|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A conspiracy against voters?
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think it's a sad reflection on our national attitude to elections if a turn out of over 30% is considered "quite high" for any election. I bet that many of those 60% who didn't vote will still complain about pot holes and the bins not being emptied often enough.
Voting is compulsory here in Federal and State elections. In my State it's compulsory for local govt elections as well - can't speak for other States. Many debates about this over the years with US friends, but in the long run I'd say that it's part of a democratic system and a necessary price for citizenship.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Birmingham appears to be something in the early thirties too (form the Brimingham Mail site) - I do think the national average turnout should be reported though.
(I think above 30% is quite high for local elections - what do you think ?)
We didn't have local (ie, council) elections in Wales but the turnout for the Welsh Assembly was just over some 45%, and I think it increased in every constituency. A sunny evening and the referendum just a few weeks away may have played their parts.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, for those of us seeking significant reform of Westminster to produce a Parliament that is more proportionally representative of the views of the nation then AV was barely better than FPTP. They'll both favour the large parties and smaller parties will still miss out on Parliamentary seats.
I have a feeling that AV is actually less proportionally representative than FPTP in that if the last election had taken place under AV, UKIP and the Greens could plausibly have ended up with zero seats instead of one each.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It's difficult to know how elections would turn out under different systems, but if the second choice of people who chose a minor party candidate for their primary vote is predominantly for one of the 2 or 3 major parties then that will almost always squeeze the other larger parties. It could be particularly relevant in Scotland. In Orkney and Shetland and Dumfries the SNP were behind by less than 1000 votes, in Edinburgh South a little less than 3000. If the SNP dominated the (hypothetical) second vote of those who voted for candidates at the bottom of the returns those three constituencies could conceivably all gone to the SNP. Of course, it's unlikely that a UKIP voter would put the SNP on their options at all, but Green voters certainly could have.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A better option, IMO, would be to ditch the constituencies entirely, and have a fully proportional vote for our government.
An enormous weakness of any kind of list system is that it doesn't offer the electorate a chance to vote out one particularly obnoxious individual, if that person is placed highly on his party's list.
I consider that important enough to reject any kind of list system. The consequence of this choice is that to get sensible PR, you need a rather complicated ballot, which has its own downsides.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drifting Star
Drifting against the wind
# 12799
|
Posted
I have, on quite a few occasions, voted for specific constituency cndidates rather than for a party. This has generally been because I have been in constituencies where the two main parties have stood no chance of winning. On one occasion I was voting against a truly horrendous constituency MP, and would have done so whatever party she belonged to.
It therefore matters very much to me that I am voting for a person and not just a party.
--------------------
The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Heraclitus
Posts: 3126 | From: A thin place. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
You can still elect a single member representative per constituency by using the single transferable vote.
Quite why this hasn't been introduced yet is beyond me (other than it didn't suit the two main parties). It's easy to understand, takes no more paperwork than what we have, and takes only marginally longer to count.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Meanwhile, back in the Welsh Assembly, there is a bit of a crisis with the opposition parties refusing to vote in Carwyn Jones as the Labour First Minister.
Labour do not quite have a majority and with the single Liberal Democrat, they have equal votes as all the other parties voting together.
Which has led to a rather strange coalition of convenience made up of PC, UKIP and the Tories.
I wouldn't be surprised if this went to a second election. It seems highly unlikely that PC could hold together a minority administration if it was relying on support from UKIP and the Cons (who, one would think, were very unlikely political bedfellows), and Labour clearly can't run the show if everyone else can vote them down whenever they feel like it.
The sole Lib Dem seems to be in the driving seat. I can't really see LD Kirsty Williams supporting a minority administration when there is a much bigger Labour group, and she can get the moral points for not getting in with UKIP and the Tories.
Unless one or more PC members decides to jump ship to support Labour, it doesn't look like it will be possible to form a stable Labour administration.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Spot-on mr cheesy. Btw, the Assembly members have 28 days to elect a First Minister and if they don't have one by then, fresh elections could be ordered by the Welsh Secretary. I suppose he'll take sounding from the Welsh Conservatives as any subsequent election would take place after the referendum.
Plaid Cymru deny that the pact with the Tories and UKIP was designed to give Labour a bloody nose but have said that Labour has been "arrogant", a much loved word in Welsh politics. However, if that doesn't mean they wanted to give Labour a bloody nose, do let me know.
[ 11. May 2016, 21:52: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I find it a little odd they elect the first minister - does that happen in the NI and Scottish assemblies too ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
In the Scottish Parliament, the First Minister is nominated by the Parliament on the basis of an exhaustive ballot. Though in theory anyone could be put forward as a candidate on that, in the current make up anyone other than Nicola Sturgeon would be seen as making a mockery of the system. I'm not even sure if it will be contested.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You can still elect a single member representative per constituency by using the single transferable vote.
Sure, but that doesn't get you PR. It gets you a consensus winner in your constituency, and you can make a good case that that's a "better" result than the plurality winner, but it doesn't get you any closer to PR.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
STV for 2-3 member constituencies would be another approach that would maintain constituency links while introducing a more proportional Parliament. Of course, unless you significantly enlarge the parliament that means larger constituencies.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I've been reading an excellent book about mathematics called "Chaotic Fishponds and Mirror Universes". It has a god chapter on voting systems, showing why no system can ever be perfect in a real world. This is partly because people with different preferences are not distributed randomly around a country but clustered in certain areas.
What's clear is that a perfect PR system could not have any local connections. And the author shows have transferable vote systems can end up delivering the "wrong" result too.
He also makes an intriguing observation about FPTP. If there are 1000 candidates, and each one receives a single vote with the exception of one who gets none and another who gets two, then the one with 2 votes gets in even though 998 people didn't vote for them! That may be reduction ad absurdum but it's interesting!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I'm not sure anyone expects perfect, the least bad would be nice though. Even the not quite so bad as the current system (which is why I voted Yes to AV, even though it's not what I wanted it's an improvement over FPTP).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You can still elect a single member representative per constituency by using the single transferable vote.
Sure, but that doesn't get you PR. It gets you a consensus winner in your constituency, and you can make a good case that that's a "better" result than the plurality winner, but it doesn't get you any closer to PR.
That depends on what you mean by PR. STV in single member constituencies doesn't give proportional representation but it is a preferential system which usually benefits centrist parties. It would probably benefit the LibDems and Plaid Cymru (and possibly the Greens) but do UKIP no favours at all.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The STV system is used in NSW and Federal elections for the lower house and is called the preferential system. The experience here is not that it has benefitted centrist parties, but provides (amongst other things) a method to give a vote on a particular issue to a single issue type candidate without damaging the chances of a major party for which you might otherwise vote. For example, the first Federal election in which I voted was 1969, when 21 was the minimum voting age. I voted first preference for a group called Liberal Reform, founded by Gordon Barton in opposition to the Vietnam War and Aust involvement in it. I gave my second preference to the Labor Party, which came in second in the electorate*. Since then have always given the first preference to the Labor party, it always being a lost vote.
In the Senate and the NSW Upper House, the Hare-Clarke system is used, the whole State being in effect a single electorate and multiple members being returned The common name for that system is proportional voting.
*Our electorate is traditionally the safest seat nationally for the non-Labor side
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There was quite a lot of nonsense on the other side too.
Just wait until the EU referendum campaign gets into full swing now this round of elections is over. The amount of complete and utter bullshit produced will be astounding.
From your post to IDS and Boris' ears. The sight of IDS saying that the EU makes poorer people worse off was just ... I missed Boris singing thank goodnesses. How many months of this nonsense do we have to go?
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
STV in single member constituencies doesn't give proportional representation but it is a preferential system which usually benefits centrist parties. It would probably benefit the LibDems and Plaid Cymru (and possibly the Greens) but do UKIP no favours at all.
I don't think that's very likely with the current political parties. It's more likely to benefit Labour: the smaller vaguely-left parties will be eliminated early in the STV process, and their votes will presumably transfer to the Labour candidate in preference to the Conservative candidiate.
ETA: This is under the assumption that Labour and the Tories are the two largest parties. That assumption is false for Wales and Scotland. In the case of Wales, perhaps PC benefits (it depends whether Tory voters prefer PC over Labour).
Sounds like Gee D's experience more or less agrees with this.
If you want to favour the centrist candidates, you want something like ranked pairs rather than STV. (The ballot form looks the same, but the counting method is different.)
The consequence of this method is that if you have a large right-wing party, a large left-wing party, and a small centrist party which only attracts maybe 10-15% of the first preference votes, ranked pairs (or some other Condorcet method) will tend to elect lots of centrists, whereas STV will elect lots of whichever of the extreme parties is preferred by the centrists.
A proportional method would elect lots of each of the righties and lefties, and a small number of centrists.
[ 12. May 2016, 13:57: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
How many months of this nonsense do we have to go?
If you mean the EU referendum, it's a matter of weeks until 23 June. If the media is to be believed, our votes will ensure that Britain will go bust, World War 3 will break out, and the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse will gallop across the land.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I notice the leave campaign are now threatening ITV, which seems unwise.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I notice the leave campaign are now threatening ITV, which seems unwise.
For a while you had me wondering what kind of voting scheme that was...
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The consequence of this method is that if you have a large right-wing party, a large left-wing party, and a small centrist party which only attracts maybe 10-15% of the first preference votes, ranked pairs (or some other Condorcet method) will tend to elect lots of centrists, whereas STV will elect lots of whichever of the extreme parties is preferred by the centrists.
[/QB]
Though there is a second order affect even with STV.
A FPTP vote, is not the same as a 'first preference' vote. So you could find for example that actually 40% of people wanted a centrist/extreme party and disliked the other extreme, but had to vote for the 'larger' party.
NB I think all parties played that 'opposition' card in at least one constituency (normally with a very lying graph), so think I can make that distinction.
Mind you then that would still only be for the MP, so to some extent the voters are still held to ransom.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I notice the leave campaign are now threatening ITV, which seems unwise.
While warning of 'consequences' is perhaps de trop, ITV don't appear to have acquitted themselves well in all of this.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I notice the leave campaign are now threatening ITV, which seems unwise.
Which Leave campaign would that be? I understand UKIP have their own.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I notice the leave campaign are now threatening ITV, which seems unwise.
Which Leave campaign would that be? I understand UKIP have their own.
Vote Leave, which is the official Leave campaign.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Cameron is urging us to vote Yes to a reformed Europe.
Problem is that he has failed miserably to get any significant reforms in the past. And it is unlikely that he will get any reforms in the future.
If significant reform is ruled out as a matter of practical politics from the beginning why on earth should we vote Yes?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I notice the leave campaign are now threatening ITV, which seems unwise.
For a while you had me wondering what kind of voting scheme that was...
Infinitely Transferable Vote. The preference expressed by each voter is constantly shuffled between candidates in a count that never ends. The result is no candidate gets elected - which has the benefit as "none of the above" would have been the choice of the vast majority of reasonable people anyway.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, for those of us seeking significant reform of Westminster to produce a Parliament that is more proportionally representative of the views of the nation then AV was barely better than FPTP. They'll both favour the large parties and smaller parties will still miss out on Parliamentary seats.
I have a feeling that AV is actually less proportionally representative than FPTP in that if the last election had taken place under AV, UKIP and the Greens could plausibly have ended up with zero seats instead of one each.
Guessing how people would have voted if they didn't have to engage in the kind of tactical exercises caused by FPTP is rather fraught with danger.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I notice the leave campaign are now threatening ITV, which seems unwise.
Apparently only Gove and Boris can "debate the issue properly". This could be an interesting, but short, debate given they're both on the same side ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Whether Boris and Gove like it or not, in terms of being the face of leaving the EU, Nigel has that one covered. They're just the Johnny Come Latelies. (Er, shameless career building opportunists ... Unless they lose, in which case, we can have a sweep stake on how long it takes them either to complain that the result isn't fair and demand a re-do OR that they were duped and the EU is the best thing ever. Each time I wonder if they could be more vile, they are).
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Cameron is urging us to vote Yes to a reformed Europe.
Problem is that he has failed miserably to get any significant reforms in the past. And it is unlikely that he will get any reforms in the future.
If significant reform is ruled out as a matter of practical politics from the beginning why on earth should we vote Yes?
Cameron's deals were a crock of the proverbial and fooled no one so you're right as far as that but the shambles we have in the EU is a bloody sight better than any shambles we will have out. Especially with the "outies", like Farage, Boris, Gove, IDS etc negotiating the exit and future bilateral deals on our behalf.
[ 13. May 2016, 12:16: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Cameron is urging us to vote Yes to a reformed Europe.
Problem is that he has failed miserably to get any significant reforms in the past. And it is unlikely that he will get any reforms in the future.
If significant reform is ruled out as a matter of practical politics from the beginning why on earth should we vote Yes?
Cameron's deals were a crock of the proverbial and fooled no one so you're right as far as that but the shambles we have in the EU is a bloody sight better than any shambles we will have out. Especially with the "outies", like Farage, Boris, Gove, IDS etc negotiating the exit and future bilateral deals on our behalf.
Besides what would leaving actually get us? We'd lose many of the things that EU membership gets us. Things like ...
- Cheap air fares
- Not having to apply for visas or hang about at passport control in Europe
- Cheaper goods and services, plus the ability to sell into the EU without actually having offices there
- The ability to work elsewhere in the EU if we want.
- Grants for random stuff like academic research, infrastructure projects or farms
- Shitloads of jobs
And the disappearence of Nigel Farage from public life. UKIP aren't a bunch of fearless marvericks, they're a bunch of failed Tory chancers. (As the leadership of their group ion the Welsh Parliament proves beautifully).
Besides, last time I looked they were proposing a solution similar to the one adopted by Norway. One that most Norwegians don't like. Where they enact much of the EU legislation to remain inline with the rest of Europe and contribute to the EU budget in order to access the EU market but don't have a say the drafting of that law. How on earth is that a better solution than the one we have?
Tubbs
[ 13. May 2016, 13:45: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
last time I looked they were proposing a solution similar to the one adopted by Norway. One that most Norwegians don't like. Where they enact much of the EU legislation to remain inline with the rest of Europe and contribute to the EU budget in order to access the EU market but don't have a say the drafting of that law.
Tubbs
It's not actually quite that straightforward though - if you want to send yourself to sleep I can really recommend trying to get to grips with the Norwegian debate as it happens in Norway...
There is a figure of 75% that gets bandied around by both people trying to say "Norway has to do all the EU stuff anyway" and by the pro-EU camp in Norway - saying "we have to enact all this stuff, wouldn't it be better to influence it as well?"
On the other hand, the Norwegian outers (who, let's remember are the establishment in this debate given that Norway is out, and that's what the majority have voted for) give a figure of 9%.
Obviously, you can make stats say whatever you like, but it is a completely mainstream view in Norway, supported by some supporters of the status quo, that the figure of EU laws they have to enact is less than 10%.
I'm not climbing down off the fence on either side but it is salutary to note that there is another side to the Norway argument rather than just "they have to do everything the EU says anyway."
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
last time I looked they were proposing a solution similar to the one adopted by Norway. One that most Norwegians don't like. Where they enact much of the EU legislation to remain inline with the rest of Europe and contribute to the EU budget in order to access the EU market but don't have a say the drafting of that law.
Tubbs
It's not actually quite that straightforward though - if you want to send yourself to sleep I can really recommend trying to get to grips with the Norwegian debate as it happens in Norway...
There is a figure of 75% that gets bandied around by both people trying to say "Norway has to do all the EU stuff anyway" and by the pro-EU camp in Norway - saying "we have to enact all this stuff, wouldn't it be better to influence it as well?"
On the other hand, the Norwegian outers (who, let's remember are the establishment in this debate given that Norway is out, and that's what the majority have voted for) give a figure of 9%.
Obviously, you can make stats say whatever you like, but it is a completely mainstream view in Norway, supported by some supporters of the status quo, that the figure of EU laws they have to enact is less than 10%.
I'm not climbing down off the fence on either side but it is salutary to note that there is another side to the Norway argument rather than just "they have to do everything the EU says anyway."
True that, but my understanding is that many Norwegians don't like the status quo as it stands as they're still having to enact laws they don't actually have any influence over. Paerticularly as some of the laws are biggies. Besides, most of our laws probably don't come from the EU either. Reguardsless of what the Daily Express and the Mail tell us.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Apropos Norway one has to note that the UK and Norway are as different as countries no more than a few hundred miles apart can be. The UK is an post-industrial, post-colonial and heavily populated country with immense wealth and income disparity which Norway simply isn't. Norway also has more energy than it knows what to do with, hardly needing oil and gas thanks to hydroelectricity.
I could go on. Thanks to Norwegians now and in the past, Norwaycan afford to pick and choose.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
I have to admit I agree with Shamwari's post.
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Besides what would leaving actually get us? We'd lose many of the things that EU membership gets us. Things like ...
- Cheap air fares
- Not having to apply for visas or hang about at passport control in Europe
- Cheaper goods and services, plus the ability to sell into the EU without actually having offices there
- The ability to work elsewhere in the EU if we want.
- Grants for random stuff like academic research, infrastructure projects or farms
- Shitloads of jobs
We would probably still have cheap air fares. As for the ability to work elsewhere in the EU, most of the population don't (do you personally have plans to live and work in a country where the first language isn't English? Never mind "I might do", we all "might do" but in practice most of us don't). As for the grants for the random stuff, I don't know what the proportion of research projects that actually provide useful stuff as opposed to minor or dead ends is.
I also haven't noticed huge quantities of jobs here in Britain thanks to the EU. Are they usually jobs that need specialist knowledge in a field most people aren't qualified for?
I still haven't decided which way to vote. Neither option currently sounds great.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I don't know what the proportion of research projects that actually provide useful stuff as opposed to minor or dead ends is.
I would say that developing standards that ensure the structural resilience of buildings during earthquakes is quite a useful RL products.
There are quite a number of troublesome natural phenomena which are curiously indifferent to national boundaries, and only the combined efforts of scientists across transnationally can address them - and for that you need transnational funding.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
There are quite a number of troublesome natural phenomena which are curiously indifferent to national boundaries, and only the combined efforts of scientists across transnationally can address them - and for that you need transnational funding.
Actually, you don't. There are plenty of examples of international collaboration involving a number of scientists from a number of countries, with the work being supported by grant awarding bodies in the individual countries.
Some things might be easier with an EU grant rather than smaller grants from each of four countries, but to say that EU funding is necessary is too strong.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Generally EU funding is a relatively small amount of the cost of the research, the majority of the cost is still borne by the different government funding schemes (and, in some cases charitable trusts) in different countries. EU funding succeeds very well in two areas:
1. some basic core funding to help the networks needed for high quality science to flourish. A small amount of salary costs for coordination, but mostly covering travel expenses to bring scientists together, costs of producing and distributing reports on research findings and priorities, and a longer term funding scheme that means that the work isn't constantly stopping and starting as a result of the different timescales of national funding.
2. mobility grants, especially for early career scientists, allowing them to spend a few years working in a university or other research institute in a different EU country. These will often be rolled into the larger coordinating style projects as well.
The second of those will be much less practical if UK scientists need to obtain visas to work in the EU, and vice versa. Of course, scientists will still be mobile, it's a part of the nature of science (he says while working for a Japanese university). But, at the moment the majority of UK scientists who spend some time working overseas do so in the rest of the EU - a combination of the EU fellowships, and the freedom of movement inherent in the common market. Would as many do that if they needed a visa? Would EU universities want to handle the paperwork for hiring a lot of non-EU researchers, would UK universities want to handle that for all non-UK staff?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I also haven't noticed huge quantities of jobs here in Britain thanks to the EU. Are they usually jobs that need specialist knowledge in a field most people aren't qualified for?
I assume the reference is to jobs making stuff that is exported to the EU, or making stuff that requires parts sourced from the EU.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Another example of coordinated research is the International Railway Research Board which for the European division is partially funded by the EU.
I say - to my chagrin and shame - that I've never heard of it!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Jobs supported by the EU in the UK are in places like Sunderland and Cornwall and if I bother to look, I imagine Wales. In Cornwall the Eden Project was supported by EU funding.
Sunderland received a lot of EU support in the 1990s and continued to receive funding from the European Redevelopment Fund from 2007 to 2013, following all the indigenous industries dying in the 1980s - fishing, steel making, coal mining, ship-building, glass-making.
The EU funded the National Glass Centre in Sunderland when it originally opened in 1998, at least partially. The whole site was festooned with the logos. That information is not easy to find online now as it was redeveloped in 2013.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the Scottish Parliament, the First Minister is nominated by the Parliament on the basis of an exhaustive ballot. Though in theory anyone could be put forward as a candidate on that, in the current make up anyone other than Nicola Sturgeon would be seen as making a mockery of the system. I'm not even sure if it will be contested.
OK, so I was wrong. Willie Rennie stood, just to make a point that the SNP don't have a majority. With 59 abstentions though Nicola got the job comfortably.
Meanwhile I see in Wales a deal looks like it has been struck allowing a minority Labour government, with PC roles in key new committees that doesn't constitute a coalition, but some cooperation on moving Wales forward together.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I have to admit I agree with Shamwari's post.
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Besides what would leaving actually get us? We'd lose many of the things that EU membership gets us. Things like ...
- Cheap air fares
- Not having to apply for visas or hang about at passport control in Europe
- Cheaper goods and services, plus the ability to sell into the EU without actually having offices there
- The ability to work elsewhere in the EU if we want.
- Grants for random stuff like academic research, infrastructure projects or farms
- Shitloads of jobs
We would probably still have cheap air fares. As for the ability to work elsewhere in the EU, most of the population don't (do you personally have plans to live and work in a country where the first language isn't English? Never mind "I might do", we all "might do" but in practice most of us don't). As for the grants for the random stuff, I don't know what the proportion of research projects that actually provide useful stuff as opposed to minor or dead ends is.
I also haven't noticed huge quantities of jobs here in Britain thanks to the EU. Are they usually jobs that need specialist knowledge in a field most people aren't qualified for?
I still haven't decided which way to vote. Neither option currently sounds great.
Cheap air fares are benefit of EU membership as I think their legislation limits the amount airlines can charge.
Thinking about jobs directly dependent on the EU, there are industries that depend on single market membership to trade whilst being based here. Loads of financial services jobs would move elsewhere if the UK wasn't part of the EU.
Other jobs in agriculture, academica, construction etc probably depend on EU subs / grants for the programmes to run. I doubt if this government would even consider making up the shortfall so take those away and those jobs will go with them.
As for migrants, there are as many UK people living elsewhere in the EU as there are EU people living here according to this article. The final comment by the Tory is hilariously typical of attitudes to migrants here.
My main problem with the Leave campaign is that they seem to dismiss anything even remotely negative as "project fear" and assume that it'll all be wonderful outside the EU. It won't be. I'd actually be more impressed if they just came right out with it and just said, yes there will be job losses and challenges, but they wil be worth it for what we'll get. But they're not.
Tubbs
[ 20. May 2016, 12:11: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The final comment by the Tory is hilariously typical of attitudes to migrants here.
It has similarities to the disparity in language - people coming to the UK are immigrants (usually associated with looking for an easier life where they can get loads of good things for little effort), UK citizens going overseas are ex-pats (go-getters, entrepreneurs, taking an opportunity to make something more of their lives through hard work and taking a few risks).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The final comment by the Tory is hilariously typical of attitudes to migrants here.
It has similarities to the disparity in language - people coming to the UK are immigrants (usually associated with looking for an easier life where they can get loads of good things for little effort), UK citizens going overseas are ex-pats (go-getters, entrepreneurs, taking an opportunity to make something more of their lives through hard work and taking a few risks).
Oh don't. I had to log off FB when someone started banging on about how migrants had ruined this country so they were leaving for New Zealand. Otherwise I'd have said something unbecoming of a lady. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Funniest event in our family occurred about a year ago when brother & wife, well into their seventies, decided to settle in France. They have a very nice place, about 25 miles from Carcassonne but as my SiL is a Sun-reading patriot-going-on-racist we all wonder how she well get by in France?
If Britain leaves they will be sick of the sound of "Mais non" within a fortnight.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It has similarities to the disparity in language - people coming to the UK are immigrants (usually associated with looking for an easier life where they can get loads of good things for little effort), UK citizens going overseas are ex-pats (go-getters, entrepreneurs, taking an opportunity to make something more of their lives through hard work and taking a few risks).
It's a function of frame of reference. With respect to the UK, I am an ex-pat. With respect to the US, I am an immigrant.
Although I think "immigrant" carries long-term implications. If you're working abroad for a couple of years in an arrangement that is intended to be temporary, you are an ex-pat, but I don't think you're an immigrant. This distinction is certainly made in US law, where non-immigrant visas allow one to live/work in the US for a limited number of years, whereas immigrant visas permit an open-ended stay.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It has similarities to the disparity in language - people coming to the UK are immigrants (usually associated with looking for an easier life where they can get loads of good things for little effort), UK citizens going overseas are ex-pats (go-getters, entrepreneurs, taking an opportunity to make something more of their lives through hard work and taking a few risks).
It's a function of frame of reference. With respect to the UK, I am an ex-pat. With respect to the US, I am an immigrant.
Although I think "immigrant" carries long-term implications. If you're working abroad for a couple of years in an arrangement that is intended to be temporary, you are an ex-pat, but I don't think you're an immigrant. This distinction is certainly made in US law, where non-immigrant visas allow one to live/work in the US for a limited number of years, whereas immigrant visas permit an open-ended stay.
Yes, but many of the people who describe themselves as expats aren't. They're immigrants as they've no intention of returning to their home country and they left in search of a better life, blah, blah. That's one of the big problems with discussions about immigration in the UK. WE think we should be allowed to settle wherever we like in the world, but we don't think THEY should be able to come here.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
