Except that wasn't my argument. My argument was that their own views were not consistent. It would be like wanting taxes cut yet supporting higher welfare spending. Unsurprisingly, young people, who have done a lot of theoretical study but don't have much practical experience of life yet, are very utopian in their views.
Whereas everyone of 18 and over is rigorously consistent about these matters, eh? I'd like to see evidence of a marked difference in realism between 16-year-olds and, say, 25-year-olds.
Changing the subject, TCPolBet has a go at an MP for not living in the constituency. Do people think this matters much (especially in London where constituencies are densely packed), so long as they're available? I mostly lived in Broxtowe but moved to Nottingham in the last few years as my wife, who doesn't drive, found where we were (a village on a lone bus route) too isolated. By coincidence, we moved to live opposite Anna Soubry, who promised to move to the constituency if elected. She did, but only very recently.
Personally I take the view that I'm available more or less 16*7 every week, and where I sleep is largely irrelevant. I never met a constituent who objected (and I've never used it against AS).
I agree about where the MP lives is not hugely important. As long as they are not too far away, e.g the Luton MP who lived in Southampton. My MP has not lived in Hertsmere (South Herts) as long as I have been alive.
I think living in the area is important. The issue is that the Captain of a ship walks his decks everyday. It's so he or she can see what the true situation is above, on and below decks. If the crew are complaining all is well and good. If they are quiet and say very little then all Captains need to tread very very carefully.
I suggest the same holds good for MPs and their constituencies. Hence, being close to your area is fundamental really. MPs need to be seen to stand with the people that elected them. Doing so from some nice part of the country does not quite cut the mustard. (with certain exceptions of course where red roses apply.)
My current MP lives in St Albans and the previous MP lived about a mile outside of Hertsmere. I really think that makes sod all difference.
The swing required in Croydon Central is 2.98%, not 2.90% as shown in your list. This is because the correct number of votes for Gavin Barwell in 2010 is 19,657, not 19,567 as is erroneously given in some sources.
Except that wasn't my argument. My argument was that their own views were not consistent. It would be like wanting taxes cut yet supporting higher welfare spending. Unsurprisingly, young people, who have done a lot of theoretical study but don't have much practical experience of life yet, are very utopian in their views.
Whereas everyone of 18 and over is rigorously consistent about these matters, eh? I'd like to see evidence of a marked difference in realism between 16-year-olds and, say, 25-year-olds.
Changing the subject, TCPolBet has a go at an MP for not living in the constituency. Do people think this matters much (especially in London where constituencies are densely packed), so long as they're available? I mostly lived in Broxtowe but moved to Nottingham in the last few years as my wife, who doesn't drive, found where we were (a village on a lone bus route) too isolated. By coincidence, we moved to live opposite Anna Soubry, who promised to move to the constituency if elected. She did, but only very recently.
Personally I take the view that I'm available more or less 16*7 every week, and where I sleep is largely irrelevant. I never met a constituent who objected (and I've never used it against AS).
The big difference is that most 16 year old's have no concept of what it is like to actually have to work to earn a living whereas most 25 year old's do.
It is something that does have a noticeable effect on the way they view welfare and tax issues and on the answerability of the state (or the Suprastate) to their concerns. For anyone with any sense, idealism is necessarily mitigated by reality once they start working for a living.
I now see Portsmouth South as a reasonably straightforward Conservative win. UKIP weren't at the races in the recent opinion poll, the Conservatives had a decent lead and the Lib Dems have no incumbency advantage. Chalk one to the blues.
Though surely the leader of the Council as candidate is almost as good as having a sitting MP? In terms of name recognition, that is.
I now see Portsmouth South as a reasonably straightforward Conservative win. UKIP weren't at the races in the recent opinion poll, the Conservatives had a decent lead and the Lib Dems have no incumbency advantage. Chalk one to the blues.
Though surely the leader of the Council as candidate is almost as good as having a sitting MP? In terms of name recognition, that is.
I know who my MP is, I haven't the foggiest idea who any of the people on my local council are, including the leader. I am reasonably engaged in politics, so I you can bet that for 95% of the population being the leader of the council gives no name recognition whatsoever.
Except that wasn't my argument. My argument was that their own views were not consistent. It would be like wanting taxes cut yet supporting higher welfare spending. Unsurprisingly, young people, who have done a lot of theoretical study but don't have much practical experience of life yet, are very utopian in their views.
Whereas everyone of 18 and over is rigorously consistent about these matters, eh? I'd like to see evidence of a marked difference in realism between 16-year-olds and, say, 25-year-olds.
Changing the subject, TCPolBet has a go at an MP for not living in the constituency. Do people think this matters much (especially in London where constituencies are densely packed), so long as they're available? I mostly lived in Broxtowe but moved to Nottingham in the last few years as my wife, who doesn't drive, found where we were (a village on a lone bus route) too isolated. By coincidence, we moved to live opposite Anna Soubry, who promised to move to the constituency if elected. She did, but only very recently.
Personally I take the view that I'm available more or less 16*7 every week, and where I sleep is largely irrelevant. I never met a constituent who objected (and I've never used it against AS).
I agree about where the MP lives is not hugely important. As long as they are not too far away, e.g the Luton MP who lived in Southampton. My MP has not lived in Hertsmere (South Herts) as long as I have been alive.
I think living in the area is important. The issue is that the Captain of a ship walks his decks everyday. It's so he or she can see what the true situation is above, on and below decks. If the crew are complaining all is well and good. If they are quiet and say very little then all Captains need to tread very very carefully.
I suggest the same holds good for MPs and their constituencies. Hence, being close to your area is fundamental really. MPs need to be seen to stand with the people that elected them. Doing so from some nice part of the country does not quite cut the mustard. (with certain exceptions of course where red roses apply.)
My current MP lives in St Albans and the previous MP lived about a mile outside of Hertsmere. I really think that makes sod all difference.
Eric Dubois, director of France's statistics office, the INSEE, told the Telegraph newspaper that such commercial activities were not voluntary, and therefore it will not comply with the new EU rules. He said that prostitution was the result of "Mafia networks and trafficking illegal immigrants."
So that change in EU accounting rules which means the UK has a bigger GDP and hence has to pay billions more to the EU budget? Well France is just ignoring it.
Don't believe everything you read in the Daily Telegraph. And where the EU is involved, don't believe anything you read in the Daily Telegraph. They probably lifted the quote from something the INSEE guy said to Le Monde back in June, but it wasn't the full picture, or if it was then it's out of date. See here:
Afin de se mettre en conformité avec ces nouvelles normes européennes, l’Insee a annoncé qu’il prendrait en compte les échanges commerciaux liés aux trafics de drogue dans les statistiques sur la richesse nationale, mais pas dans le calcul du produit intérieur brut. La France intégrera donc l'argent de la drogue dans le Revenu national brut (RNB) servant à déterminer la contribution française au budget de l’Union européenne.
I am confused about the article in the previous thread. There is a bit which say "projecting the Scotland-wide movement across the country as a whole produces an estimated seats outcome of SNP 45, Labour 26, Liberal Democrats ... 3 and the Conservatives ... 1".
That adds up to 75 seats, not 59. Where is the error?
I am confused about the article in the previous thread. There is a bit which say "projecting the Scotland-wide movement across the country as a whole produces an estimated seats outcome of SNP 45, Labour 26, Liberal Democrats ... 3 and the Conservatives ... 1".
That adds up to 75 seats, not 59. Where is the error?
Seems it was corrected on the original article (Labour on 26% of the vote, not 26 seats)
Whereas everyone of 18 and over is rigorously consistent about these matters, eh? I'd like to see evidence of a marked difference in realism between 16-year-olds and, say, 25-year-olds.
Changing the subject, TCPolBet has a go at an MP for not living in the constituency. Do people think this matters much (especially in London where constituencies are densely packed), so long as they're available? I mostly lived in Broxtowe but moved to Nottingham in the last few years as my wife, who doesn't drive, found where we were (a village on a lone bus route) too isolated. By coincidence, we moved to live opposite Anna Soubry, who promised to move to the constituency if elected. She did, but only very recently.
Personally I take the view that I'm available more or less 16*7 every week, and where I sleep is largely irrelevant. I never met a constituent who objected (and I've never used it against AS).
I agree about where the MP lives is not hugely important. As long as they are not too far away, e.g the Luton MP who lived in Southampton. My MP has not lived in Hertsmere (South Herts) as long as I have been alive.
I think living in the area is important. The issue is that the Captain of a ship walks his decks everyday. It's so he or she can see what the true situation is above, on and below decks. If the crew are complaining all is well and good. If they are quiet and say very little then all Captains need to tread very very carefully.
I suggest the same holds good for MPs and their constituencies. Hence, being close to your area is fundamental really. MPs need to be seen to stand with the people that elected them. Doing so from some nice part of the country does not quite cut the mustard. (with certain exceptions of course where red roses apply.)
Most people on the right wing of British Politics are happy to sing the praises of Winston Churchill. What were his connections with Oldham? Were we to deny the services of Churchill to the nation because he could not get elected to the seat where he lived? MPs have families. So a family may be in one area, his seat in another and Westminster is somewhere else. Then you have MPs who are ministers or shadow ministers or committee chairmen. There are lots of locations and jobs that relate to being an MP. It does strike me that the most likely people to be elected to the constituency in or near where they live are the ones who have come up through local politics, councillors etc. As such they would be very close to if not in charge of the party machine. I leave it to others to decide if that is good or bad.
Britain Elects @britainelects 42s43 seconds ago First-time voters: Who do you trust more to run the economy? Cameron & Osborne 28% Miliband & Balls 19% Clegg & Cable 5% None of these 29%
I am confused about the article in the previous thread. There is a bit which say "projecting the Scotland-wide movement across the country as a whole produces an estimated seats outcome of SNP 45, Labour 26, Liberal Democrats ... 3 and the Conservatives ... 1".
That adds up to 75 seats, not 59. Where is the error?
Seems it was corrected on the original article (Labour on 26% of the vote, not 26 seats)
Comments
In terms of name recognition, that is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8655697.stm
It would if they lived in the New Forest.....
( or whichever home they claim for of course)
:-)
That adds up to 75 seats, not 59. Where is the error?
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/12/icm-underline-labours-woes-affirm-smiths-lack-popularity/
MPs have families. So a family may be in one area, his seat in another and Westminster is somewhere else. Then you have MPs who are ministers or shadow ministers or committee chairmen. There are lots of locations and jobs that relate to being an MP.
It does strike me that the most likely people to be elected to the constituency in or near where they live are the ones who have come up through local politics, councillors etc. As such they would be very close to if not in charge of the party machine. I leave it to others to decide if that is good or bad.