politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The changing politics of Northern Ireland
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The changing politics of Northern Ireland
Part of the United Kingdom got a new leader earlier this month. You probably missed this:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Three in a row!
Cheat TSE!
Believe me, PB is sane compared to In the Night Garden ...
Although I do sometimes wonder if Plato is Upsy Dais, and Roger Iggle Piggle ...
What? You're telling me it isn't a documentary?
Yeah, sounds about right.
I do like the idea the major players were hoping for a hung parliament so they could ensure a few more concessions, but that the Tory majority, slim though it is, scuppered that. Serves them right for not dealing with problems at the time, I suppose.
The hope they might, as a result of that and Corbyn making overtures to Labour implausible for the DUP, start to focus on normal concerns, strikes me as optimistic. I've long since become inured to news of political wrangling in NI (as I was only entering adolescence by the time of the Good Friday Agreement, my abiding memory of NI is not of a place of violence, but a place where old farts never move on or shut the f--- up about things that shouldn't be as important as they make them seen; that may not be reasonable, given the history of the place, but not having grown up with the worst of it, it's harder to accept, at a core level, how difficult it must be for them to move on properly).
Andrew Neil Retweeted Michael Burns
Sanders problem will be Super Tuesday. Though Left he doesn't poll well with ethnic voters
Super Tuesday Democratic race, if Sanders wins Iowa:
Alabama: Hillary
American Samoa: ?
Arkansas: Hillary
Colorado: Sanders
Georgia: Hillary
Massachusetts: Sanders
Minnesota: Sanders
Oklahoma: Sanders
Tennessee: ?
Texas: ?
Vermont: Sanders
Virginia: Hillary
So 4 Hillary wins, 5 Sanders wins, and 3 too close too call.
The only significant point I would highlight is that under STV in NI, around 95% of voters elect someone from their first-choice party (with around 80% also getting their first choice candidate) whereas under indefensible FPTP, for the past three general elections, a majority of those who even bothered to participate walked away with nothing...
* Told you I was from Glasgow
And what the **** are the Haahoos meant to represent?
Entirely complimentary.
In addition to that outrageous state of affairs, I repeat again, for the hard of hearing.
For the past three elections, a MAJORITY of those who participated elected no-one.
So if a majority elect no-one, who exactly do the "representatives" purport to represent?
https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/691324787554131969
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
If you want to elect someone you need to win, you don't just need to vote. Maybe take part and campaign etc.
And the whole House of Commons is a shambles.
Nope, you participate, but DON'T elect anyone. A majority of those who participated could have stayed at home, without changing the result.
If you view that with equanimity, you'd feel quite comfortable in a dictatorship, I suggest.
What is "representative democracy", if the majority elect no-one? The "representatives" may as well be appointees...
If everyone elects someone then what is the point? May as well appoint everyone.
Most MPs are not supported by the majority of their constituents, so do not represent their views.
The government of the day does not have any moral right to run the country.
What was the third one?
I should have demanded an election when I moved so I could have had my say! It was unfair for me to be represented by someone I'd had no chance to vote for!
Change the system now!
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/05/10/as-pr-becomes-centre-stage-what-about-this/
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/918652/#Comment_918652
In fact, Mr Kle, I don`t need to. Mr Quid comes straight out of the Tory Handbook for PB posters.
Everyone is a winner under that system.
What we need on PB is a really good thread on voting systems.
It cannot last long. There is not enough acid in the world to keep those scriptwriters going!
It is like the Magic Roundabout without the advantage of brevity.
http://www.sikhsinthearmy.co.uk/vc-winners/4545958279
As we can see below, under the various PR systems, we would likely see a Tory/UKIP coalition, indeed some Tories might well regret not voting for AV in the 2011 referendum, as they would have done better under AV than under First Past The Post.
Here are the three purposes of a UK general election: http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/918652/#Comment_918652
Point 1 should read: Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters, who can command a majority of votes in the House of Commons.
Point 2 is quite right.
Point 3 is a strategy to win votes, not an objective. (This point seems to come straight our of the Tory Party handbook.)
So I apologise to Mr Quid for having said that he was entirely wrong. His post was a bit of a curate`s egg.
And the "super social worker" is unquestionably by consensus a big part of the job. If it weren't, you wouldn't hear about "good constituency MPs".
So, why is coming close not possible or desirable?
a) a party (or coalition) can replace its own PM at any time, without reference to the voters.
b) a PM can remain in office, after an election, irrespective of the opinion of the voters, if he/she can cobble together a coalition.
The only difference is that, under FPTP, a single-party majority remains a possibility, even if that may prove more unstable (see 1992) than a negotiated coalition (see 2010)...
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-george-osborne-and-bill-gates-to-join-forces-to-end-malaria
The government also funds about 25% of Medicines for Malaria Venture.
But until that happens, adding proportionality to the Commons makes the election of the PM less acceptable.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-long-game/article/2000702
Contrariwise, the Coalition Government, from the point of view of the country, was one of the best we have had in recent years. Mr Cameron seemed to be much more comfortable with that than he does with the present set-up.
On your last point, Mr Quid, how many Tory MPs are described as "good constituency MPs", according to your definition? I suspect the answer is relatvely small.
One of the most innovative cities in the world. In comparison, London was an intellectual backwater...
The glories of the past are long gone, in terms of current pretensions, yet the fine legacy makes Liverpool still probably England's most liveable city.
Clean air, big skies, the "most splendid setting" and "finest public parks" of any city (English Heritage), broad tree-lined thoroughfares, the most beaches and golf courses of any Metropolitan area, a public transport system rivalled only by London's, internationally connected by sea and air, and yet 96% white, even though almost everyone is immigrant-descended!
11 in WW1
One on the NW Frontier
28 in WW2
where's yr Nobel prizes then
Charles Barkla (awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1917) for discovering the electromagnetic properties of X-rays.
Sir Charles Sherrington (awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine in 1932) for his research into neurons.
Sir James Chadwick (awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1935) for discovering neutrons.
Sir Robert Robinson (awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1947) for his research into anthocyanins and alkaloids.
Har Gobind Khorana (awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine in 1968) for his work on the interpretation of the genetic code and its function in protein synthesis.
Rodney Porter (awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine in 1972) for his discovery of the structure of antibodies.
Ronald Coase (awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1991) for his discovery and clarification of the significance of transaction costs and property rights for the institutional structure and functioning of the economy.
Joseph Rotblat (awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995) for his efforts with nuclear disarmament.
(Did they do the work in Liverpool too, or did they go to Cambridge/Harvard or elsewhere?)
Chadwick and the Neutron is well-known, which had a direct impact (as did the University later, via Rotblat) on the development of the A-bomb.