http://i.imgur.com/EKPo3Sg.jpg
Printable View
Pretty sure GGT is just using long words and hopes that some of them make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
You have the advantage of being a native speaker. When I don't understand GGT I have always some doubt that it could by my English reading comprehension. Even though, the more post I read, the more I come to the conclusion, that it isn't me and that the problem isn't on my side of the Atlantic ocean.
Russia says the vote failed to meet international standards.
Ha! Beat Kat to it.
It's ironic that Salmond resigned where Cameron is the one who actually lost; the man who gambled that he'd win the referendum by keeping the devolution alternative off the ballots in the beginning, then made a full U-turn only weeks before the vote. And by doing that effectively turned the NO on the ballot into a vote for devolution.
Cameron will win if the devolution means solving the West Lothian question.
Yeah I think Hazir you've missed the local complexities. Cameron has snookered his opponents and its Milliband who has been left scrambling to find any excuse now to avoid English Votes for English Laws (EVEL).
Had devolution been on the ballot then it would have had to have been agreed in advance what that meant and Labour will never willingly agree to EVEL, plus it would have been a defeat for the status quo and a stepping-stone victory for the SNP. By keeping it off the ballot he's turned the vote into a defeat for the SNP and forced his English opponents onto the backfoot on finally resolving the WLQ.
All rather adroit. In tennis terms its now Advantage Cameron.
PS Its worth remembering that in the UK Cameron relies on the Lib-Dems to form a majority while in England he has a landslide overall majority already but can't use that to pass English-only legislation due to the imbalanced WLQ Labour left behind (and he can't fix that due to not having a UK majority). If devomax can fix the WLQ then great.
That assumes that the majority that Cameron doesn't have, delivers on the WLQ that actually keeps them in the majority position.
Just saying that what Cameron wants isn't necessarily what Cameron gets. And he could easily loose his job trying to get it.
There's a vote in less than a year and based on current polls he's losing it anyway, but its still close enough to be winnable with a swing. Time for a roll of the dice and this has put him in the best possible position and put Milliband in an awkard position.
Its difficult to propose a change to fix the WLQ (despite it being patently the right thing to do) without seeming partisan and prioritising constitutional tinkering over the economy and more mundane priorities. However by tying it in (logically) to the notion of devolution where it belongs it lays a major bear trap for Labour who are forced onto the back foot. Do they agree to EVEL which fixes the major constitutional imbalance they created for partisan reasons, or do they reject it and risk annoying the English electors months before a general election?
This has brought the matter naturally to the front of politics and brought it to the attention of people who are not normally too bothered about such details. The notion of English Votes for English Laws appeals to the English electorates sense of fairness. Milliband will have to fudge very carefully to manage not to give it away while not annoying the English voters.
PS its worth noting that while Cameron may not be too highly rated in yours (or many others) eyes he's now become the first Tory PM in over a decade, seen off two Labour leaders (one very popular), a Lib Dem leader and the very popular SNP leader. Not too bad on a partisan level.
On a completely different note can I say how proud I am of my country that we resolved this matter peacefully and democratically. You see separatist movements across the globe in countries like Spain, Italy, Turkey, Russia, China etc who currently would never countenance such a democratic mandate. Meaning that the will of the people is either ignored no matter how strong it gets or oppressed and it can turn to violence.
We've had a full and free debate and the people have spoken. Much more democratic.
Yeah, but now all the idiot teenagers who voted or wanted a "yes" vote are going to spend at least the next decade making a stink about it in universities.
People who wanted a stink have been making it for decades, while those in universities who want to will always find something to whine about. By allowing a free vote this is now peacefully resolved for a few years at least, unlike in Catalonia or Tibet etc
They keep on having referenda in Quebec and it never resolves anything. In fact, they get closer to passing each time they're held.
Garbage. It's nearly two decades since the last one was lost and the separationists have gone backwards since then if anything. There's no hint of any referendum happening any time soon.
Further the first referendum was famously messed up by the Yes side shooting themselves in the foot while it was actions after then which led to the second much more competently managed one which closed the issue for now.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...-vote-Yes.html Can anyone spot the massive flaws in this article? :o
Final point should have been much slower not faster growth in Dundee etc as the graph shows but other than that no. The information correlates with the expectations from the polling too.
Read the title. Then see which part of the article (if any) supports the contention made in the title.
Young: Demographics
Poor: Mixed but disposable income and growth
Unemployed: Unemployment, Employment and Workless households.
The young part has evidence, the others do not. The aggregate results tell us that people in poor counties and counties with high unemployment voted for secession. Those results cannot tell that it was actually the poor and the unemployed who were voting for secession. Let's say there's a county with 30% unemployment (abnormally high) where 70% voted for secession (abnormally high). That could mean that all the unemployed voted for secession, along with about half the employed. It could mean that 70% of the employed and 70% of the unemployed voted for secession. It could mean that none of the unemployed voted for secession and 100% of the employed voted for secession. Based on aggregate data, we have absolutely no way of knowing which of those stories is correct. You'd need individual-level data (i.e. polls) for that.
The opinion poll evidence beforehand all showed that Yes voters were poorer and younger and more unemployed. The logical hypothesis for why is that the poorer and more disenfranchised have less to lose by going Yes while the older are more risk-averse and concerned about pensions etc. The results afterwards show that the Yes regions were poorer and younger and more unemployed. Now correlation != causation but it is evidence.
It is possible of course that the opinion polls were wrong in saying that the poorer etc were more Yes and that the regions that are poorer etc being more Yes is pure coincidence ... but its unlikely. Everything in that link confirms the vast bulk of polling data beforehand.
A) The opinion polls were wrong quite substantially.
B) More importantly, the author doesn't reach her conclusions on the basis of those polls. In fact, they're not mentioned at all. All we have is aggregate data about poor counties voting for secession. There's nothing in the article that can be deemed evidence for poor/unemployed individuals voting for secession. I'm not saying it's not true (it probably is), but the article's conclusions do not follow from the evidence presented in it.
A) No they weren't.
The opinion polls were all firmly on the No side, almost all pollsters finished within the margin of error of the final result and furthermore almost all the difference is according to YouGov attributable to late swing. YouGov like almost every pollster had its final poll split 48/52 but they published a quasi-exit poll that showed resurveying the same people after they'd voted got a result of 46/54. Final actual result 45/55.
B) Newspaper reports aren't multipage journals and shouldn't be taken in isolation.
The articles conclusions DO follow from the evidence presented, not conclusively but then its not meant to be a scientific and conclusive report. Adding in the polling data reinforces the conclusions.
I don't see a new referendum happening unless Westminster reneges on the promises made during the campaign.
No, there's absolutely no evidence presented at the individual-level at all. It is fallacious to make any conclusions about individuals on the basis of aggregate-level data. This is equivalent to an old finding that the KKK got more votes in districts with more black people. Do you think that's evidence for black people voting KKK? There are a million possible mechanisms that would lead to different individual-level and aggregate-level results in the Scotland example. E.G. Rich people in poor districts might think that London is incapable of solving the poverty problem and supporting secession for that reason. The counties with high unemployment might have poor services, and the middle class might think it would be better off deciding the funding formula for itself. Any of these stories have as much evidence as the one presented by the Telegraph (on the basis of the evidence presented in that story).
Chances are this referendum wouldn't be necessary if Blair didn't create a Scottish parliament. A paradox of devolution is that it encourages people to ask for even more devolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
No you are being ridiculous in taking this out of any and all context and into isolation. There is a plethora of polling research that shows these demographics were expected to vote Yes, the regions expecting to be higher Yes as a result were predicted before the vote, those regions (as predicted) were higher Yes votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
To take an article confirming the predictions out of all context may make you feel smug but its not sensible. This may not meet the standards required for a PoliSci journal, but its not research for a PoliSci journal. Its a newspaper, this is news, it is right as you admit.
Indeed as was predicted at the time, but now it has happened it will take a shock to the system to have a second referendum (as happened with Quebec). Hazir is 100% right on this matter.Quote:
Chances are this referendum wouldn't be necessary if Blair didn't create a Scottish parliament. A paradox of devolution is that it encourages people to ask for even more devolution.
The general election next year is going to be pretty interesting. We have:
1) The Tories, who are so reviled by some sections of the electorate, that the sole tactic of the Yes campaign was simple to say the word 'Tory' as often as possible and it nearly worked but who are also going to be hemorrhaging votes from their core 'vile imbecile' demographic to UKIP. Apparently it is not possible to have a center right party in this country without getting a side order of psychopathic weasels.
2) Labour, who have an utter non-entity for a leader and as far as I can tell no discernible policies. Will the Tories be off-putting this time around enough to cause enough people sigh and vote for Ed Something?
3) The Lib Dems, who are unpopular for no reason and will be wiped out no matter what they say or do. But still end up in a coalition.
Basically, I see all three main parties as having crippling weaknesses. So it's sort of a contest of who can suck the least. I also predict gains for smaller parties like the Greens and DIPSHIT. So, yeah. Fun times; the three main parties can't get their act together so we're going to see the rise of the kind of people who I wouldn't want to see within 8 miles of power. If we end up with a fucking Conservative/DIPSHIT coalition...
I will have literally no say in any of this because of our stupid ass FPTP electoral system.
Eh, your FPTP system is why the crazy parties will never be in government even if they have the support of a third of the electorate.
I think the scenario you outlined is how revolutions happen.
Revolutions don't happen in rich democracies.
What about crazy parties getting 1/3 or more of votes?
Incidentally, you're wrong. The polls taken in the last week expected a ~4% victory for continued union.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/scottis...nce-referendum
Do you have any examples in mind? The only example I could think of is Weimar Germany, and that country had a very brief tradition of democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
That was the point I was making.
I.E. By having FPTP, you're more or less ensuring that crazies will never be a key coalition partner in a government. Can't say the same about countries with PR.
You are aware of the fact that the Brits despite their FPTP system have a coalition government? One would have to be blind to ignore the fact that the UK is going through a series of severe political and constitutional shocks. The referendum in Scotland wasn't the cause of this, it was a mere symptom. As a symptom it tells us that the political order of the UK is at risk. The single fact that Scotland didn't break the Union doesn't mean the risk isn't real and present.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
How is a 4% lead make my comment of a 48 52 split wrong? Last I checked 48 52 is bang on a 4% lead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Also how does that make it outside of margin of error (which is 3% either way). 45 Yes is within 3% of 48%.
Plus you disregarded the late swing YouGov detected that got them almost bang on.
Lib Dems are your definition of crazies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Currently the combined fruitbat, loons and utter crazy parties combined have just a single MP.
If we're at the point where a significant proportion of the electorate *want* to elect a crazy party, we're fucked anyway. Denying them a voice through a corrupt system isn't going to help, it's just going to make unrest more likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The system isn't corrupt just because losers don't win. We had a referendum on changing the voting system to cater to losers and surprise, surprise it lost by 2 votes to 1. Move on.
I'd the crazies want power they can win it democratically by beating their opponents not just taking part.
This is the first British coalition government in how long? And the Lib Dems got a substantial share of the vote; they're a major British party and have been for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
And yet there's pretty good evidence that Scottish desires for independence were caused by the creation of a Scottish Parliament, which allowed the previously fringe SNP to continuously make a case for independence.
FPTP is no more corrupt than PR. Each has advantages and disadvantages when it comes to the democratic process. In PR, small parties have disproportionate influence over legislation, for instance. Coalition decisions are also made behind closed doors, which isn't exactly a triumph for democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
You know better than to claim that a single poll can be used to represent reality. The average of the credibly polls was off by 7%. That's pretty damn substantial in a close election. And the margin of error decreases when you average out the polls. They should have been within a 1% or so of reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No, the LibDems are still pretty mainstream. The fact that they are in the coalition this time is still within the margins of things as usual. There is no reason to exclude the possibility that next time a less moderate party will be in the king makers' position.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade