Support NeoGAF

[Volotaire]

I read an article on it (or maybe it was something smiliar) in the New Scientist. It is being taken quite seriously by some states. However it is a 'first attempt' at looking at things differently and measuring a country's 'progress'.



I am in complete agreement there. But I do think that individual happiness should into account. (Where do we start right?) Problem is that does open a whole kettle of fish.

However, I am very ignorant in economics and would like to learn. Otherwise I will make arguments which have already been taken apart before!

Couls you please point me to some resources?

I have done A-level mathematics and further mathematics and am starting uni in October so I wont shy away from resources with depth.

I want to become politcally engaged and join debating society at Uni and I hope this is a good place for practise and learning about the nuances of government and running the country.

The thing with economics, textbook definitions won't help much in real world conversations. Your standard 'first year micro/macro' textbooks don't help either, it's more of a framework or toolset. You will tend to learn, most politically engaged societies the complex economic issues or issues that cannot be explained Laymen's terms. The evidence is in current political interviews. But I would suggest purchasing a first year or equivalent textbook to understand terms and the mindset of an economist. From then on, it's a case of understanding the macro framework of the economy, from a national to international scale. This is harder to point resources too, because this is the kind of topic that needs a structured course to go in depth.

i recommend reading The Economist more, it's a standard trope, but it works.

 

[Walshicus]

The Economist is not something to read if you want to learn economics... It has as much to do with Economics as New Scientist has to Science.

I wouldn't dismiss economic text books. I studied economics for seven years; if you're just trying to understand the core concepts in common-English terms then a GCSE text book should do (at least I remember the one from 2000 being acceptable).

 

[Volotaire]

The Economist is not something to read if you want to learn economics... It has as much to do with Economics as New Scientist has to Science.

I wouldn't dismiss economic text books. I studied economics for seven years; if you're just trying to understand the core concepts in common-English terms then a GCSE text book should do (at least I remember the one from 2000 being acceptable).

It's not to learn economics, but to get a feel of public policy in current economic situations. Perhaps I am dismissing the textbook too soon.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

God it's dead in here, summer recess be damed!

Yougove have the tories/labour neck and neck as well today, 35% each. At this stage Labour really should have what, consistant 7% leads if they hope to win in May?

I wouldn't put too much stock in YouGov, ICM is the gold standard pollster, they currently show a 7 point Labour lead. The Tories have a lot of work to do. Dumping all of this rubbish about HMRC being given access to people's accounts and prepaying taxes should be the first move. It is driving Tory voters to UKIP. Anyone who has ever had to deal with HMRC would not want to give them privileged access to bank accounts.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I wouldn't put too much stock in YouGov, ICM is the gold standard pollster, they currently show a 7 point Labour lead. The Tories have a lot of work to do. Dumping all of this rubbish about HMRC being given access to people's accounts and prepaying taxes should be the first move. It is driving Tory voters to UKIP. Anyone who has ever had to deal with HMRC would not want to give them privileged access to bank accounts.

YouGov was the most accurate pollster for the 2014 European Elections, the most recent way of corroborating we have to hand, so I wouldn't dismiss them too easily. That said, it's very frustrating that people continue to work on the basis of individual polls. Almost all polling companies use samples of around 1,000 people, which gives a ±3% margin of error with a 95% level of confidence. Taken on its own, a 35% CON 35% LAB poll could be the reflection of anywhere from 38% CON 32% LAB to 32% CON 38% LAB, or even something outside of that range altogether (albeit, very unlikely). Polls should always be considered in the context of their long-run average, which for both ICM and YouGOV is approximately 36% LAB, 33% CON.

For the most part, pollsters only tell you what people think now, but there are a number of academics busy making their predictions for the result with models of varying complexity. Steve Fisher, associate professor of political sociology at Oxford, predicts at elections etc a hung parliament featuring an extremely narrow Conservative plurality, a group of Manchester University academics predict at the Manchester Policy Blogs a hung parliament featuring a middling Labour plurality, and a group of academics from London and Durham predict at ElectionForecast.co.uk a hung parliament featuring an extremely narrow Labour plurality. Middle of the opinion range is a very small Labour plurality.

Mind, all these assume relatively strong swing-back from Labour to the Conservatives between now and the election. If the polls remained relatively unchanged from the status quo, Labour would go on to have a small majority. All of these models are relying on the electoral paradigm present at this election remaining similar to previous elections, but with the rise of UKIP and the break-down of two-party politics, plus the current coalition, I am unsure this is a wise assumption to make.

 

[JonathanEx]

I wouldn't trust YouGov. I mean, I occasionally get polled by them. I can't trust my own opinions.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Yeah odd polls are not to be taken for gospel. I still think the trend is there however, and I think they will consistently be neck and neck across the board come Xmas. So unpredictable, I wouldn't like to put any money on which way the election will go at all.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

YouGov was the most accurate pollster for the 2014 European Elections, the most recent way of corroborating we have to hand, so I wouldn't dismiss them too easily. That said, it's very frustrating that people continue to work on the basis of individual polls. Almost all polling companies use samples of around 1,000 people, which gives a ±3% margin of error with a 95% level of confidence. Taken on its own, a 35% CON 35% LAB poll could be the reflection of anywhere from 38% CON 32% LAB to 32% CON 38% LAB, or even something outside of that range altogether (albeit, very unlikely). Polls should always be considered in the context of their long-run average, which for both ICM and YouGOV is approximately 36% LAB, 33% CON.

For the most part, pollsters only tell you what people think now, but there are a number of academics busy making their predictions for the result with models of varying complexity. Steve Fisher, associate professor of political sociology at Oxford, predicts at elections etc a hung parliament featuring an extremely narrow Conservative plurality, a group of Manchester University academics predict at the Manchester Policy Blogs a hung parliament featuring a middling Labour plurality, and a group of academics from London and Durham predict at ElectionForecast.co.uk a hung parliament featuring an extremely narrow Labour plurality. Middle of the opinion range is a very small Labour plurality.

Mind, all these assume relatively strong swing-back from Labour to the Conservatives between now and the election. If the polls remained relatively unchanged from the status quo, Labour would go on to have a small majority. All of these models are relying on the electoral paradigm present at this election remaining similar to previous elections, but with the rise of UKIP and the break-down of two-party politics, plus the current coalition, I am unsure this is a wise assumption to make.

Please don't lecture me about polling. ICM is the gold standard pollster, their spiral of silence adjustment puts their model ahead of YouGov.

The L&N model is interesting because it takes into account leader satisfaction rating as well which Fisher doesn't do. Using MORI as the basis for L&N the Tories do well because Miliband's ratings are so dire. With debates and more presidential style politics they make a good case for leader satisfaction to be taken into account. The Fisher model assumes Lab -> Lib Dem rather than Lab -> Con. Fisher's swingback model says government's recover and the Lib Dems are part of the government. I believe this assumption is flawed because the Populus monthly release has a lot of detailed information about Lib Dem to Labour switchers, they are mostly public sector workers who are to the left of Labour on most issues. Where it is interesting is that the 2010 Lib Dem to Labour switchers are not aligned to the rest of Labour is on immigration, to hold onto these voters Ed will have to be more pro-immigration than he is now, but that will drive old Labour voters to UKIP even more quickly. Even economically the LD -> Lab switchers are to the left of Labour, 2010 Labour voters are better aligned to Conservative economic policies than the aforementioned group, which again poses a tough question for Ed, does he try and hold onto those voters and potentially scare away centrist Labour voters to the Tories or does he go for the centre and drive the newly acquired voters to the Greens. As we get closer to the election Labour will have to spell out where they stand, and they can't please both sides of their current support.

Anyway, I remain sceptical of YouGov and trust ICM, I base all of my bets on ICM. ICM says Labour have a 7 point lead and if alarm bells aren't going off at CCHQ I would be surprised, because I am certain that CCHQ also believe that ICM is the gold standard. They began planning for coalition government in January 2010 because ICM showed that a hung Parliament was the most likely outcome while all the other polls were showing a slim Con majority.

On UKIP and new politics, I find that the phrase "it'll be different this time" is a very costly one.

The other wild card is the Scottish independence referendum, if they leave Labour lose too many seats, if they stay the SNP could get punished and the Tories could win a few seats from them. AIUI ICM have a solid poll for Yes out tomorrow morning.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Please don't lecture me about polling. ICM is the gold standard pollster, their spiral of silence adjustment puts their model ahead of YouGov.

This is a stupid thing to say because you're supposing that their re-adjustment for don't knows is more likely to simulate the way people will act in an election scenario, but you're making that supposition with no proof. Certainly, in the last national election (European Elections 2014), YouGOV's model worked better than ICM's, spiral of silence and all. More bells and whistles don't make a model better if they don't do the job well or even do it wrong. You get the gold standard by winning the gold, which ICM has failed to do at the European elections and both the 2013 and 2014 council elections.

The L&N model is interesting because it takes into account leader satisfaction rating as well which Fisher doesn't do. Using MORI as the basis for L&N the Tories do well because Miliband's ratings are so dire. With debates and more presidential style politics they make a good case for leader satisfaction to be taken into account.

I think this isn't necessarily the strongest assumption, for a number of reasons. Firstly, it supposes there definitely will be debates - they were hard enough to get the party leaders to agree to last time. Secondly, it supposes that Ed Miliband will necessarily perform badly or be perceived badly, which I think is a very dangerous assumption to make. A lot of negative feedback in politics is received opinion - newspapers create a cycle of feedback where people read that someone is shite, think they are shite, and then go on to say they're shite, which the newspapers then report on by saying said person is shite, repeat ad nauseam. The debates represent a rare opportunity to break that cycle, and there's always the possibility that Ed's supposed shiteness has been overplayed by the media. Thirdly, it forgets that even if Ed Miliband is shite, people will have known he's shite for some time now - it's already factored into the polls under the status quo.

The Fisher model assumes Lab -> Lib Dem rather than Lab -> Con. Fisher's swingback model says government's recover and the Lib Dems are part of the government. I believe this assumption is flawed because the Populus monthly release has a lot of detailed information about Lib Dem to Labour switchers, they are mostly public sector workers who are to the left of Labour on most issues.

Alternatively, it's flawed because this is a coalition government and not a single-party government. Yes, in the past single-party governments have seen swing-back, but we don't really know what happens to coalition governments because of a lack of evidence. Looking abroad to countries which are politically similar but have coalitions more frequently, the junior partner normally gets shafted - see Germany, for example.

The other wild card is the Scottish independence referendum, if they leave Labour lose too many seats, if they stay the SNP could get punished and the Tories could win a few seats from them. AIUI ICM have a solid poll for Yes out tomorrow morning.

If we're talking gold standards, then the best poll vis-a-vis Scotland is probably the Scottish Social Attitudes survey. Sample size of 5,000 and with excellent sampling mechanisms, you can't really get a more complete work - shame polls of this size and quality cost so much money. It finds 39% YES 61% NO (excluding Don't Knows). It would seem to indicate that both ICM and YouGOV are overstating YES support slightly - both put YES at 3-4% points higher, but both have smaller and less accurate samples. Something for both companies to look into.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

This is a stupid thing to say because you're supposing that their re-adjustment for don't knows is more likely to simulate the way people will act in an election scenario, but you're making that supposition with no proof. Certainly, in the last national election (European Elections 2014), YouGOV's model worked better than ICM's, spiral of silence and all. More bells and whistles don't make a model better if they don't do the job well or even do it wrong. You get the gold standard by winning the gold, which ICM has failed to do at the European elections and both the 2013 and 2014 council elections.

Who the hell cares about those elections. ICM won the GE2010, YouGov overstated the Lib Dems by 4 points and had a cumulative error of 8 points compared to ICM's 5 points. That was with YouGov's mega sample poll as well in which the MoE was much smaller. The spiral of silence eliminates the current shy-Lib Dem effect and smaller shy-Tory effect. It is a proven model and they did beat everyone in 2010

I think this isn't necessarily the strongest assumption, for a number of reasons. Firstly, it supposes there definitely will be debates - they were hard enough to get the party leaders to agree to last time. Secondly, it supposes that Ed Miliband will necessarily perform badly or be perceived badly, which I think is a very dangerous assumption to make. A lot of negative feedback in politics is received opinion - newspapers create a cycle of feedback where people read that someone is shite, think they are shite, and then go on to say they're shite, which the newspapers then report on by saying said person is shite, repeat ad nauseam. The debates represent a rare opportunity to break that cycle, and there's always the possibility that Ed's supposed shiteness has been overplayed by the media. Thirdly, it forgets that even if Ed Miliband is shite, people will have known he's shite for some time now - it's already factored into the polls under the status quo.

Until the campaign shitness isn't priced in. David Cameron found that out in 2010 as did Kinnock in 1992.

Alternatively, it's flawed because this is a coalition government and not a single-party government. Yes, in the past single-party governments have seen swing-back, but we don't really know what happens to coalition governments because of a lack of evidence. Looking abroad to countries which are politically similar but have coalitions more frequently, the junior partner normally gets shafted - see Germany, for example.

The FDP in Germany have been part of a government for longer than either the SPD or CDU/CSU. They got beat this time because AfD drew away their anti-EU vote and the CDU drew away their fiscal competence vote. The CDU/CSU performed better than previously.

If we're talking gold standards, then the best poll vis-a-vis Scotland is probably the Scottish Social Attitudes survey. Sample size of 5,000 and with excellent sampling mechanisms, you can't really get a more complete work - shame polls of this size and quality cost so much money. It finds 39% YES 61% NO (excluding Don't Knows). It would seem to indicate that both ICM and YouGOV are overstating YES support slightly - both put YES at 3-4% points higher, but both have smaller and less accurate samples. Something for both companies to look into.

I don't know the date of the survey, but as ever I will stick to ICM or failing that MORI.

If you are complaining about a created narrative then surely YouGov are part of the problem with their daily poll, plus it swings pretty wildly, I refuse to believe that during a week of polling there can be an 8 point Labour lead and a 1 point Labour lead, even taking into account outliers and MoE it seems unlikely, and yet YouGov have produced this on quite a few occasions now. People's attitudes don't change that much during the week so it is a sign of poor sampling or odd weighting.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

If we're talking gold standards, then the best poll vis-a-vis Scotland is probably the Scottish Social Attitudes survey. Sample size of 5,000 and with excellent sampling mechanisms, you can't really get a more complete work - shame polls of this size and quality cost so much money. It finds 39% YES 61% NO (excluding Don't Knows). It would seem to indicate that both ICM and YouGOV are overstating YES support slightly - both put YES at 3-4% points higher, but both have smaller and less accurate samples. Something for both companies to look into.

I thought the last two YouGov/Sun polls indicated 39/61?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Who the hell cares about those elections. ICM won the GE2010, YouGov overstated the Lib Dems by 4 points and had a cumulative error of 8 points compared to ICM's 5 points. That was with YouGov's mega sample poll as well in which the MoE was much smaller. The spiral of silence eliminates the current shy-Lib Dem effect and smaller shy-Tory effect. It is a proven model and they did beat everyone in 2010

Yes, in 2010. That will have been 5 years ago and under a totally different electoral dynamic

Until the campaign shitness isn't priced in. David Cameron found that out in 2010 as did Kinnock in 1992.

I think Kinnock '92 is actually more likely to be polling error than last minute decision change. Almost all the major pollsters made serious adjustments to the way they treated "Don't Know" results in the aftermath, and if you retroactively apply these adjustments to the polls leading up to '92, they produce a much more accurate picture of the election. It's the famous 'Shy Tories' problem.

The FDP in Germany have been part of a government for longer than either the SPD or CDU/CSU. They got beat this time because AfD drew away their anti-EU vote and the CDU drew away their fiscal competence vote. The CDU/CSU performed better than previously.

Yes, but it's not like this is an isolated incident. Be it Austria to Poland, junior partners tend to do badly in government, usually because the fact they're, well, junior, means they can fulfil even less of their campaign promises than senior parties, which makes them look comparatively worse - a perfect example being the student fees debacle.

If you are complaining about a created narrative then surely YouGov are part of the problem with their daily poll, plus it swings pretty wildly, I refuse to believe that during a week of polling there can be an 8 point Labour lead and a 1 point Labour lead, even taking into account outliers and MoE it seems unlikely, and yet YouGov have produced this on quite a few occasions now. People's attitudes don't change that much during the week so it is a sign of poor sampling or odd weighting.

Created narrative is entirely the fault of newspaper editors who don't understand basic sampling, and nothing to do with YouGOV. Going from an 8 point Labour lead to a 1 point Labour lead in the same week is not at all unlikely. Consider the actual result being 34% CON / 36% LAB. Given a ±3% margin of error, YouGOV (and ICM, as they use the same sample size) can pick that up as anything from 31% CON 39% LAB (8 point Labour lead) to 37% CON 33% LAB (4 point Conservative lead). If you look, both those results are within 3% of the real result, but there's a 12% point difference in the size of the leads! That's just the way polls work, for all companies, regardless, and why long-term averages are so important. Incidentally, ICM is just as unstable as YouGOV is because the margin of error is a simple product of the sample size, it's just not as immediately obvious as YouGOV releases daily and ICM weekly. It's fairly trivial to look back at periods of time when ICM did daily or biweekly releases and see this.

 

[WayneMorse]

Looks like the guy who beheaded that journalist in the ISIS video was a British national.

What could the government reasonably do to stop radicals from going to Iraq and Syria?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Looks like the guy who beheaded that journalist in the ISIS video was a British national.

What could the government reasonably do to stop radicals from going to Iraq and Syria?

I don't think there's much you reasonably can do. You can't ban travel to Iraq or Syria, because most extremists travel via Turkey anyway, you can't ban travel to Turkey for obvious reasons, and so on. The best you can do is try and increase security measures and identify potential extremists earlier, but I'm not even sure that's the right policy at the moment because the British Muslim community is already aggravated at the level of suspicion that they are put under despite the vast majority being ordinary, upstanding citizens. Really, by the time you have an extremist, it's already too late and you've failed. The integration process needs to begin earlier, in schools and communities.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I don't think there's much you reasonably can do. You can't ban travel to Iraq or Syria, because most extremists travel via Turkey anyway, you can't ban travel to Turkey for obvious reasons, and so on. The best you can do is try and increase security measures and identify potential extremists earlier, but I'm not even sure that's the right policy at the moment because the British Muslim community is already aggravated at the level of suspicion that they are put under despite the vast majority being ordinary, upstanding citizens. Really, by the time you have an extremist, it's already too late and you've failed. The integration process needs to begin earlier, in schools and communities.

I agree entirely. The problems that need to be solved are here - and I don't really know what they are. I Don't actually think the problem is integration per se; It seems that a lot of the kids are actually less integrated and more fanatical than their parents are, so something's happening here, either in the schools or communities or mosque's that's changing them, as opposed to simply a community that keeps itself to itself and gradually radicalises through isolation. I think there has to be a greater effort made by the Muslim community itself to help root these problems out too.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Communities need do do more, someone cannot get the idea in their head that they are going to fight in Syria without any family or friends noticing. Some of the preachers who have been invited to speak at supposedly moderate mosques are baffling.

We really have deep rooted issues in this country. I'm not sure what the answers are, and I'm not sure the government know either unfortunately.

 

[jimbor]

Four Lions looking more like a documentary by the day, unfortunately.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Four Lions looking more like a documentary by the day, unfortunately.

I wish the real ones were as inept though.

 

[CyclopsRock]

rubber dinghy rapids bro

 

[Volotaire]

I pity the people who can't appreciate the comedy of that film. But yes, what is needed is actual community or even school engagement. Not to repeat the 'equality' or 'don't discriminate' drum, but actual discussion that includes why these people feel the need to got to these lengths for their beliefs, what parts they disagree and agree on (as believing in a caliphate doesn't mean agreeing with ISIS) amongst other wider social issues. Perhaps wider community engagement with the religious and non religious establishment of that area.

Basically, we need the Big Society fulfilled in an non empty , non idealistic way. We need action now.

I can't really fathom why they are doing this, but I think it stems from the fact that these people see their Muslim 'brothers and sisters' being killed by the 'Western powers'. They feel a need to protect them , or to fight back the US, who is seen (perhaps fairly or unfairly) as a butcherer of Muslims and children. It is also probably because the idea of a caliphate is attractive to some Muslims, and although ISIS isn't their perfect image of one, the fact that one exists attracts them to the idea.

I presume the majority of them don't know the fine political lines between all the Muslim factions (government or rebel, Al Qaeda or ISIS), I would say that most of them, and most of us in Off Topic and the West, do not have a clue of the intricate differences between their ideologies and the sides they take. So, I presume, they are fighting for this supposed cause that they perceive from the UK media and off media shoots, but in reality, it's a lot more complicated than that.

 

[Nicktendo86]

It's a very, very funny film. The toy AK-47 gets me every time.

 

[Volotaire]

An unexpected government budget deficit among a slowdown in the rise in retail sales in July

Other figures released by the Office for National Statistics showed retail sales rose less than expected in July, although the weakness was driven by a sharp drop in motor fuel sales and business remained solid in other areas.

The government posted a deficit of 0.2 billion pounds ($0.3 billion) in July, the ONS said, defying economists' expectations of a surplus of £2.8 billion pounds for the typically strong month for tax receipts. This is the second consecutive year that the government has posted a deficit in July, although it was smaller than last year's £1.0 billion borrowing figure.

Economists noted that although higher employment and higher home sales boosted revenues, government spending also rose in July. Since the start of the fiscal year in April, net borrowing so far has been £1.8 billion more than over the same period in 2013—after stripping out last year's receipts related to the Bank of England's Asset Purchase Facility program, the ONS said.

"From here, the deficit target is looking tougher to meet than the government would have hoped for, or expected, given the performance of the economy," Sam Hill, senior U.K. economist at RBC Capital Markets, said in a note.

The U.K. Treasury said the July public sector borrowing figures were in line with the government's budget forecasts.

"But the job is not yet done which is why we must continue to work through the plan that is building a resilient economy," a spokesman said in a statement.

The ONS also released data showing retail sales volumes rose 0.1% from June and were 2.6% higher than in July last year, the weakest year-on-year increase since November last year. But although the data were weaker than expected, economists pointed to the 0.5% monthly rise in sales volumes excluding fuel as a sign that underlying business was robust.

The figures also showed average prices for goods sold in July were 0.9% lower than in the same month last year. That should help ease the squeeze on Britons' finances after several years where consumer prices have risen faster than wages.

The drop in prices may also help ease the pressure on the Bank of England to rush the delivery of its first increase in interest rates since mid-2007. The minutes of the last BOE Monetary Policy Committee released on Wednesday showed two of its nine members favored an increase in interest rates but were outvoted by the other members who wanted rates to remain at ultralow levels.

"Overall these [retail sales] figures suggest that growth in the economy remains healthy and is likely to continue into the third quarter of this year," David Kern, the chief economist at the British Chambers of Commerce—a nationwide business network—said in a note.

Wall Street Journal

EDIT: And also, is this really MPC former committee member Danny Blacnhflower commenting on this Wall street Journal article?

 

[CyclopsRock]

An unexpected government budget deficit among a slowdown in the rise in retail sales in July


Wall Street Journal

EDIT: And also, is this really MPC former committee member Danny Blacnhflower commenting on this Wall street Journal article?

I can't see the article behind the paywall, but Danny does like to get stuck in online so I wouldn't be surprised if it were.

 

[Volotaire]

I can't see the article behind the paywall, but Danny does like to get stuck in online so I wouldn't be surprised if it were.

Type the article name in Google, and you should be able to click the link and read it for free. Strange workaround.

 

[Volotaire]

A more light hearted note, Alistair Darling takes the Ice bucket Challenge.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28895553

 

[Walshicus]

A it more light hearted, Alistair Darling takes the Ice bucket Challenge.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28895553

It's important to raise awareness of Alistair Darling.

 

[Volotaire]

It's important to raise awareness of Alistair Darling.

I feel something has gone over my head with this.

 

[StealthGoblin]

I think regardless of what happens with Scotland, England needs its own parliament. We shouldn't have MP's from other countries voting on things that only pertain to us (education etc). Something like that would also strengthen the voice of other areas of the England.

 

[Volotaire]

Wow, the I has damaged the Independent. The news site seems full of social style news feeds and less dependent on opinion or news articles.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I think regardless of what happens with Scotland, England needs its own parliament. We shouldn't have MP's from other countries voting on things that only pertain to us (education etc). Something like that would also strengthen the voice of other areas of the England.

I disagree, unless we actually went for full federalisation. An English parliament with jurisdiction over all the same areas that the Scottish parliament has would create a parliament which could easily compete with Westminster over legitimacy, since it would be voted in by about 85% of the population and have control over all the biggest departmental spending (health, education etc). Given how little would be left for Westminster to do, could you really say that the Prime Minister from Westminster is really the de facto head of state? That he should be representing the UK on the national stage etc?

 

[Jackpot]

Wow, the I has damaged the Independent. The news site seems full of social style news feeds and less dependent on opinion or news articles.

I gave up on that paper a long time ago.

 

[JonathanEx]

Wow, the I has damaged the Independent. The news site seems full of social style news feeds and less dependent on opinion or news articles.

Thing is, I don't think it's the I's fault - they took ages to do anything resembling the I online, and now they have, it's in their i100 site which is a terrible site, but at least branded separate. The online side of the Independent seems to be more them taking part in to the 'race to the bottom' of writing up everything from Twitter because they heard Buzzfeed is a thing and want to be popular on Facebook.

 

[CyclopsRock]

"It's not like we're the Independent. We can't just stick a headline saying CRUELTY then stick a picture of a dolphin or a whale underneath it. I mean that's cheating, it's rubbish."

 

[JonathanEx]

Ha! Yes. Their previous editor was great for that. Every other front page was black and white. For effect, you see.

 

[CyclopsRock]

It's the sort of newspaper that I'm glad existed even though I never had even the slightest inkling to ever actually read it.

 

[StealthGoblin]

I disagree, unless we actually went for full federalisation. An English parliament with jurisdiction over all the same areas that the Scottish parliament has would create a parliament which could easily compete with Westminster over legitimacy, since it would be voted in by about 85% of the population and have control over all the biggest departmental spending (health, education etc). Given how little would be left for Westminster to do, could you really say that the Prime Minister from Westminster is really the de facto head of state? That he should be representing the UK on the national stage etc?

Point taken. We should however only have sessions where MP's representing English constituencies can attend or vote on. For example when it comes to a session about Englands education system or budgets that will affect Englands councils.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I quite liked the Independent's comment and editorials section because they got such a wide range of opinion in, whereas Guardian is always Toynbee and friends and Telegraph also same old same old (emphasis on old, there). The reportage is pretty rubbish, though.

 

[War Peaceman]

I quite liked the Independent's comment and editorials section because they got such a wide range of opinion in, whereas Guardian is always Toynbee and friends and Telegraph also same old same old (emphasis on old, there). The reportage is pretty rubbish, though.

Huh? I'd say one of the best things about the Guardian is that they publish a wide variety of opinion pieces.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Huh? I'd say one of the best things about the Guardian is that they publish a wide variety of opinion pieces.

They do on CiF, not so much in the actual newspaper.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Huh? I'd say one of the best things about the Guardian is that they publish a wide variety of opinion pieces.

What Cyclops says.

 

[Nicktendo86]

So sounds like Salmond 'won' tonight? Make that one a piece, wonder if you these debates are helping people decide or just turning them off...

 

[JonathanEx]

They do on CiF, not so much in the actual newspaper.

Too many on CiF. Comment is Free, but thinking who should write a piece costs apparently.

So sounds like Salmond 'won' tonight? Make that one a piece, wonder if you these debates are helping people decide or just turning them off...

I'd go with turning off, the cross-examination was terrible and the value of them will be shown when it still returns a No vote...

 

[CyclopsRock]

So sounds like Salmond 'won' tonight? Make that one a piece, wonder if you these debates are helping people decide or just turning them off...

It turned me on

 

[jimbor]

So sounds like Salmond 'won' tonight? Make that one a piece, wonder if you these debates are helping people decide or just turning them off...

I had Salmond 'winning' this one and nobody winning what I managed to see of the first. They were both fucking dreadful first time around, at least Salmond seemed to have improved this time. Outside of currency, Darling didn't seem to have much else to attack with.

 

[War Peaceman]

They do on CiF, not so much in the actual newspaper.

Ah my bad, never actually bought the paper copy of the Guardian and with that information, I don't think I'll bother to either.

 

[Nicktendo86]

I had Salmond 'winning' this one and nobody winning what I managed to see of the first. They were both fucking dreadful first time around, at least Salmond seemed to have improved this time. Outside of currency, Darling didn't seem to have much else to attack with.

Two grown men talking over each other is such a pathetic thing, especially on a subject which will affect so many people. No wonder politicians are held in such contempt.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Outside of currency, Darling didn't seem to have much else to attack with.

I didn't watch, but did salmond give an answer on this?

 

[jimbor]

I didn't watch, but did salmond give an answer on this?

Yes, he said about pegging the Scottish pound to the English pound if a currency union was rejected. Said another couple of things too, can't remember right now what.

I wish he'd stayed behind the podium, looked so false.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Lololol I was just reading an article today on Brexit and this little gem showed up.

 

[Nicktendo86]

WayneMorse is banned? Anyone know why?