, and not the votes the successful candidate won earlier in the process. So you will sometimes see what looks like weird behaviour, that is really arising because e.g. the Tory party "surplus" is actually coming from a Plaid Cymru transfer.
    sorry but this is where logic and going to the nth degree to achieve "fairness" (literally) can can detached from reality - when 90% plus of voters are no clue on how the votes are cast and it is too complicated for human counters then it is a ridiculous system
    What do you mean? Of course 90%+ of UK voters are not clear because they have never used this system. In jurisdictions where the system is used regularly, it works fine.
    You are saying that if you asked the average NI voter they could explain the detail of how the votes are counted ? I doubt it very much - counting needs to be transparent - there are systems that can achieve fairness but still be understood by the average voter
    Why do you think they wouldn't understand. I have never met anyone who has used stv who hasn't understood it.
    If people are interested, they’ll understand it. People who are perfectly capable of understanding online poker or how complicated horse race bets or Eurovision voting work or their how their pay packet or bonus is worked out are perfectly capable of understanding STV.

    In a five member seat, you need more than a sixth of the vote to get elected. Those candidates that come lowest are eliminated and their votes transferred to the next choices. When a candidate gets more votes than they need to be elected, then the surplus votes (being in practice the required fraction of all of their votes) is transferred to the next choices. At the end you get the five people elected that best represent the mix of choices the voters have made.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,239
    Applicant said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    After Count 9, there's no chance of the SDLP retaining their seat in North Belfast, which will be another Alliance gain.

    Any system that requires 9 counts is ridiculous
    That maybe your opinion but it isn't mine. Any system that only requires the mark of an illiterate, "X", is sadly lacking and produces appallingly undemocratic results, with many wasted votes. In one constituency in NI 97% of the vote went to the 5 winners and the last runner up. Now that's democratic!
    You can have PR systems that dont require 9 or more counts - The EU use a reasonable one for their elections. If 90% of the electorate cannot explain how the votes are counted it is not transparent imo
    The EU elections were terrible - you would vote only for a party, and the party would decide the order in which their candidates were elected.
    I know, that’s almost as bad as the British system where small unaccountable party cliques pick the MPs for most seats behind closed doors.
    Amazing that after the last 10 years, people still think safe seats are a thing.
    They are, and, generalising but not unfairly, those MPs are the most useless and least diligent.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,813
    pm215 said:

    I don't think any of these policies are very practical.

    I'm not really trying to argue that they're necessarily practical or even a good idea. I'm just trying to argue that if your underlying goal is "improve the lot of the working class" this doesn't have to inherently collapse into "improve the lot of the poor" before you can start thinking about policies.
    University admissions are a good example because they are often the engine of social mobility.

    But, it is very much harder to devise a system that doesn't end up being gamed.

    For example, Roman Abramovich's daughter Sofia is resident in the UK. Her parents did not benefit from a University education.

    It is true that Sofia's lavish lifestyle means that she is perhaps unlikely to want to undertake a thoughtful course in Social Anthropology at Durham.

    But, she would nonetheless be a beneficiary of a policy that gives an advantage to those whose parents had not been to University.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,735
    edited May 7

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    My advice for the Conservatives (other than ditching Boris. I don't share loathing that some here have for the man, but he is plainly corrupt) is:-

    1. Encourage lots of house-building. My own view is that owner occupation is absolutely key to future Conservative voting. If that pisses off the NIMBY's, tough.

    2. Rebalance tax away from income towards capital. I'm arguing against my own interests, here, as I'll likely inherit a lot of money in the next decade, but my need is less than the needs of my own step-children, and my nephews and nieces. Work has to pay, and it doesn't when people are facing high marginal rates of income tax.

    3. Put a few hundred million pounds into fixing the criminal justice system. That does not mean more police. It means providing sufficient resources to enable justice to be delivered swiftly, which is fair to both victims and defendants. This is an area that has been shamefully neglected since 2010.

    None of these things guarantee victory, but they are worth doing in themselves, and 1 and 2 will yield dividends for the Conservatives in the future.

    The Tory core vote of pensioners is still voting Tory because greenbelt land is not over developed and their capital is not too heavily taxed, see how badly the dementia tax went down.

    Start building on greenbelt land as well as brown belt and taxing wealth and inheritance and property more and they will go LD, Independent or RefUK or even Labour and assuming the young still vote Labour and they cannot win back the middle aged they have lost since 2019 the Tories would be left with nobody and facing 1997 style wipeout.

    I agree with you on 3 though
    The Conservatives won't have a future if they base their electoral strategy on appealing to current pensioners. From the 1920's to the 1980's, the Conservatives understood very well that if they wished to grow their vote, housebuilding was key.
    Indeed.
    The Tories of the past knew that the way votes shifted towards them as people aged from youth to becoming older wasn’t a law of nature, but required nurture.
    It’s well known that the cohorts that were anti-Tory in their youth in the Seventies became gradually more and more Tory as they aged and became more affluent. But that required awareness of how to lay the road for this to happen, to monitor it, and to maintain that road. Otherwise it could cut off.

    And right now, the traffic on that road is getting patchier and patchier on the earlier miles. It’s still very busy in its latter stretches, but you frequently have to look further down that road than in previous times.

    HYUFD seems to be aiming to ringfence those in the latter miles and assume the earlier miles will just refresh without assistance as if it were an automatic rule.
    After 10 years in power the odds are the Tories will lose the next general election.

    However if they ignore the pensioner vote as you want they won't just narrowly lose it they will lose it by 1997 style annihilation. Just as they did when Blair won the pensioner vote then as well as every other age group.

    Most over 39s are already owning a property anyway at least with a mortgage, hence the Tories won over 39s and the last general election
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,333
    BigRich said:

    TimT said:

    This thread by Nathan Ruser on twitter show how much land the Ukrainians have taken from Russia to the
    - North and North East of Kharkiv, threatening to bring the main lines of resupply from Russia into within artillery range; and
    - to the West of Iziyum. NASA heat maps show Ukrainian artillery hits within 600m of the town.

    https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1522871820487372800

    I had thought that the Ukrainian advances in the north around Kharkiv where mostly an indication that the Russians did not prioritise this area and therefore where the only area where the Ukrainians could advance.

    But. perhaps it is part of a bigger and clever strategy? that sead there must be roads in to Russian held territory from Russia that are further south and out of range?
    I think a lot of light mobile units went over the protopopivka bridge. Not heavy stuff to occupy territory, but enough to cause mayhem.

    https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1521803274449747968?t=QhqPF3h0j6Frqyb6S_qM-w&s=19

    I think the Ukranians are busy re-running Operation Mars.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 9,544
    NEW THREAD
This discussion has been closed.