Theresa May would certainly like the entire election to be about something that has already been decided by referendum. She really is in a curious position in trying to justify an election in terms of a decision already made when it seems clear the purpose is to give her the majority she needs to fend of her own right wing nutters for the vote on the Brexit deal.
Not only was the ref intended to quell internal Tory party but so is this election.
As to the reality; I guess we’ll know more once the manifestos arrive. Atm it feels like traditional tribal allegiances are crumbling, not least because the parties have failed, for perhaps a decade, to acknowledge never mind represent the concerns of their cores.
Well there are certainly cores being pandered too - mostly older people, of course. It’s going to be interesting when young people wake up enough to figure out how much they’ve been screwed by their elders, in all sorts of ways.
Not so. Just because you’ve found a modestly similar quote doesn’t mean you’ve found the same one. But we all heard both plain as day on TV from the Remainers. Certainly Cameron himself was skewered over both when he was interviewed on Sky.
Well, the refrain from everyone except the Tories has been that although there is a mandate for “leave” there is no mandate for a “Hard Brexit”. At the same time there has been the constant rumble that May herself has no personal mandate.
So now, after the white paper, the Tory pronouncements and the opposition pointing out that the Tory plan amounts to a “Hard Brexit” trajectory. There is no doubt that people are voting in this election on how they want this to pan out. Of course it is political opportunism (it always is!) but it so happens that it coincides with a pivotal point in our constitutional history.
After June 8th If the Tories have a sizeable majority it will be very difficult to argue that they don’t have the backing of the country. It ends up being quite simple choice. If you want a strong line…go with the Tories, Don’t want to leave…Go Lib Dem. The problem for Labour is that they are not putting forward a clear position.
If it’s as plain as day, prove it. I declare this a complete falsity until you do.
The quotes I posted aren’t ‘similar’; They’re completely different in nearly every sense. Leave took these comments and ran them through the spin cycle. Leave lied.
I saw that sky interview - the interviewee argued on the premise that Cameron had mentioned ww3, and Cameron, rightly, denied it.
In terms of Brexit it’s true; it’s an unprecedented situation and there are too many unknowns.
But in general I want to push back against the idea of “What the bleep do economists know?”. Yes we can’t know for certain that X will happen, but we can often say X is much more likely than Y. Much of our economy is based on these predictions being basically right most of the time.
A better analogy would be something like “It’s like predicting that June will be warmer than April in the UK next year”.
And if economists only made such banal an obvious predictions about known phenomena then
a) they’d be more trusted
b) they’d be useless
However the situation with economics is that it is ever changing, one year is not like the last and they are dealing with new products, new markets, new drivers, new commodities, new political systems etc. etc. etc. It is not a situation filled with fully rational actors. They are, however, brilliant at pointing out the predictive ability of some of their models after the fact. They are less good at choosing the right model beforehand.
There is a reason my friend the economics graduate was awarded a Ba and I (technology and science) was awarded a BSc.
Well, quite. I can definitely accept the point that economists can and do get it wrong with exasperating regularity. But they are still trying based on evidence and past experience. They’re fumbling in the dark, but at least they have a candle.
The fallacy I keep seeing repeated here by the likes of Quartz and up_the_junction is that this gives license for any gut feeling about the future to be treated as seriously as the hard work, however flawed, of research-focused economists. If they were really that bad, there’d be no economists at all.
If we agree with this fallacy, then we can take any loony gut feeling as good enough. They’re fumbling in the dark, declaring the candle pointless, and tumbling on forward confident that the way to the surface is further down.
It does not follow that because economists can be wrong that someone’s hunch is going to happen. It’s the mentality of climate change deniers, homeopaths, anti-vaxxers and the Flat Earth Society.
There’s no doctor in the world can tell me the date of my next illness, or what that illness would be. Anyone who says: “On May 10th 2017 you’re going to get a nasty case of gastritis” is a quack. But that doesn’t mean doctors are useless. They can give me good information about general risks to my health, whether those are environmental, genetic or lifestyle. Similarly, if I go to my doctor and say that I’m planning on eating 1000 excess calories a day, dropping all exercise and taking up smoking, they can use their skill and knowledge to advise me that this increases the risk to my health - even if they still can’t definitely say exactly when I’ll drop dead of a heart attack. Plus, when I do get ill, they are able to diagnose my case and explain if the my sore stomach is due to indigestion or a hernia (or whatever). They can usually prescribe a course of action that will help me get better - although they still can’t say precisely when I’ll recover.
Similarly, economists can’t predict the exact date or depth of recessions but they can warn about unhealthy activity - and to be honest, predicting that moving from free trade to tariffs and non-tariff barriers will have a negative effect on trade isn’t exactly sticking your neck out, any more than saying that eating too much and not exercising will make you unhealthy.
Bingo, Stanislaus. Likewise, doctors miss illnesses all the time and people diagnosed as healthy or suffering from something minor will drop dead; or someone having proper diet and exercise will die at 30, while a 25-stone burger-swilling alcoholic may live until 60.
Doctors: smoking increases your risks of cancer and early death.
Patient: scaremongering! My chain smoking dad is still alive at 76!
Moving back off Brexit to the actual election, I’ve just voted in the local government election here and it seems the SNP have wrong-footed the other parties here. There were three ward seats up for election, thus I had three votes, and only the SNP had more than one candidate.
Depending on the area, the strength of local party memberships, and perceptions of who’s likely to win, it can be a struggle to persuade people to stand for the local council (mind you, it’s sometimes easier if you can promise them they stand no chance of election and will only be a “paper candidate”). Or it may have been a perfectly rational calculation that they stood a better chance of getting a single candidate elected, if the ward in question is otherwise perceived to be an SNP stronghold.
Unless, of course, there was a change from annual election of a single councillor in a three-seat ward, to a total simultaneous election of three, and the local parties didn’t notice, in which case you’d be right.
For a very small sample size, I chatted with a guy at a pub in Manchester today during the local elections. His wife works at a polling station in central Manchester and had reported a whopping turnout of 12 voters for the local elections which includes the Manchester mayoral election. If voter fatigue has set it, that isn’t good for Labour.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Although other than UKIP semi-imploding it doesn’t really alter the overall split very much. The relative sizes of Con, Lab & LD is pretty much unchanged.
The don’t knows of course are a growing faction, but by definition they’re zero among people who voted last time. So it has to be growing. And it will be zero again just after the upcoming election. So it has to shrink, net of abstentions.
For sure if don’t know broke hard for any one party they’d get a nice fillip. But given their proportional history there’s not much reason to expect that from the stats alone.
For darn sure each party oughta be playing to that crowd for all their worth.
Hold on. The Wikepedia page on the Aberdeen City Council election 2017 says that the election is to be conducted " using the single transferable vote system a form of proportional representation". If that’s so, you have only one vote, but you can express as many preferences for that vote as you wish.
Under the PR-STV system, it’s generally contrary to a party’s interests to run more candidates than, on the most optimistic scenario, they might hope to get elected, so running just one candidate in a 3-seat constituency may be a rational strategy. The fact that parties other than the SNP did this suggests that, yes, this election was conducted under the PR-STV system.
But that’s flatly contradicted by your statement that you had three votes.
