politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Yvette Cooper could come 3rd on 1st preferences yet sti
Comments
-
That is going to be a tricky one, if he wins, he almost by definition justifies his place on the ballot. If there are sufficient batshit crazy members and 3-quid members of the Labour Party that they manage to elect Corbyn, clearly he will have been vindicated as an appropriate and representative candidate.flightpath01 said:
You have posted a nice hostage to fortune there.tyson said:Excellent thread lead Mike and Nojam.
The peculiarities of Labour's voting system will be exposed most by a polarising figure such as Corbyn (much more so than the Ed Miliband or Harman elections). Corbyn is likely to win quite comfortably on the 1st voting preference, but unless he exceeds or is as close as exceeding 50% on the first round, he's not going to win.
It is quite simple, Corbyn just isn't going to pick up any second preferences from any of the others.
Now that I have got my head around the voting system- it naturally has checks and balances to stop a decisive figure becoming leader
Corbyn should never really have been on the ballot - never mind become such a divisive figure. Labour MPs threw the checks and balances out with the bath water.
Why should Corbyn voters give anyone their second preferences?0 -
If Corbyn manages to take a third of the Burnham / Cooper transfers, then he should be pretty much home on 40%, never mind 42% - and that's assuming that 9/10 of the Kendall votes end up with Andy or Yvette and the rest are non-transferable.shadsy said:Lots of people seem very confident that Corbyn will be receiving minimal second preference votes. However YouGov's polling showed both Burnham and Cooper supporters were only splitting 2:1 in favour of the other over Corbyn as a second pref.
So, if he gets 45% of 1st pref, I think he's a certainty. I expect 42% would make it about a 50/50 shot.0 -
Yes, they would. Unless we clamp down on those who employ them illegally, handing out 5 year sentences to those who give them work.isam said:
African migrants wouldn't be storming the channel tunnel if we weren't part of the EUflightpath01 said:
Remind me, which PM signed the Channel Tunnel agreement?isam said:If it wasn't for Edward Heath we'd have no migrant crisis in Calais, little threat from ISIS, no Rotherham child abuse scandal... And no ukip!
Just what are you accusing Heath of over child abuse?
0 -
But who would whip the vote for the government?watford30 said:
Yes, they would. Unless we clamp down on those who employ them illegally, handing out 5 year sentences to those who give them work.isam said:
African migrants wouldn't be storming the channel tunnel if we weren't part of the EUflightpath01 said:
Remind me, which PM signed the Channel Tunnel agreement?isam said:If it wasn't for Edward Heath we'd have no migrant crisis in Calais, little threat from ISIS, no Rotherham child abuse scandal... And no ukip!
Just what are you accusing Heath of over child abuse?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10626150/Mark-Harper-resigns-after-hiring-illegal-immigrant.html0 -
Rod Crosby
"Burnham's pitch"
.......and a good one. His ordinariness is quite a USP. It would be impossible to cast his family and friends better. Definitely improved my view of him. Perhaps it's time for an 'Ordinary Man' to become a party leader. The 5 minute clip is well worth watching0 -
My mistake - I've given Kendall's transfers going via Cooper / Burnham a one-third rating, which they shouldn't have. So yes, I'd agree with your 42% tipping point on the rest of the assumptions.david_herdson said:
If Corbyn manages to take a third of the Burnham / Cooper transfers, then he should be pretty much home on 40%, never mind 42% - and that's assuming that 9/10 of the Kendall votes end up with Andy or Yvette and the rest are non-transferable.shadsy said:Lots of people seem very confident that Corbyn will be receiving minimal second preference votes. However YouGov's polling showed both Burnham and Cooper supporters were only splitting 2:1 in favour of the other over Corbyn as a second pref.
So, if he gets 45% of 1st pref, I think he's a certainty. I expect 42% would make it about a 50/50 shot.0 -
That's their problem, not ours.ydoethur said:
But who would whip the vote for the government?watford30 said:
Yes, they would. Unless we clamp down on those who employ them illegally, handing out 5 year sentences to those who give them work.isam said:
African migrants wouldn't be storming the channel tunnel if we weren't part of the EUflightpath01 said:
Remind me, which PM signed the Channel Tunnel agreement?isam said:If it wasn't for Edward Heath we'd have no migrant crisis in Calais, little threat from ISIS, no Rotherham child abuse scandal... And no ukip!
Just what are you accusing Heath of over child abuse?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10626150/Mark-Harper-resigns-after-hiring-illegal-immigrant.html
'The MP, seen as one of the rising stars of the Conservative Party, conceded that he should have checked his cleaner’s background “more thoroughly”.'
0 -
If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easilywatford30 said:
Yes, they would. Unless we clamp down on those who employ them illegally, handing out 5 year sentences to those who give them work.isam said:
African migrants wouldn't be storming the channel tunnel if we weren't part of the EUflightpath01 said:
Remind me, which PM signed the Channel Tunnel agreement?isam said:If it wasn't for Edward Heath we'd have no migrant crisis in Calais, little threat from ISIS, no Rotherham child abuse scandal... And no ukip!
Just what are you accusing Heath of over child abuse?
Programme on bbc Parliament now, 'who won the UK general election and why'0 -
Quite amazing. If the Tory Immigration Minister "conceded that he should have checked his cleaner’s background “more thoroughly”. ", how can they expect ordinary businesses to do soydoethur said:
But who would whip the vote for the government?watford30 said:
Yes, they would. Unless we clamp down on those who employ them illegally, handing out 5 year sentences to those who give them work.isam said:
African migrants wouldn't be storming the channel tunnel if we weren't part of the EUflightpath01 said:
Remind me, which PM signed the Channel Tunnel agreement?isam said:If it wasn't for Edward Heath we'd have no migrant crisis in Calais, little threat from ISIS, no Rotherham child abuse scandal... And no ukip!
Just what are you accusing Heath of over child abuse?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10626150/Mark-Harper-resigns-after-hiring-illegal-immigrant.html
(and they should expect ordinary businesses to do so).0 -
Andy Burnham cant make his mind up what he wants though, he is the Scarecrow to the Labour Membership's Dorothy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H_3SahMLR0Roger said:Rod Crosby
"Burnham's pitch"
.......and a good one. His ordinariness is quite a USP. It would be impossible to cast his family and friends better. Definitely improved my view of him. Perhaps it's time for an 'Ordinary Man' to become a party leader. The 5 minute clip is well worth watching0 -
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
0 -
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.isam said:If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.0 -
Bleurgh...MarkHopkins said:
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
0 -
One regularly observes that politicians find that rules that they have to comply with can be very onerous. Astonishingly, none of them ever draw the conclusion that perhaps some of the rules need to be simplified or repealed, or even that they should not be added to in a hurry.logical_song said:
Quite amazing. If the Tory Immigration Minister "conceded that he should have checked his cleaner’s background “more thoroughly”. ", how can they expect ordinary businesses to do soydoethur said:
But who would whip the vote for the government?watford30 said:
Yes, they would. Unless we clamp down on those who employ them illegally, handing out 5 year sentences to those who give them work.isam said:
African migrants wouldn't be storming the channel tunnel if we weren't part of the EUflightpath01 said:
Remind me, which PM signed the Channel Tunnel agreement?isam said:If it wasn't for Edward Heath we'd have no migrant crisis in Calais, little threat from ISIS, no Rotherham child abuse scandal... And no ukip!
Just what are you accusing Heath of over child abuse?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10626150/Mark-Harper-resigns-after-hiring-illegal-immigrant.html
(and they should expect ordinary businesses to do so).0 -
thats made my daySandpit said:O/T, but on this Monday morning, let us all remember that someone, somewhere, is having a much worse day than you are!
https://twitter.com/sasagronomy/status/630651047745339392
0 -
"freed as it is from the petty vindictive humourless small-minded prejudiced pre-judged group-think assumptions of Lefties."MarqueeMark said:
Au contraire, it is a most jolly place, freed as it is from the petty vindictive humourless small-minded prejudiced pre-judged group-think assumptions of Lefties.tyson said:
likewise I couldn't get into the head of a Tory member- the Tory mind must be full of some rather unpleasant prejudices that fortunately I cannot relate to.
Life is one long party if you are a Tory.
Life is one long party political broadcast if you are a Lefty.
Irony isn't dead.0 -
A troubled coalition government is followed by a weak majority administration, at the fag-end of a failing hegemonic consensus. A radical, unorthodox leader of the opposition emerges to be ridiculed by the press and establishment. They win the next election and usher in a new consensus that last for decades. Maybe we are going back to the 70s after all?0
-
We can expert Mark Harper to and we can expect businesses to.logical_song said:
Quite amazing. If the Tory Immigration Minister "conceded that he should have checked his cleaner’s background “more thoroughly”. ", how can they expect ordinary businesses to do soydoethur said:
But who would whip the vote for the government?watford30 said:
Yes, they would. Unless we clamp down on those who employ them illegally, handing out 5 year sentences to those who give them work.isam said:
African migrants wouldn't be storming the channel tunnel if we weren't part of the EUflightpath01 said:
Remind me, which PM signed the Channel Tunnel agreement?isam said:If it wasn't for Edward Heath we'd have no migrant crisis in Calais, little threat from ISIS, no Rotherham child abuse scandal... And no ukip!
Just what are you accusing Heath of over child abuse?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10626150/Mark-Harper-resigns-after-hiring-illegal-immigrant.html
(and they should expect ordinary businesses to do so).
The majority of the illegal workforce are concentrated in particular areas, often with distinct middle men. For example, agency cleaning work or crop harvesting.
0 -
david_herdson said:
My mistake - I've given Kendall's transfers going via Cooper / Burnham a one-third rating, which they shouldn't have. So yes, I'd agree with your 42% tipping point on the rest of the assumptions.david_herdson said:
If Corbyn manages to take a third of the Burnham / Cooper transfers, then he should be pretty much home on 40%, never mind 42% - and that's assuming that 9/10 of the Kendall votes end up with Andy or Yvette and the rest are non-transferable.shadsy said:Lots of people seem very confident that Corbyn will be receiving minimal second preference votes. However YouGov's polling showed both Burnham and Cooper supporters were only splitting 2:1 in favour of the other over Corbyn as a second pref.
So, if he gets 45% of 1st pref, I think he's a certainty. I expect 42% would make it about a 50/50 shot.
I added your/shadsy scenario under "Split 2:1" above. Corbyn does win under that.
Direct link: http://show.nojam.com/a2sU/feature1.php?c=0&b=10
But will it really split like that when faced with the reality of the voting slip?
Polls and results do not necessarily have a close correlation.
0 -
Glad you spotted it....logical_song said:
"freed as it is from the petty vindictive humourless small-minded prejudiced pre-judged group-think assumptions of Lefties."MarqueeMark said:
Au contraire, it is a most jolly place, freed as it is from the petty vindictive humourless small-minded prejudiced pre-judged group-think assumptions of Lefties.tyson said:
likewise I couldn't get into the head of a Tory member- the Tory mind must be full of some rather unpleasant prejudices that fortunately I cannot relate to.
Life is one long party if you are a Tory.
Life is one long party political broadcast if you are a Lefty.
Irony isn't dead.0 -
But AV is a silly system, you can end up worse off by voting than staying home, and you can harm a candidate's chances of winning by voting that candidate higher, or help a candidate by voting that candidate lower.DaemonBarber said:
Bleurgh...MarkHopkins said:
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.0 -
Surely, Spike would be Prescott?Financier said:
Do they have Spike lurking near them?CarlottaVance said:@LadPolitics: Tom & Jerry now 13/8 to be the Lab leader/deputy team
Even funnier than I thought.......0 -
Brown-nose politics/ economics for you?ydoethur said:
Those who are just below that tax threshold, but earning just above the minimum wage or having to work reduced hours, with 2-3 children. That's actually quite a significant constituency and includes some members of my own family. It wasn't a great budget for them.Sandpit said:
So a taxpayer who pays the marginal 20% rate is already more than a grand a year better off just on the tax allowance increase. The minimum wage has also risen in real terms over the same period. I remain to be convinced that the tax credit changes are any more than the undoing of the unaffordable largesse of Gordon Brown before and during the recession, now that the economy is doing well. The other big change with Universal Credit is the elimination of the 16 hours a week rules which limited working hours for benefits recipients.
Can anyone explain who is significantly worse off, apart from the parents of as yet unborn 3rd children?
However, since they hated the tax credit system with a passion having been overpaid (and then received threatening letters) or underpaid (and then having to go through the time-consuming and expensive ritual of appealing) for five consecutive years, I imagine they will somehow live with their loss.
The tax credit system is an absolute joke, or it would be if it were funny. It was by far the worst and most costly mistake Labour ever made, not forgetting the Iraq War - and what was even more bizarre is that they are still very proud of it because they believe that expensively cocking up every year and then being smug about it was in some way helping the poorest!0 -
I sort of see your point, but to say "you can end up worse off by voting than staying home" is just errant nonsense.Indigo said:
But AV is a silly system, you can end up worse off by voting than staying home, and you can harm a candidate's chances of winning by voting that candidate higher, or help a candidate by voting that candidate lower.DaemonBarber said:
Bleurgh...MarkHopkins said:
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
If I only have one preference and I vote for that then I am effectively casting my vote as FPtP. And I should accept the result, whatever that is.
If I cast two or more preferences, then I must also accept that others who are voting are also casting their votes similarly and the winner will be decided on who has enough over-all support.
All this moaning about not ending up with who you want is just not accepting that you are on the losing side.
If everybody is an honest actor in the vote, then whilst there can be some statistical anomalies, the result should be accepted as the will of the electorate.
AV has problems, as do STV, FPtP and AV^2, but that's not the point of my post.0 -
Except his wife says that on the very first day at Uni he told her he wanted to be an MP. Nothing wrong in that in itself, but it does rather undermine his argument a little.Roger said:Rod Crosby
"Burnham's pitch"
.......and a good one. His ordinariness is quite a USP. It would be impossible to cast his family and friends better. Definitely improved my view of him. Perhaps it's time for an 'Ordinary Man' to become a party leader. The 5 minute clip is well worth watching0 -
There's no contradiction under AV between voting for who you want and listing further preferences for X and Y to stop Z.DaemonBarber said:
Bleurgh...MarkHopkins said:
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.0 -
That's a quite plausible scenario IMO. Interestingly, Corbyn wins with a bit of room to spare on those figures.MarkHopkins said:I added your/shadsy scenario under "Split 2:1" above. Corbyn does win under that.
Direct link: http://show.nojam.com/a2sU/feature1.php?c=0&b=10
But will it really split like that when faced with the reality of the voting slip?
Polls and results do not necessarily have a close correlation.
Of course we have only very limited information on the intentions of Labour members, and still less on the intentions of the union sign-ups and the £3 brigade. All the same I think Corbyn should be clear favourite.0 -
It depends very much on the situation, and the punishments on offer need to be suitable for both the case of an individual not spotting an error in their cleaner's paperwork and a farmer who pays 20 quid a day each for 50 people to a middleman to harvest the crops, no questions asked.logical_song said:
Quite amazing. If the Tory Immigration Minister "conceded that he should have checked his cleaner’s background “more thoroughly”. ", how can they expect ordinary businesses to do soydoethur said:
But who would whip the vote for the government?watford30 said:
Yes, they would. Unless we clamp down on those who employ them illegally, handing out 5 year sentences to those who give them work.isam said:
African migrants wouldn't be storming the channel tunnel if we weren't part of the EUflightpath01 said:
Remind me, which PM signed the Channel Tunnel agreement?isam said:If it wasn't for Edward Heath we'd have no migrant crisis in Calais, little threat from ISIS, no Rotherham child abuse scandal... And no ukip!
Just what are you accusing Heath of over child abuse?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10626150/Mark-Harper-resigns-after-hiring-illegal-immigrant.html
(and they should expect ordinary businesses to do so).
The former case is like a stoner caught with a spliff and deserves a fine the first time, the latter case is more like two dealers exchanging drugs by the suitcase and they should be looking at the same long stretch of porridge.0 -
Thank you for your hard work on this AV thread.MarkHopkins said:
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
We need more AV themed threads.0 -
I saw Martin Lewis on Sky earlier saying that a new EU directive about mortgage affordability is coming in and lenders here are already complying with it.
It means that if you already have a mortgage and get a cheaper deal - in many cases you CAN'T get it because the new rules bar you. So if you're paying say £750pcm, get a deal for £500pcm - you're ineligible on the revised criteria.
It's a complete nonsense and he's making a big fuss about it - but seriously - who thought this stupid policy up?antifrank said:
One regularly observes that politicians find that rules that they have to comply with can be very onerous. Astonishingly, none of them ever draw the conclusion that perhaps some of the rules need to be simplified or repealed, or even that they should not be added to in a hurry.logical_song said:
Quite amazing. If the Tory Immigration Minister "conceded that he should have checked his cleaner’s background “more thoroughly”. ", how can they expect ordinary businesses to do soydoethur said:
But who would whip the vote for the government?watford30 said:
Yes, they would. Unless we clamp down on those who employ them illegally, handing out 5 year sentences to those who give them work.isam said:
African migrants wouldn't be storming the channel tunnel if we weren't part of the EUflightpath01 said:
Remind me, which PM signed the Channel Tunnel agreement?isam said:If it wasn't for Edward Heath we'd have no migrant crisis in Calais, little threat from ISIS, no Rotherham child abuse scandal... And no ukip!
Just what are you accusing Heath of over child abuse?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10626150/Mark-Harper-resigns-after-hiring-illegal-immigrant.html
(and they should expect ordinary businesses to do so).0 -
9x B>C>ADaemonBarber said:
I sort of see your point, but to say "you can end up worse off by voting than staying home" is just errant nonsense.Indigo said:
But AV is a silly system, you can end up worse off by voting than staying home, and you can harm a candidate's chances of winning by voting that candidate higher, or help a candidate by voting that candidate lower.DaemonBarber said:
Bleurgh...MarkHopkins said:
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
8x A>B>C
7x C>A>B
In this case A wins after C is eliminated. If 3 of the first group stayed at home C would have won which would have been preferable to them to A winning.
(http://rangevoting.org/TBlecture.html#partic)
0 -
That's not quite what I said.david_herdson said:
There's no contradiction under AV between voting for who you want and listing further preferences for X and Y to stop Z.DaemonBarber said:
Bleurgh...MarkHopkins said:
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
If you cast your votes trying to game the system and end up with somebody you didn't really want then you shouldn't moan about it. Vote for who you want, then at least if you don't get the result, you can at least recognise that it was not the will of the electorate rather than a mix-up of tactical voting.0 -
Mr. Barber, there was a video before the referendum on AV which explained how getting fewer first preferences votes could actually lead to someone winning when they would've lost if they'd had more (due to the impact on other candidates for the seat).
It's a ridiculous system.0 -
Quite. And one wonders why the general public, when offered AV for Parliamentary elections, rejected the idea with a clear majority.DaemonBarber said:
That's not quite what I said.david_herdson said:
There's no contradiction under AV between voting for who you want and listing further preferences for X and Y to stop Z.DaemonBarber said:
Bleurgh...MarkHopkins said:
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
If you cast your votes trying to game the system and end up with somebody you didn't really want then you shouldn't moan about it. Vote for who you want, then at least if you don't get the result, you can at least recognise that it was not the will of the electorate rather than a mix-up of tactical voting.
0 -
joke odds too!CarlottaVance said:@LadPolitics: Tom & Jerry now 13/8 to be the Lab leader/deputy team
Even funnier than I thought.......0 -
they cast a vote for A (yes it was the 3rd pref, but it was still a vote).Indigo said:
9x B>C>ADaemonBarber said:
I sort of see your point, but to say "you can end up worse off by voting than staying home" is just errant nonsense.Indigo said:
But AV is a silly system, you can end up worse off by voting than staying home, and you can harm a candidate's chances of winning by voting that candidate higher, or help a candidate by voting that candidate lower.DaemonBarber said:
Bleurgh...MarkHopkins said:
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
8x A>B>C
7x C>A>B
In this case A wins after C is eliminated. If 3 of the first group stayed at home C would have won which would have been preferable to them to A winning.
(http://rangevoting.org/TBlecture.html#partic)
If they didn't want A at all, they didn't have to cast a vote for them
Would the result have been the same if the 3rd prefs for A were not cast?
0 -
Paging scrap heap.
I can't access the fantasy football league table this morning.
Can you let me know if I'm above you in the league table.
*Innocent face*0 -
Roger's unbroken streak continues...Roger said:His ordinariness is quite a USP. ... Perhaps it's time for an 'Ordinary Man' to become a party leader. The 5 minute clip is well worth watching
@GuidoFawkes: That career trajectory in full: Wanted to be an MP aged 18 > Researcher > SpAd > MP > Minister > Leadership contender http://t.co/rwUH7LQFnK0 -
More details here:Plato said:I saw Martin Lewis on Sky earlier saying that a new EU directive about mortgage affordability is coming in and lenders here are already complying with it.
It means that if you already have a mortgage and get a cheaper deal - in many cases you CAN'T get it because the new rules bar you. So if you're paying say £750pcm, get a deal for £500pcm - you're ineligible on the revised criteria.
It's a complete nonsense and he's making a big fuss about it - but seriously - who thought this stupid policy up?
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/mortgages/2015/04/mortgages-warning-EU?utm_source=MSE_Newsletter&utm_medium=hiya&utm_term=29-Apr-15-v4&utm_campaign=news&utm_content=50 -
I have written to Baroness Altmann, copy to Sajid Javid & Charles Counsell (at the Pensions Regulator), regarding the nonsense of small companies having to set up autoenrolment pension schemes which will never have any members.antifrank said:One regularly observes that politicians find that rules that they have to comply with can be very onerous. Astonishingly, none of them ever draw the conclusion that perhaps some of the rules need to be simplified or repealed, or even that they should not be added to in a hurry.
We shall see whether the government will really does want to get rid of lunatic red tape, as you couldn't find a better example or one which could be so easily sorted out with zero downside.
I'm not holding my breath..0 -
Before we go too far down the rabbit-hole, I'm not an advocate for or defending AV.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Barber, there was a video before the referendum on AV which explained how getting fewer first preferences votes could actually lead to someone winning when they would've lost if they'd had more (due to the impact on other candidates for the seat).
It's a ridiculous system.
I just think that whatever the system, you should honestly vote for whom you want to win.
AV allows you to express this in preferential order, this is all.0 -
By the way that Liz Kendall election video is really bad isn't it? So contrived and dated
0 -
and then you woke up from your wet dream.......and realised it was 2020 and the tories had just won a landslide victoryJWisemann said:A troubled coalition government is followed by a weak majority administration, at the fag-end of a failing hegemonic consensus. A radical, unorthodox leader of the opposition emerges to be ridiculed by the press and establishment. They win the next election and usher in a new consensus that last for decades. Maybe we are going back to the 70s after all?
0 -
TheScreamingEagles said:
Thank you for your hard work on this AV thread.MarkHopkins said:
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
We need more AV themed threads.
After today, everyone on here will fully understand AV, and there will never be arguments over it again...
0 -
The lunatic left's call to arms? Votes for cash! If the Tories had been using the call, at least the cash would be coming your way. It does however underline the left's grip on economics and its attitude to democracy.0
-
I'm honestly trying to work out which bit is which ...kjohnw said:
and then you woke up from your wet dream.......and realised it was 2020 and the tories had just won a landslide victoryJWisemann said:A troubled coalition government is followed by a weak majority administration, at the fag-end of a failing hegemonic consensus. A radical, unorthodox leader of the opposition emerges to be ridiculed by the press and establishment. They win the next election and usher in a new consensus that last for decades. Maybe we are going back to the 70s after all?
0 -
BannedInParis said:
I'm honestly trying to work out which bit is which ...kjohnw said:
and then you woke up from your wet dream.......and realised it was 2020 and the tories had just won a landslide victoryJWisemann said:A troubled coalition government is followed by a weak majority administration, at the fag-end of a failing hegemonic consensus. A radical, unorthodox leader of the opposition emerges to be ridiculed by the press and establishment. They win the next election and usher in a new consensus that last for decades. Maybe we are going back to the 70s after all?
0 -
Isn't that FPTP?DaemonBarber said:
Bleurgh...MarkHopkins said:
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.0 -
So Jeremy Corbyn will possibly win under AV, and almost certainly win under FPTP.
What's the problem>0 -
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of itIndigo said:
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.isam said:If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.0 -
About the only bit that can be considered true is: "A radical, unorthodox leader of the opposition emerges to be ridiculed by the press and establishment."JWisemann said:A troubled coalition government is followed by a weak majority administration, at the fag-end of a failing hegemonic consensus. A radical, unorthodox leader of the opposition emerges to be ridiculed by the press and establishment. They win the next election and usher in a new consensus that last for decades. Maybe we are going back to the 70s after all?
Troubled coalition: No. Whilst it had its faults, it was a stable government that did surprisingly well considering the economic situation (amongst other things)
followed by a weak majority administration: No, this is a majority government. Time will tell if that lasts especially with the EU ref. But Labour's naval gazing is making life easy for the Tories ATM.
at the fag-end of a failing hegemonic consensus: nice turn of phrase, but still nonsense.
Maybe we are going back to the 70s after all?: Only perhaps in fashion. I blame the hipsters.
Speaking of hipsters... Why did the hipster burn his lips?
0 -
Mr. Nabavi, hope you get a decent reply.0
-
State of the nation... What are we bringing up?
In China they darent even answer the teachers back
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/6306935133243146240 -
In this case. Yes.DaemonBarber said:
they cast a vote for A (yes it was the 3rd pref, but it was still a vote).Indigo said:
9x B>CDaemonBarber said:
I sort of see your point, but to say "you can end up worse off by voting than staying home" is just errant nonsense.Indigo said:
But AV is a silly system, you can end up worse off by voting than staying home, and you can harm a candidate's chances of winning by voting that candidate higher, or help a candidate by voting that candidate lower.DaemonBarber said:
Bleurgh...MarkHopkins said:
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
8x A>B>C
7x C>A>B
In this case A wins after C is eliminated. If 3 of the first group stayed at home C would have won which would have been preferable to them to A winning.
(http://rangevoting.org/TBlecture.html#partic)
If they didn't want A at all, they didn't have to cast a vote for them
Would the result have been the same if the 3rd prefs for A were not cast?
9x B>C
8x A>B>C
7x C>A>B
Is a win for A after C is eliminated in the second round. If 3 B>C stay at home we get
8x A>B>C
7x C>A>B
6x B>C
B is now eliminated leaving C to win with 13 votes to 8
0 -
I have a question - will we get to see the second and third preferences of all of the candidates? So if Corbyn were to be beaten in a runoff with Burnham/Cooper, will we get to find out if it would have been beneficial for some of Corbyn's supporters to have backed Burnham or Cooper to get a different opponent in the runoff?0
-
Odds:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Nabavi, hope you get a decent reply.
Meaningless flim-flam: 1/10
Substantive reply but no action: 10/1
Actually doing something: 1000/10 -
Yes, of course. There's only three candidates, your third preference never actually gets countedDaemonBarber said:
they cast a vote for A (yes it was the 3rd pref, but it was still a vote).Indigo said:
9x B>C>ADaemonBarber said:
I sort of see your point, but to say "you can end up worse off by voting than staying home" is just errant nonsense.Indigo said:
But AV is a silly system, you can end up worse off by voting than staying home, and you can harm a candidate's chances of winning by voting that candidate higher, or help a candidate by voting that candidate lower.DaemonBarber said:
Bleurgh...MarkHopkins said:
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
8x A>B>C
7x C>A>B
In this case A wins after C is eliminated. If 3 of the first group stayed at home C would have won which would have been preferable to them to A winning.
(http://rangevoting.org/TBlecture.html#partic)
If they didn't want A at all, they didn't have to cast a vote for them
Would the result have been the same if the 3rd prefs for A were not cast?0 -
No reply whatsoever : FavRichard_Nabavi said:
Odds:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Nabavi, hope you get a decent reply.
Meaningless Flim-Flam: 1/10
Substantive reply but no action: 10/1
Actually doing something: 1000/10 -
Mr. Nabavi, think you've over-priced a seemingly substantial reply but that contains no real action.0
-
I just came across this site
http://www.ericgorr.net/condorcet/
Which does AV calculations is exquisite detail with a whole range of different voting options and lots of generated output to consider, fun for a few minutes 0 -
Although a lot of the problems seem to be our fault.Indigo said:
I would imagine he is trying in his own unique way to say we would have control of our own borders. The ability to not admit, and to expel undesirables would certainly have heavily reduced the problems cited above. However the problem isn't so much Heath and the lamentable European Communities Act, as the EHCR and the extraordinarily abused Article 8.flightpath01 said:
Remind me, which PM signed the Channel Tunnel agreement?isam said:If it wasn't for Edward Heath we'd have no migrant crisis in Calais, little threat from ISIS, no Rotherham child abuse scandal... And no ukip!
Just what are you accusing Heath of over child abuse?
Judicial interpretation of Article 8, which could - if done carefully - be limited by Parliamentary guidance.
This health insurance scam today seems to be (a) the NHS issuing cards too easily and (b) the NHS not checking that foreign claims comply with the requirements (principally emergency).
There is a lot we can do ourselves to fix the problems. It's not just the EU's fault.0 -
I don't really think an ordinary person is necessary in any way, I really don't mind if someone is pretty darn odd if they seem effective and competent. That said, it does appear to put people off, and as weak a campaign as I think Burnham has had, he does seem very very ordinary, so he has that at least.Roger said:Rod Crosby
"Burnham's pitch"
.......and a good one. His ordinariness is quite a USP. It would be impossible to cast his family and friends better. Definitely improved my view of him. Perhaps it's time for an 'Ordinary Man' to become a party leader. The 5 minute clip is well worth watching
You can never have too many AV threads, this is well knownMarkHopkins said:TheScreamingEagles said:
Thank you for your hard work on this AV thread.MarkHopkins said:
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
We need more AV themed threads.
After today, everyone on here will fully understand AV, and there will never be arguments over it again...0 -
OK, I see your point... but as I said back down-thread: there are statistical anomalies. In the most cases these perverse outcomes are just not all that relevant. Besides, I wouldn't choose AV over FPtP let alone STV or AV^2Indigo said:
In this case. Yes.DaemonBarber said:
they cast a vote for A (yes it was the 3rd pref, but it was still a vote).Indigo said:
9x B>CDaemonBarber said:
I sort of see your point, but to say "you can end up worse off by voting than staying home" is just errant nonsense.Indigo said:
But AV is a silly system, you can end up worse off by voting than staying home, and you can harm a candidate's chances of winning by voting that candidate higher, or help a candidate by voting that candidate lower.DaemonBarber said:
Bleurgh...MarkHopkins said:
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
8x A>B>C
7x C>A>B
In this case A wins after C is eliminated. If 3 of the first group stayed at home C would have won which would have been preferable to them to A winning.
(http://rangevoting.org/TBlecture.html#partic)
If they didn't want A at all, they didn't have to cast a vote for them
Would the result have been the same if the 3rd prefs for A were not cast?
9x B>C
8x A>B>C
7x C>A>B
Is a win for A after C is eliminated in the second round. If 3 B>C stay at home we get
8x A>B>C
7x C>A>B
6x B>C
B is now eliminated leaving C to win with 13 votes to 80 -
In relation to Ferguson protests, I notice that the likes of the BBC keep repeating "white police officer shot unarmed black teenager"...rather than criminal was shot after attempting to wrestle gun from police officer and refused arrest.
There have been other incidents where the police have not acted properly, but an investigation of all the evidence found that in this case the officer acted properly.
I think it is very dangerous to keep repeating half the story, as this is how it all kicked off in the first place.0 -
I wonder if they'll organise a 'Songs of Praise' from Alabama?FrancisUrquhart said:In relation to Ferguson protests, I notice that the likes of the BBC keep repeating "white police officer shot unarmed black teenager"...rather than criminal was shot after attempting to wrestle gun from police officer and refused arrest.
There have been other incidents where the police have not acted properly, but an investigation of all the evidence found that in this case the officer acted properly.
I think it is very dangerous to keep repeating half the story, as this is how it all kicked off in the first place.0 -
That's already the case with our own mortgage regulations.Plato said:I saw Martin Lewis on Sky earlier saying that a new EU directive about mortgage affordability is coming in and lenders here are already complying with it.
It means that if you already have a mortgage and get a cheaper deal - in many cases you CAN'T get it because the new rules bar you. So if you're paying say £750pcm, get a deal for £500pcm - you're ineligible on the revised criteria.
It's a complete nonsense and he's making a big fuss about it - but seriously - who thought this stupid policy up?antifrank said:
One regularly observes that politicians find that rules that they have to comply with can be very onerous. Astonishingly, none of them ever draw the conclusion that perhaps some of the rules need to be simplified or repealed, or even that they should not be added to in a hurry.logical_song said:
Quite amazing. If the Tory Immigration Minister "conceded that he should have checked his cleaner’s background “more thoroughly”. ", how can they expect ordinary businesses to do soydoethur said:
But who would whip the vote for the government?watford30 said:
Yes, they would. Unless we clamp down on those who employ them illegally, handing out 5 year sentences to those who give them work.isam said:
African migrants wouldn't be storming the channel tunnel if we weren't part of the EUflightpath01 said:
Remind me, which PM signed the Channel Tunnel agreement?isam said:If it wasn't for Edward Heath we'd have no migrant crisis in Calais, little threat from ISIS, no Rotherham child abuse scandal... And no ukip!
Just what are you accusing Heath of over child abuse?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10626150/Mark-Harper-resigns-after-hiring-illegal-immigrant.html
(and they should expect ordinary businesses to do so).
Some of the contortions that I've seen people go through are really very amusing.
"Ok, Mr X. your total assets are $3 billion and your annual income is $150 million. You want to borrow $20 million to buy a house in the country. How much do you spend on gas and electricity each month?"0 -
The Tory system while less democratic at least means that the MPs don't get saddled with a leader they cant work with, a problem Labour is likely to discover shortly.DaemonBarber said:
OK, I see your point... but as I said back down-thread: there are statistical anomalies. In the most cases these perverse outcomes are just not all that relevant. Besides, I wouldn't choose AV over FPtP let alone STV or AV^2Indigo said:
In this case. Yes.
9x B>C
8x A>B>C
7x C>A>B
Is a win for A after C is eliminated in the second round. If 3 B>C stay at home we get
8x A>B>C
7x C>A>B
6x B>C
B is now eliminated leaving C to win with 13 votes to 8
Regarding the statistical anomalies, the research appears to show (as I mentioned down thread) that if you get a different result from AV than you would have done under FPtP, its 50% likely that some of the voters would have got a preferable result if they had stayed at home.0 -
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.isam said:
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of itIndigo said:
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.isam said:If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.0 -
... and if they don't behave impeccably so you cant give them citizenship, you have the same problem as now, only they are even more pissed off!Charles said:
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.isam said:
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of itIndigo said:
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.isam said:If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.0 -
So does free movement of labour within the EU but enough people seem to be in favour of it.Charles said:
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.isam said:
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of itIndigo said:
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.isam said:If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
Anyway if the deterrent works it won't be a problem0 -
They stay in prisonIndigo said:
... and if they don't behave impeccably so you cant give them citizenship, you have the same problem as now, only they are even more pissed off!Charles said:
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.isam said:
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of itIndigo said:
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.isam said:If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.0 -
at 70k or so a year, it would be cheaper to pay them benefits and have done with it!isam said:
They stay in prisonIndigo said:
... and if they don't behave impeccably so you cant give them citizenship, you have the same problem as now, only they are even more pissed off!Charles said:
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.isam said:
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of itIndigo said:
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.isam said:If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
The answer is proper border security, don't let the wrong people in and you wont have a problem deciding what to do with them, and proper deterrent sentences from people giving these criminals jobs. Personally I would take the Swiss model further and outlaw rough sleeping and at the same time fund sufficient government/charity hostels to house the rough sleeping population.0 -
Tories slipping back in Scotland, I think privately Ruth D will be very pissed off at Cameron:
http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news/snp-holds-poll-lead-in-spite-of-mixed-views-on-record-in-government0 -
Clem Attlee struck many people, including Churchill, as quite ordinary.kle4 said:
I don't really think an ordinary person is necessary in any way, I really don't mind if someone is pretty darn odd if they seem effective and competent. That said, it does appear to put people off, and as weak a campaign as I think Burnham has had, he does seem very very ordinary, so he has that at least.Roger said:Rod Crosby
"Burnham's pitch"
.......and a good one. His ordinariness is quite a USP. It would be impossible to cast his family and friends better. Definitely improved my view of him. Perhaps it's time for an 'Ordinary Man' to become a party leader. The 5 minute clip is well worth watching
You can never have too many AV threads, this is well knownMarkHopkins said:TheScreamingEagles said:
Thank you for your hard work on this AV thread.MarkHopkins said:
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
We need more AV themed threads.
After today, everyone on here will fully understand AV, and there will never be arguments over it again...0 -
Random silly idea of the day - allow prisons charge farmers minimum wage for the use of the chain gangs, to earn some money for the Justice department? Or would 'Uman Rights get in the way?Charles said:
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.isam said:
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of itIndigo said:
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.isam said:If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.0 -
They'll be working 12 hours a day 7 days a week so that should pay some of the 70k back.Indigo said:
at 70k or so a year, it would be cheaper to pay them benefits and have done with it!isam said:
They stay in prisonIndigo said:
... and if they don't behave impeccably so you cant give them citizenship, you have the same problem as now, only they are even more pissed off!Charles said:
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.isam said:
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of itIndigo said:
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.isam said:If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
The answer is proper border security, don't let the wrong people in and you wont have a problem deciding what to do with them, and proper deterrent sentences from people giving these criminals jobs. Personally I would take the Swiss model further and outlaw rough sleeping and at the same time fund sufficient government/charity hostels to house the rough sleeping population.
It will be money well spent if it deters the bogus asylum seekers0 -
Thanks to PB for the Nojam play thingy.It an excellent resource as are Oddschecker's dutching and hutching calculators.0
-
Really only one stat in there:calum said:Tories slipping back in Scotland, I think privately Ruth D will be very pissed off at Cameron:
http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news/snp-holds-poll-lead-in-spite-of-mixed-views-on-record-in-government
"97% of those who voted SNP in the general election plan to do so again for Holyrood."0 -
Sure - blaming somebody else seems to be popular north of the Border so perhaps if Ruth joins in she might see a poll bump.calum said:Tories slipping back in Scotland, I think privately Ruth D will be very pissed off at Cameron:
http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news/snp-holds-poll-lead-in-spite-of-mixed-views-on-record-in-government0 -
Yeah being PM who defeated Salmond in a referendum to keep Scotland in the UK, then winning a national election the following year to keep a national Conservative government in power in Scotland. What a dreadful deal for the Scottish Conservatives Cameron has been.calum said:Tories slipping back in Scotland, I think privately Ruth D will be very pissed off at Cameron:
http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news/snp-holds-poll-lead-in-spite-of-mixed-views-on-record-in-government0 -
Almost certain you will violate ECHR Article 4 with that one, its all funisam said:
They'll be working 12 hours a day 7 days a week so that should pay some of the 70k back.Indigo said:
at 70k or so a year, it would be cheaper to pay them benefits and have done with it!isam said:
They stay in prisonIndigo said:
... and if they don't behave impeccably so you cant give them citizenship, you have the same problem as now, only they are even more pissed off!Charles said:
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.isam said:
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of itIndigo said:
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.isam said:If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
The answer is proper border security, don't let the wrong people in and you wont have a problem deciding what to do with them, and proper deterrent sentences from people giving these criminals jobs. Personally I would take the Swiss model further and outlaw rough sleeping and at the same time fund sufficient government/charity hostels to house the rough sleeping population.
It will be money well spent if it deters the bogus asylum seekers 0 -
Some startling stats on tax credits in this piece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/11794114/Tax-credits-betray-the-hard-working-majority.-Scrapping-them-only-harms-the-workshy.html
"For seven out of 10 of all couples claiming WTC, one adult (usually the woman) doesn’t work at all.
And for couples who claim WTC, only two thirds have a main breadwinner who works 35 or more hours a week, with a third of claimant households having no one working full-time at all"
0 -
Maybe its just me but I'd rather use prison spaces to house actual criminals.isam said:
They stay in prisonIndigo said:
... and if they don't behave impeccably so you cant give them citizenship, you have the same problem as now, only they are even more pissed off!Charles said:
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.isam said:
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of itIndigo said:
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.isam said:If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.0 -
Come on Mr Eagles,stop being so bloody PC.TheScreamingEagles said:Catching up with Phil Hammond's comments.
Nasty and intemperate.
He joins Priti Patel on the list of leadership contenders I won't be voting for.
0 -
I'd imagine that you would have to pay the workers the minimum wage, although you could make a charge for bed and board, I suppose.Sandpit said:
Random silly idea of the day - allow prisons charge farmers minimum wage for the use of the chain gangs, to earn some money for the Justice department? Or would 'Uman Rights get in the way?Charles said:
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.isam said:
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of itIndigo said:
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.isam said:If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.
You'd also have to bear in mind the cost of monitoring prisoners in the field to avoid absconding.0 -
Touched a raw nerve there !!Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah being PM who defeated Salmond in a referendum to keep Scotland in the UK, then winning a national election the following year to keep a national Conservative government in power in Scotland. What a dreadful deal for the Scottish Conservatives Cameron has been.calum said:Tories slipping back in Scotland, I think privately Ruth D will be very pissed off at Cameron:
http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news/snp-holds-poll-lead-in-spite-of-mixed-views-on-record-in-government0 -
No Farren bounce for the LibDems either.TGOHF said:
Sure - blaming somebody else seems to be popular north of the Border so perhaps if Ruth joins in she might see a poll bump.calum said:Tories slipping back in Scotland, I think privately Ruth D will be very pissed off at Cameron:
http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news/snp-holds-poll-lead-in-spite-of-mixed-views-on-record-in-government0 -
If you mean you touched a nerve of mine, then no I just found it incredibly bemusing. If you didn't sorry it wasn't clear to me.calum said:
Touched a raw nerve there !!Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah being PM who defeated Salmond in a referendum to keep Scotland in the UK, then winning a national election the following year to keep a national Conservative government in power in Scotland. What a dreadful deal for the Scottish Conservatives Cameron has been.calum said:Tories slipping back in Scotland, I think privately Ruth D will be very pissed off at Cameron:
http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news/snp-holds-poll-lead-in-spite-of-mixed-views-on-record-in-government0 -
Safe to assume Corbyn supporters are likely to vote for Corbyn 1st with no further prefences as the Welfare Bill showed all his 3 opponents are the same.It needs to be remembered each candidate will have a GOTV operation.If Corbyn continues to recruit young people with lots of energy,his is likely to show a distinct benefit.People are genuinely enthused by his campaign but that will need turning into envelopes being delivered to post boxes.Such a campaign could just get him over the edge on a higher than expected 1st prefence vote and Andy Burnham's 2nd preferences.Kendall's vote will bump up Cooper to beat Burnham.tlg86 said:I have a question - will we get to see the second and third preferences of all of the candidates? So if Corbyn were to be beaten in a runoff with Burnham/Cooper, will we get to find out if it would have been beneficial for some of Corbyn's supporters to have backed Burnham or Cooper to get a different opponent in the runoff?
First time I have said this and believed it,Jeremy Corbyn is going to win.
0 -
Genghis Khan was a marauder.Tykejohnno said:
Come on Mr Eagles,stop being so bloody PC.TheScreamingEagles said:Catching up with Phil Hammond's comments.
Nasty and intemperate.
He joins Priti Patel on the list of leadership contenders I won't be voting for.
I thought the criticism over swarm was nonsense but I guess I'm taking Hammond's too literally.
My OED says marauders are thieves and attackers of people.
I took it he was lumping all illegal immigrants in the marauder category0 -
Maybe it's just me but I'd say the word 'illegal' in 'illegal immigrants' means they are actual criminalsPhilip_Thompson said:
Maybe its just me but I'd rather use prison spaces to house actual criminals.isam said:
They stay in prisonIndigo said:
... and if they don't behave impeccably so you cant give them citizenship, you have the same problem as now, only they are even more pissed off!Charles said:
Chain gangs negatively impact low-skilled legal residents by undermining the price they can charge for their labour.isam said:
Put illegal immigrants into prison for three years, working on the chain gang during the day, and if they behave impeccably during that time, give them UK citizenship at the end of itIndigo said:
Sadly not, the main reason we cant deport people is the Human Rights Act and by extension the ECHR and our judges ridiculously generous interpretations of (inter alia) The Right to Family Life. Also with illegal immigrants destroying their identify papers we have the problem of where to deport them to.isam said:If we were not part of the EU it's almost certain we would have a much stricter or at least clearer immigration policy. Without the EU rules and regs we are committed to we could deport people much more easily
I agree that is we didn't have free movement, and have proper checks of passports and other documentation at all borders we probably would admit a lot less undesirables in the first place.0 -
Running the numbers through Scotland Votes:
SNP - 78 (+9)
Labour - 25 (-12)
Tories - 15 (n/c)
LibDems - 2 (-3)
Greens - 9 (+7)
http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news/snp-holds-poll-lead-in-spite-of-mixed-views-on-record-in-government0 -
I think the word you use "illegal" covers it - all are lawbreakers.TheScreamingEagles said:
Genghis Khan was a marauder.Tykejohnno said:
Come on Mr Eagles,stop being so bloody PC.TheScreamingEagles said:Catching up with Phil Hammond's comments.
Nasty and intemperate.
He joins Priti Patel on the list of leadership contenders I won't be voting for.
I thought the criticism over swarm was nonsense but I guess I'm taking Hammond's too literally.
My OED says marauders are thieves and attackers of people.
I took it he was lumping all illegal immigrants in the marauder category
0 -
Just seen an interesting piece about Kids Company. The board of trustee's was / are
Yentob (chairman);
Richard Handover, chief executive of W H Smith
Sunetra Atkinson, ex wife of the entertainer Rowan Atkinson, a former BBC make-up artist
Erica Bolton (2005), an arts world PR.
Jayne Tyler, a law firm partner who lists herself as an expert in EU law and company acquisitions
Francesca Robinson – a recruitment firm principal.
Andrew Webster – who has been a Trustee of the Astrozeneca Pension Fund, and worked earlier in his career as a HR manager for an engineering company.
Not a single person with any experience of or qualifications relating to child protection.0 -
Red on Red.
'A senior Labour MP has called for its leadership contest to be "paused" over fears it has been infiltrated by supporters of other parties.'
Diane Abbott say's it 'ridiculous' and suggests he's only complaining because his favoured candidate, Kendall, is losing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-338495340 -
TBF the Labour system had a way to prevent that as well, the MPs just had the bright idea of working around it...Indigo said:The Tory system while less democratic at least means that the MPs don't get saddled with a leader they cant work with, a problem Labour is likely to discover shortly.
0 -
Quite.DaemonBarber said:
Bleurgh...MarkHopkins said:
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
Vote for who you would like and list your preferences if you have any. If you only have one preference then vote accordingly, and don't bitch and moan if you are in the minority.
All this second guessing and listing preferences to block candidate x leaves me a little cold and seems to me an abuse of the franchise. If people just vote for who they actually want and accept that sometimes they are on the losing side, then the world may just be a teeny bit happier.
It's only 'sophisticated' electorates, such as Labour MPs, who try to game the system that mess things up.0 -
Ah, but he married well - any Tory who can scare the willies out of Special Branch with her driving has to be a goodun........OldKingCole said:
Clem Attlee struck many people, including Churchill, as quite ordinary.kle4 said:
I don't really think an ordinary person is necessary in any way, I really don't mind if someone is pretty darn odd if they seem effective and competent. That said, it does appear to put people off, and as weak a campaign as I think Burnham has had, he does seem very very ordinary, so he has that at least.Roger said:Rod Crosby
"Burnham's pitch"
.......and a good one. His ordinariness is quite a USP. It would be impossible to cast his family and friends better. Definitely improved my view of him. Perhaps it's time for an 'Ordinary Man' to become a party leader. The 5 minute clip is well worth watching
You can never have too many AV threads, this is well knownMarkHopkins said:TheScreamingEagles said:
Thank you for your hard work on this AV thread.MarkHopkins said:
I think the lesson on AV is this: use your 2nd/3rd preferences, and use them wisely.
We need more AV themed threads.
After today, everyone on here will fully understand AV, and there will never be arguments over it again...
0 -
Have you ever driven over the speed limit ?TGOHF said:
I think the word you use "illegal" covers it - all are lawbreakers.TheScreamingEagles said:
Genghis Khan was a marauder.Tykejohnno said:
Come on Mr Eagles,stop being so bloody PC.TheScreamingEagles said:Catching up with Phil Hammond's comments.
Nasty and intemperate.
He joins Priti Patel on the list of leadership contenders I won't be voting for.
I thought the criticism over swarm was nonsense but I guess I'm taking Hammond's too literally.
My OED says marauders are thieves and attackers of people.
I took it he was lumping all illegal immigrants in the marauder category0 -
But you agree with Hammonds sentiment though on mass immigration from Africa ?TheScreamingEagles said:
Genghis Khan was a marauder.Tykejohnno said:
Come on Mr Eagles,stop being so bloody PC.TheScreamingEagles said:Catching up with Phil Hammond's comments.
Nasty and intemperate.
He joins Priti Patel on the list of leadership contenders I won't be voting for.
I thought the criticism over swarm was nonsense but I guess I'm taking Hammond's too literally.
My OED says marauders are thieves and attackers of people.
I took it he was lumping all illegal immigrants in the marauder category
0
