|
Praseodymi posted:I'm not sure just from this article, but I don't think he's "been right for 30 years", he's massaged a metric that happens to work on the last 30 years of elections and is using that to predict the current one. Not to mention, " he's been right for the past 30 years" is a beautiful example of the gambler's fallacy in action.
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
I distinctly remember some similar metric that predicted every US election calling the win for Romney last time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Yeah, but why did the Lib Dems agree to anything less than it being passed through parliament? Why are they that bad at third party politics? If they'd demanded a government bill on AV then the reaction would have been 'lol no, we'll take supply and confidence and if you want to force another General Election while Labour doesn't have a leader and neither of you have any money to campaign then go ahead'. A referendum was a fair ask, the real problem was massive incompetence on the part of the Yes campaign (for examples see here: https://paperbackrioter.wordpress.c...etent-halfwits/) when their pitch should have been 'it's everything you like about FPTP but better' and terrible negotiating over how the referendum should happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:If they'd demanded a government bill on AV then the reaction would have been 'lol no, we'll take supply and confidence and if you want to force another General Election while Labour doesn't have a leader and neither of you have any money to campaign then go ahead'. And then they could have blocked every Tory bill for 5 years if they'd wanted. It would have been completely untenable for the Tories to run a minority government without a supply and confidence agreement. e:Wait a second, didn't Brown only let the Tories have first go at creating government? If the Tories had rejected a deal with the LD they could have entered into talks with Labour. It would have been a Labour minority with LD support, not a Tory/LD coalition. WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:And then they could have blocked every Tory bill for 5 years if they'd wanted. It would have been completely untenable for the Tories to run a minority government without a supply and confidence agreement. They'd have called another general election and got a majority something like what they have now
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
How? They didn't have a majority of seats did they?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:How? They didn't have a majority of seats did they? It's political suicide for opposition to oppose an election. Labour would have had to agree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Elections are expensive, Labour and the Lib dems were broke having literally just fought one and the election would have been fought (not too unfairly) on the basis of the sore losers of the last election doing a back room stitch-up to prevent the most successful party from taking power at a time when the Euro zone crisis was mounting and everyone was desperate for Strong Government Now. I haven't seen anyone credibly suggest that the outcome of a second election would have been anything other than a tory victory. E: Labour was technically still in government at that point. But Brown doing a deal to stay in power despite having 'lost' would have taken support for labour to... well about what it is now. There wasn't a viable alternative coalition to Tory-Lib Dem that would have survived a vote of no confidence. e2: lol you can't block a minority government's bills and then refuse to let them resign, the public can see that for what it obviously is Alchenar fucked around with this message at 14:17 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
TheRat posted:It's political suicide for opposition to oppose an election. Labour would have had to agree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:e:Wait a second, didn't Brown only let the Tories have first go at creating government? If the Tories had rejected a deal with the LD they could have entered into talks with Labour. It would have been a Labour minority with LD support, not a Tory/LD coalition. I remember the press winding up to throw a massive shitfit about this along the lines of 'the Prime Minister would be unelected and have no legitimacy!' (because we are clearly the USA, lol) when the Lib Dems said they were also talking to Labour after the election. It would have made for interesting times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
They said that before the election though, they really gave Gordon Brown a hard time about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:How? They didn't have a majority of seats did they? You've answered your own question. Can't command the confidence of the house, so it's dissolved
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
Poor Gordon. He was a better Prime Minister than this awful country deserved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:its a tasty story but couldn't this be basically the same deal as people applying for irish citizenship just so they have freedom of movement with that passport? Doesn't Germany require you to renounce (non-EU) citizenship?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
The idea that a referendum was the way to enact electoral reform gained ground in the 90s and was reinforced by a couple of committees (the Jenkins commission was one) who agreed that was the preferable mechanism Labour and the Lib dems had promised referendums on the topic (at different times) rather than a straight change
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
I imagine we're now stepping back from that having probably inflicted mortal wounds on our economy and the general publics positive views about letting everyone vote for things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:You reminded me of this passage of Malatesta's: it's always striking how individualist left-wing anarchists are
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Funny thing is, it would've probably done the Lib Dems better to have taken the second election than commit themselves to the bin in coalition. (#LibDemFightback lol)
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
I'm still confused how the Tories would have called for another election if Labour were the incumbent/caretaker government, and may have been willing to do a deal with the Lib Dems. That wouldn't have required an election. I guess I'm just used to a system with more minority governments (even if our press treat them similarly to yours.) All it would require was an explanation that parties are a conventional construct and that voting blocs between parties on issues of confidence are perfectly legal and in keeping with the tradition. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
IIRC LIB+Lab would not have been enough to gain a majority so they'd either have needed some incredibly shaky coalition of basically everyone bar the Tories, or tried to wing it with a minority government. Either would have probably not lasted long before failing a confidence vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:And Hillary was on 3% before the latest emails bullshit. In a four-way. In a two-way, she does far better, and third party votes always, always drop like a rock when the election comes around. Baron Corbyn posted:I think Hillary will win but the shy conservative effect has to be massive for Trump. Yeah, he's got his loudmouth defenders but I'm sure there's a bunch of "respectable" conservatives saying they won't vote for him that will. There's some evidence of a silent majority, but it's not in Trump's favour. Hispanic voters are notoriously difficult to poll, so they've been underrepresented in the swings so far, but early data is now showing absolutely insane numbers of them registering to vote, especially in the key swing state of Florida. Similarly, there's increasing evidence of a 'shy Democrat' presence among women, conservative women privately expressing pro-Hillary (or, at least, anti-Trump) sentiments that they conceal when their families are around to hear. Those two combined could really stretch Clinton's lead beyond what the polls suggest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:I think Hillary will win but the shy conservative effect has to be massive for Trump. Yeah, he's got his loudmouth defenders but I'm sure there's a bunch of "respectable" conservatives saying they won't vote for him that will. Trump's supporters are very loud but it turns out in polling that lots of them have either never voted before or haven't in a long time and don't know where to vote or if they're registered to
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
ronya posted:it's always striking how individualist left-wing anarchists are Isn't that the point? Even the ones that like society say that you have to be free to participate and not coerced into a long term social contract.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Miftan posted:Isn't that the point? Even the ones that like society say that you have to be free to participate and not coerced into a long term social contract. it's the more-galt-than-john-galtian faith that individual will prevails in the state of nature, rather than (say) bands of blood relatives ganging up a right-wing anarchist knows that the weak exist, and only has contempt for them a left-wing anarchist appears to not believe that the weak and the strong even really exist
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
ronya posted:it's the more-galt-than-john-galtian faith that individual will prevails in the state of nature, rather than (say) bands of blood relatives ganging up I'm not sure that's true, I think they just have a very idealised view of human nature instead of thinking that they're all a bunch of bastards. Maybe in an ideal world, but it's very far from where we are now. With the power structures that are already in place an anarchist society is doomed before they start.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
That Malatesta quote is actually very cynical about human nature. It says no one can be trusted with power, so give everyone power. Even in the worst situation, it's better to have a crab mentality than let the strong prevail over the weak.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I'm still confused how the Tories would have called for another election if Labour were the incumbent/caretaker government, and may have been willing to do a deal with the Lib Dems. That wouldn't have required an election. In Britain at least it's seen as a bad thing to be a party trying to govern without a majority or upsetting the order of things by not allowing the elected government to get on with its job, for example by forming a coalition and then not voting on the bills. A big part of the No campaign to AV was that it would cause chaos by forcing more minority governments and coalitions, leading to governments that couldn't get anything done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
ronya posted:it's the more-galt-than-john-galtian faith that individual will prevails in the state of nature, rather than (say) bands of blood relatives ganging up Gosh, ronya being very disingenuous about the position of someone who isn't a neo-liberal? What a novelty! Left wing anarchists absolutely understand that the strong and weak exist. To put it very, very simply, they just take the view that "the strong" tend to have the state on their side in oppressing the weak and that is bad. In fact, the state encourages the strong to pray upon the weak, using laws as their cover. You might disagree with their solution to this problem, but the observation itself is absolutely fine and not anything like "Galtian".
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
I just don't get the UK apparently. You don't have a (functioning) bicameral system, why would you want governments that can pass anything they want without negotiation? Also left anarchists are fine with federated communes having armed voluntary militias, so the worry about cannibal gangs roaming the land is about as large as in any revolutionary situation. WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:That Malatesta quote is actually very cynical about human nature. It says no one can be trusted with power, so give everyone power. Even in the worst situation, it's better to have a crab mentality than let the strong prevail over the weak. I don't read it that way at all, but I'll admit I'm not very familiar with malatesta. Either way most of the other notable anarchists are extremely optimistic about human nature given the right education, and given those circumstances I can't say I fully disagree with them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I just don't get the UK apparently. You don't have a (functioning) bicameral system, why would you want governments that can pass anything they want without negotiation? Something something unwritten constitution Magna Carta something something we're a nation of morons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I just don't get the UK apparently. You don't have a (functioning) bicameral system, why would you want governments that can pass anything they want without negotiation?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I just don't get the UK apparently. You don't have a (functioning) bicameral system, why would you want governments that can pass anything they want without negotiation? British people loving love authority figures and governments that "can make the tough decisions", "get things done" etc. See: everything Theresa May is doing right now
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:British people loving love authority figures and governments that "can make the tough decisions", "get things done" etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:why would you want governments that can pass anything they want without negotiation? What would you replace them with anyway, a House of Commons 2? You'd just get another bunch of partisan careerist fuckwits who'll only ever vote with their team instead of with their conscience.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Because the alternative is to vote for a winning government and have it hamstrung by the exact loving people you voted against, as happens in the 'States. Congress is at what like 12% approval or something due to the amount of fuckwittery that can happen when you need 2/3 of people to agree to something before it happens. What's the rate of governments that win an absolute majority of the popular vote in the UK? Most of the time don't most people vote against the government? tooterfish posted:I'm not sure why you'd think this. The Lords are constantly telling the Commons to go gently caress themselves. I thought your house of lords was pretty toothless and couldn't block legislation, just debate it? Bills also can't originate there? We have a senate selected with PR in Australia, and that at least means that third parties are able to have their own legislation passed in exchange for supporting government bills. WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Doesn't Germany require you to renounce (non-EU) citizenship? It doesn't matter whether they ask you to, because the UK doesn't consider renunciations made to other governments as valid. And indeed there is a process to reclaim your British citizenship even after a proper renunciation if you change your mind. It's actually quite a difficult and involved process to stop being British if you are born British, I looked into it in detail when I moved abroad because I didn't want to accidentally lose my citizenship.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:I'm not sure why you'd think this. The Lords are constantly telling the Commons to go gently caress themselves. longer terms and only having a single term seems to me to be the way to replace the house of lords. No re-election so you don't need to consider it when voting
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Gosh, ronya being very disingenuous about the position of someone who isn't a neo-liberal? What a novelty! confession time: I'm poking at a longstanding tension in anarchism, namely how to deal with social democrats once the monarchists have been kicked out when waging a fighting retreat to defend the regulatory welfare state, the argument that the status quo is of the strong preying on the weak has entirely the wrong politics. There's a reason the taxation-is-slavery anarchocaps gets so much mileage out of the same lingo (hint: right-wing anarchists don't actually think of themselves as being filled with contempt for the weak either). You know it, I know it, I didn't actually expect anyone to mindlessly recite it as if it's 1968 and you really need to convince me you saw the Soviet tanks coming before I did, all along, all along. Fair cop, I expected more squirming than biting all the delicious, delicious bullets I mean, look at this: WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Also left anarchists are fine with federated communes having armed voluntary militias, so the worry about cannibal gangs roaming the land is about as large as in any revolutionary situation. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
there is not going to be an orgreave investigation
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 16:03
|
|