tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35566224043877942632024-03-05T19:04:05.042+00:00Benjamin's BlogBlog run by Rhys Benjamin (Twitter: @RhysBenjamin).Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-61457669403384788292023-06-15T22:08:00.003+01:002023-06-15T22:08:25.063+01:00Victory of the Marsupials<div style="text-align: justify;">And here we all are at last. The 30,000-word diatribe which will make for a shredder's field day in Westminster next week has finally been published. If nothing else it will make for a lovely supply of toilet paper for some others.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I will try to keep this brief.</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;">The intention of my piece is not to convince you whether Boris Johnson lied or not. I suspect many people made up their mind on that 18 months ago when these allegations first emerged. The intention of this piece is to highlight some of the more extreme excrescences from the report, some of the incredibly bizarre conclusions and suggestions, and - most importantly - why I believe MPs should reject the recommendations when it comes to a vote on Monday.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;">The first thing to note is that "illegal" does not appear in the report once. "Unlawful" appears four times - twice in direct quotes from Boris Johnson. This report, clearly, was written by a lawyer. This looks like it was a deliberate attempt to avoid being transparently in conflict with the Met Police's investigation; the rest of the report does do so, but since it does not outwardly use those terms it suggests the editors got their digital red pens in order before publishing. (Notably, they didn't do this with an earlier evidence bundle and accidentally <a href="https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1638490360002355200">leaked a bunch of confidential email addresses</a> by mistake. I can corroborate this because I happened to notice that myself before it was taken down.)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;">It is important to note the only thing Boris Johnson was ever penalised for by the Metropolitan Police (and Rishi Sunak, for that matter) was a surprise birthday celebration, which, in the eyes of many, is the least egregious "event" that occurred, so for this to be the one event where Johnson's attendance was unlawful - in his words - "boggled my mind".</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In any case, as I have said before, this is not about trying to convince you about him lying to the House or otherwise. But it is an important pretext.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Where I have concerns are as follows:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">1. Criticism of criticism</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Owen Paterson affair, whereby MPs voted against the Standards Committee's recommendation to suspend Owen Paterson for lobbying offences, should have led to reform of the Standards and Privileges Committees. It didn't. Once a matter is referred by the House to the Committee(s) they are given a blank cheque to do as they see fit, it seems. MPs have no way to express concerns about how the Committee conducts itself, the manner in which they are operating, the line of questioning taken in oral evidence - anything. They get a motion to accept the report or otherwise.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>"from the outset of this inquiry there has been a sustained attempt, seemingly co-ordinated,
to undermine the Committee’s credibility and, more worryingly, that of those Members
serving on it. The Committee is concerned that if these behaviours go unchallenged, it
will be impossible for the House to establish such a Committee to conduct sensitive and
important inquiries in the future. [...] We will be making a Special Report separately to the House dealing with these matters."</i></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This suggests that criticism of how the Committee has operated is to be censured, and I think that is fundamentally wrong. A Select Committee cannot be prosecutor, judge, and jury with a blank cheque as they currently are. MPs who have expressed concerns about the committee throughout the process - on all sides - must be allowed to be heard.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">2. Does the Punishment fit the Crime? </div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">The committee recommend (essentially) that Boris Johnson be banned from Westminster and he ought to have been suspended for 90 days. That's three times as long as Margaret Ferrier deliberately breaking Covid rules to board a train. That's nearly twice as long as Rob Roberts's sexual offences. I'm not sure lying - however serious - can be considered worse than sex offences, but yet the two SNP MPs on the committee wanted Boris Johnson expelled - EXPELLED! - from Parliament for life. If that is not a witch-hunt, I simply don't know what is.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div><br /></div><div>So let us consider the "crime". The crime is, allegedly, that he lied to the House, in the view of the committee. That's all. He didn't murder anyone. He didn't deliberately infect anyone with Covid. He didn't rape anyone. He didn't make unwanted sexual advances on junior staffers. No, he said some words which (the Committee believes) were deliberately untrue.</div><div><br /></div><div>If you believe that merits permanent expulsion from the House and sexual offences don't, then I simply think you should give your head a wobble.</div><div><br /></div></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><div><div>3. The suggestion that we shouldn't have "waited for Sue Gray"</div></div></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One of the weirdest conclusions in the report is the suggestion that Boris Johnson should not have told MPs to wait for the Gray Report, and should have prejudiced it:</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>"Mr Johnson [...] misled the House [...] when he gave the impression that there needed to be an investigation
by Sue Gray before he could answer questions."</i></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Frankly, I am baffled by this conclusion. To preclude the result of a Cabinet Office inquiry, much of which was subject to Police investigations, would have been sub judice. A little bit of insider trading here, but the Speaker of the House, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, has been extremely careful on the matter of sub judice topics. Indeed, even today I received an email (as a <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmsecret/230428/register.pdf">listed member of staff</a>) from the Table Office looking to query about a question my boss has tabled, cautioning him not to refer to ongoing Police investigations and matters. (I am not the Parliamentary Assistant, so I have no idea what said question is.)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I am sure of it Boris Johnson was advised not to comment on an ongoing investigation, not just by his lawyers, but likely by the Police and Sue Gray herself. The Committee's suggestion that therefore saying "wait for Sue Gray" was misleading the House is truly, truly bizarre.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">4. The suggestion that Boris Johnson lied to the Committee</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This is an incredibly serious allegation. To lie under oath is a criminal offence in a court of law. However, no evidence is presented in the report to this extent. The entire extent of the suggestion he lied to the Committee is that when he said he was "repeatedly" assured, they wanted, er, a more accurate and specific definition of what "repeatedly" meant, and thus they have selectively chosen to define it in a way not consistent with the dictionary.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If I were an MP I would not accept this report for these specific reasons.</div>Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-86456719697682348692023-03-22T01:12:00.003+00:002023-03-22T01:12:30.062+00:00Parties, Conspiracies, and Wine-Time Fridays: thoughts on "Partygate"<p style="text-align: justify;">"If the poll tax was the reason she fell, Europe was the reason she wasn't able to get up again."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Modern-day commentators like to say that the poll tax is the reason why Margaret Thatcher was forced from office in 1990. The reality was it was not the big poll tax, it was the straw of Howe's resignation over Europe that broke the camel's back. Likewise with Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, the actual reason for their resignation will not be that which the public remembers. For many, Liz Truss had to go because of the growth plan and the fallout. In reality it was a series of political messes including a total fuss on whipping on both the Public Order Bill and a Labour opposition motion on fracking.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is important to state that "partygate" (a horrid term) is not why Boris Johnson was forced from office. It was a coup instigated by Rishi Sunak over an error of judgement Johnson had made in a reshuffle some five months earlier by appointing Chris Pincher to a deputy whip. Sunak tries to slither away from partygate, for he was fined for his misdemeanours too, so could not cite partygate as a factor.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">As I write this we are around 16 hours away from the most hotly-anticipated committee appearance of the year (oh the joys of being in the "bubble"!) and Boris Johnson's submission to the privileges committee has finally been published, nearly 24 hours after it was submitted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have been very critical of Sue Gray in recent weeks and I believe her conduct has been shameful, unbecoming of a civil servant in speaking to Labour whilst working at DLUHC. Unfortunately the media (and therefore the public) only link her with partygate. I do not believe, at this stage, she compromised partygate. What she may have compromised is the Social Housing (Regulation) and Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bills, one of which I have a vested interest in, which is why it is hugely important Starmer and/or Gray reveal when she began talking to Labour. It is, admittedly, a very SW1A story, but <b>the Gray affair with Labour is not about partygate.</b> I hope I have made that crystal clear.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Taking Johnson's statement in conjunction with the Gray report there does appear to be a clear and consistent version of events that seems to back Boris Johnson up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">- The Covid-19 procedures at No10 were different to all other workplaces;<br />- Anything Johnson attended he clearly did not believe was a "party";<br />- The evidence proves Johnson was told, repeatedly, that no <u>rules</u> were broken with respect to anything he didn't attend;<br />- Advisors and civil servants have serious questions to answer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I want to explore each of these in turn.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This first point is crucial. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The amount of groupthink that went on, in both the Gray report and Johnson's defence submission, is extraordinary. Johnson's riposte to the committee's suggestion that rule breaches should have been "obvious" plays into this, perhaps more so than Johnson and his lawyers think. As Johnson highlights, if it were "obvious" that rules were being broken, particularly in respect of 19 June 2020 (the surprise birthday sandwiches, the only event for which the Met fined both Johnsons and Rishi Sunak), we are talking about not the failure of one person but that of dozens including the Number 10 photographer and the people who briefed it to <i>The Times</i> for the following day's edition. Number 10 was, for obvious reasons, a workplace allowed to stay open during the pandemic lockdowns, even in the first lockdown when a lot of places shut their doors. Johnson has highlighted in his submission the workplace guidance, as applied to Number 10. Given the layout of the building social distancing was not always viable: having visited Number 10 myself for work reasons last year, this is not a surprise to me. Indeed, it's a great spot by his lawyers that found the guidance said social distancing was an "objective" rather than a rule. There has also been nothing found to have been illegal in the use of alcohol at desks, although Gray criticised this culture in her report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This therefore suggests that the lines between what was legal and illegal, lawful and unlawful somewhat blurred. I would like to put that question to key workers who worked in the first lockdown. My ex-boyfriend is one such person. If a No10 official pulls the wine out of a cupboard and asks everyone to have a glass at their desks as a toast to a colleague leaving, or a major accomplishment, is that unlawful? Is that illegal? The Metropolitan Police didn't seem to think so.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is sufficiently blurry to lend credibility to the suggestion Johnson did not attend a "party" at any point. Indeed, he was not fined for anything outside of the surprise birthday - I have always said this was the least egregious event so for him to be fined for this and nothing else has always struck me as odd. It is a point Johnson has also raised in his defence, that no rationale has ever been provided by the Met for why some people were fined for a certain event and not other people, and vice versa, although he stops short of disputing the fine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Regardless, that is not what the committee's investigation is about.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">These arguments about what was legal, what was illegal, what was lawful, what was unlawful - that's a matter for the Metropolitan Police and their investigation concluded last year. Insofar as they are concerned, the door on this affair is now closed and there is no suggestion of any further criminal sanctions for Boris Johnson, Carrie Johnson, Rishi Sunak, or anybody else.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is only the Privileges Committee, egged on by the media, that is keeping this matter open. One consistent factor across this affair is just how long this has taken. We are talking some 15 months since the initial reports of these events were published by the <i>Daily Mirror</i> and 11 months since the committee was asked to investigate whether Johnson lied to the House.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The legality is important as it provides background and context into what Johnson knew when he made statements to the House, the veracity of which is the subject of the Committee's investigation - no more, no less.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For politicians, lying to Parliament, especially the House of Commons, is the worst offence you can make. You are expected to resign any frontbench post and the House may decide to recommend your suspension from the House outright for a number of days. The Recall of MPs Act, a major coalition reform, could, if the suspension is long enough, instigate a petition to force a by-election in Boris Johnson's constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip. Ironically, the Conservatives know all this to their cost with a complete cock-up involving Owen Paterson in October 2021. (Paterson denied the paid lobbying charges laid at him by the Standards Committee and the Government decided it didn't agree with them either so told its MPs to vote against a suspension so the case could be reopened. Ultimately this backfired drastically but has led to the beginnings of reforming the committee.) Resultantly, Rishi Sunak is right to make any findings against Boris Johnson a free vote - i.e. one that he is not going to "whip".</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It plays into the groupthink regarding the rules and guidance more generally that Johnson states in his defence he and his team did not even consider this matter for PMQs on 1 December 2021. He admits therefore that he was surprised when Keir Starmer chose the initial party reports as his main line of attack: they expected him to talk about Omicron. The piecemeal way in which the Mirror, ITV, and the Guardian opted to drip-feed evidence not only meant Starmer only asked about the 18 December 2020 party (Johnson was not involved in this event in any way and it is (or at least should be) generally accepted he has no personal culpability for it).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The WhatsApp records Johnson provides, as well as a transcript of then Director of Communications Jack Doyle's interview with Sue Gray, suggests either Doyle and James Slack (then "Prime Minister's Official Spokesperson" and essentially deputy DCom) lied to Boris Johnson that no rules were broken or that Doyle was mistaken in believing no rules were broken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No documentary evidence has ever been provided that Johnson was told that anything was wrong and I want to take this opportunity to criticise the way the media have acted. The media have seized on out-of-context quotations and sought to make a political soap opera out the affair. Much attention was focused on Martin Reynolds' comment that they "got away with it" regarding the "bring your own booze" event on 20 May 2020 but this comment is in relation to communications management and is discussed extensively in the Gray report, Lee Cain explicitly saying he is sure it's legal, but doesn't <i>look good</i> and ultimately this is a key point for the public at large: it is not about what they did and whether it was legal or not; it is about how it looks to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The piecemeal way the left-wing media broke new developments in the story suggests someone either had a large file they passed to the Mirror/Guardian/ITV, or given three organisations were getting exclusives, I believe the leaker themselves was doing the piecemealing. It is a common trick which has been used in journalism and is partly why large-scale leaks don't tend to create a huge media storm. The best example of historical precedent here is the MPs' expenses scandal. In early May 2009 the Telegraph was given the complete list of MPs' expenses claims, which included well-publicised events such as moat cleaning, new TVs, dog food, et cetera. Rather than dump a huge file on an unsuspecting public, they drip-fed the coverage over several weeks which allowed more and more "fresh" outrage. The Telegraph, at the time of writing, are doing a similar thing with Matt Hancock's WhatsApp messages: if one were to publish all 100,000 of them in one go the Telegraph would be relying on the media picking up on their own narratives, rather than controlling the narrative themselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This allowed one person to control the narrative on partygate, clearly taking Number 10 by surprise: as proved by the fact no documentation has ever been discovered that warned Boris Johnson of wrongdoing.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Resultantly, insofar as the committee's investigation is concerned, the only conclusion can be that this statement was truthful as he knew it to be at the time (my emphasis). It relates to the Allegra Stratton video, on which I will expand more in due course:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>I repeat that <b>I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no covid rules were broken</b>. That is what I have been repeatedly assured. </i></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: right;"> <i style="text-align: right;">- Boris Johnson, 8 December 2021<br />(Hansard)</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">This is one of the statements the committee wants to investigate and the evidence suggests, conclusively in my mind, this statement from Johnson is not a lie. The only person who disputes this is the discredited Dominic Cummings, who - regardless of his backstabbing and openly-Sunak-coup-supporting machinations -</span><span style="text-align: left;"> has been challenged repeatedly to prove his statement he did warn Johnson about the events, but has so far refused to do so, suggesting such evidence does not exist. He insists it does - if so, he must bring it to the committee's attention or the committee must assume it does not exist.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">The other answer to Parliament that the committee want to investigate is this:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Catherine West:</b> <i>Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether there was a party in Downing Street on 13 November?<br /></i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Boris Johnson:</b> <i>No, but I am sure that whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times.</i></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: right;"><i>8 December 2021<br />(Hansard)</i> </p><p style="text-align: justify;">In his submission to the committee Johnson admits this is not his finest ever answer at PMQs, to put it mildly. As outlined above, the correct answer to this, objectively, is it depends on what one calls a "party" and it is equally clear that Number 10 officials did not consider leaving drinks a "party" at any point although many "outside" might well do. Is the suggestion that Johnson was expected to know that? The committee seem to think so, but as outlined above Downing Street clearly thought not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There is, however, one question that remains unanswered, and cannot be answered by Boris Johnson or any politician. It is the Allegra Stratton and Ed Olding internal video of 22 December 2020, in which Olding, playing the role of a journalist, asks Stratton about the events of 18 December 2020, to which they laugh at each other. (By way of background, Stratton was hired as a US-style press secretary, and this was a "dry run" of such a press conference, but the idea was later dropped. Stratton remained on in a new role relating to COP26 but resigned after this leak.)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The video apparently undermines the central claim that no one thought any rules were being broken at any point. There are only three possibilities for what happens now:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p>- Stratton/Olding told Doyle/Slack/Reynolds at the time and Doyle/Slack/Reynolds hid this from Johnson;<br /><br />I do not believe this to be likely, unless Reynolds and co. have also lied to the committee and Sue Gray, but this latter suggestion is not only implausible, it is also potentially illegal. They would have known they cannot lie in formal submissions to Gray, lest they lose their jobs at the very least. <br /><br /><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><i style="text-align: justify;">I honestly don’t think that anyone who was in that room was breaking any rules. They were with their colleagues who they sat with all day every day for 12 hours. Were there additional elements to that? Yes. That was a reflection of the specific circumstances of the end of the year. Everyone in the office knew that they were public servants and wouldn’t have done it if they thought they were breaking rules.</i></blockquote><p style="text-align: right;"><i>- James Slack, 10 December 2021<br />(submission to Gray, as cited in Johnson, 2023: 35).</i> </p><div><br /></div><div>- Stratton/Olding/others hid their rule-breaking from Doyle/Slack/Reynolds and lied to them;</div><div><br /></div><div>This is the likeliest option and provides reasoning for why Stratton jumped at the first opportunity. However, much of the public would consider this unlikely that the rule-breaking was somehow widespread but kept from political advisors in Jack Doyle, James Slack, and Martin Reynolds. It is, however, the most likely option.</div><div><br />- Stratton, Olding, Doyle, Reynolds, Slack, and Johnson were all "in on it" and tried to cover it all up.<br /><p style="text-align: left;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The last option is unlikely. Number 10 staff are not political appointees (largely speaking) but are civil servants, many of whom it is no secret didn't think much of Johnson and would have liked to see him go. If the civil servants ever suspected Johnson was withholding anything you could be sure it would be leaked to the press. That this didn't happen suggests it is unlikely there was an Anglo-Saxon conspiracy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The committee, in my view, must rule that Johnson did not lie to the House.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">----<br />Further reading:<br /><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Gray, S., 2022. <i>Findings of Second Permanent Secretary's Investigation into Alleged Gatherings on Government Premises During Covid Restrictions. </i>London: Cabinet Office.<br />Hansard HC Deb. vol.705 cols.371-2, 8 December 2021.<br />Hansard HC Deb. vol.705 col.379, 8 December 2021.<br />Johnson, A. B. D. P., 2023. <i>In the Matter Referred to the House of Commons Committee of Privileges on 21 April 2022</i>. London: House of Commons Committee of Privileges.</p></div>Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-64221263629078607442021-07-07T02:41:00.002+01:002021-07-07T02:41:58.577+01:00How to be affected by Covid, without being infected by Covid<p style="text-align: justify;">What is the point of text blogs any more? No one does them. They're all doing vlogs instead. Vlogs, on YouTube, which, for some people, net them millions of people watching their things on an almost daily basis.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I can't do that. I look awful on camera. Yeah, yeah, Countdown and all that, but it's true what they say about the camera, and it really does add 10lb.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I knew that from the moment my interview on Zoom started yesterday. Dear god, I looked fat. I looked so ugly. And I knew that the moment the interview started.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I felt that interview went well, and having already made it through two rounds of selection processes, I almost felt it was in the bag. Rejections hurt more the closer you are to making it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">...</p><p style="text-align: justify;">OK, OK, I should probably back up a little bit.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I'm currently re-watching <i>Sex Education </i>on Netflix at 1am. It's only my brother and I alone in the house this week; my parents have gone on holiday.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Yeah... I still live with my parents.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It seems to me that life has been a sequence of 12-month periods, each more shitty and worse than the last. This is a sequence that has gone on for, well, 7 years or so now. Mistakes that I made in 2014, 2015, 2016 have created irreparable damage to my life, and I feel like I'm going round in a circle with whatever I write here, almost like I cannot put my thoughts into words adequately.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I'm also not afraid to admit I'm a very proud person. I like to portray the parts of me that I want others to see. And that's a double-edged sword. Because you can create an image of yourself, and someone else gets to know that version of you, the version you want them to see, and one day, you will let your guard down, and when that happens, people won't want to know you any more.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I am, however, a very honourable person, so I'm not about to name names or spill any juice about people individually. Not in, despite the limited numbers that will actually read this, is still publicly available, so no, I'm not going to be Coleen Rooney. Or whoever it was that exposed Rebekah Vardy. I'm not really a tabloid soap opera guy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">But I do need to rant. I do need to vent. Each period of 12 months gets worse and worse.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">So, here goes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">...</p><p style="text-align: justify;">March 2020.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the space of about 3 weeks, my circumstances perhaps matched those of the entire country. From normality, to worry, to pure chaos, to optimism, to wartime spirit...</p><p style="text-align: justify;">... to pessimism and a sense it will never end.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">My uni life was pretty good. Solid, if unspectacular, I'll admit. It will come as a surprise to absolutely no one who knew me from school that I had no friends that wanted me to live with them. Cue years of piggybacking off Facebook ads, and in the 18-19 and 19-20 years living in the 10th and spare room of a house. I was probably paying too much for what it was. The spare room, which I'm 90% sure used to be a cupboard. It was a nice house, I felt, although perhaps could do with a full refurbishment. The carpets were getting old, and given the house was ex-flats, it was a house whose capacity was very much vertical rather than in any of the other two directions. Being ex-flats, each room had an en suite bathroom. As I was in a cupboard, the en suite had not moved, so "my" bathroom was in the living room, or off the living room, or whatever the correct description is, I've never seen Grand Designs. That meant I was always cleaning up the bathroom that everyone - including numerous house parties - would use.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">But despite all its many shortcomings, it was, in my mind anyway, my home. My place where I could shut off, let my guard down, away from pressures of family, from university, from politics, from cricket, from housing, from rent, from... everything.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The events of March 2020 are burnt into my brain for that reason. My uni life post-election was cricket, academia, and relaxation. It was almost like the pieces of my life were starting to fall into place, owning my own destiny, for once, and perhaps, just perhaps... things were going well?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7 March 2020. University of Sussex Cricket Club Alumni Day. Two games of indoor cricket against some of the recent leavers, many of whom I knew as they had only just left, two wonderfully crazy periods of scoring and spectating. Then we went out afterwards. Oh, what a night. £60 spent, amazingly. Drunk as tits. Might have fallen over on the 100-yard walk back to my house... it was the last time that I perhaps experienced normality, without any mention, in normal life, of coronavirus.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Monday 9 March 2020. I noticed a couple of paranoid people, wiping down surfaces in the entire seminar room. There was also a rumour that someone couldn't attend as he had coronavirus - oh, but not to worry, he'd just come back from Italy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Friday 13 March 2020. Had the memorial service of a very distant relative. Probably best if I don't get into the details, but given we were relatives of my aunt's first husband, someone commented it was a little odd that we were invited to attend the memorial of my aunt's second husband. It wasn't really that odd, when we thought about it at the time. Because we had always been so close together to an aunt who has not been related to us for 20 years. In hindsight, this was a bit of a superspreader event for Covid, but I tend not to think about that too much. The cancelling of football that day was perhaps the first sign that this wasn't going to just go away in a hurry.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Saturday 14 March 2020. Cricket training. Saturday lunchtimes, September to April. 12pm-2pm. Varsity due in one week's time. For once I was not disappointed to not be selected for a cricket game: indoor cricket is really not my skillset as it is like T20 on steroids. All defensive, no attack with the ball. And my style of batting (Cook meets Burns meets Sibley meets Gillespie) has no place in a one day game, let alone a 10-over indoor game. So I was looking forward to, for the first time in ages, going into scoring a match without yearning to be on the field. On the hall. In the hall...? But I sat down in the changing room, joked about elbow bumping a bit (in hindsight, laughing my way through this crisis was probably my way of dealing with it), but I did say one thing to someone. I had/have a huge crush on this guy, which isn't necessarily helpful when you're friends with them, but at least he knew that and (unlike previous crushes) hadn't run a mile, which is always a good sign. But I just said to him... "I don't think we're going to be here this time next week."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Monday 16 March 2020. For once, this term, I didn't have a Monday 9am seminar, which was good, as I'm not a morning person. At all. But at about 9:40am the email I had been dreading came through: due to coronavirus, all teaching had been suspended. But surely this wouldn't last long, right? Maybe a couple of weeks, I'd be back, I'd get a couple of good contact hours in April or maybe even May (although that's cutting it fine) so I could sit through with my tutors and actually work out what the fuck I was going to do with my dissertations... right?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Wednesday 18 March 2020. Playing cricket is banned for the foreseeable future by the ECB. So with no cricket and no University for now, I'll go and stay with my parents for a bit. One reason for this: it's just cheaper. I don't have to pay for food, I don't have to pay for travel...</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Other than the one day I would move out, little did I know I would never see my house in Brighton again.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Monday 23 March 2020. I am connected. I am plugged into the Matrix. I know my sources. My Twitter feed is, actually, pretty well laid out. So I knew what Boris Johnson was going to say at 8pm. We were getting the worst thing, the worst option available. <b>Lockdown. </b>But it's fine. It'll only be a few weeks. And we'll come out in one go, we'll be straight back to normal in 3 or 4 weeks time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">...</p><p style="text-align: justify;">And look at where we are now. In those 2-3 weeks I lost everything I had in my life. Between 16 March 2020 and my dissertation deadlines in May/June (I honestly forget now exactly when they were) my contact hours were... 5 minutes over the phone. We didn't have Zoom classes yet. 5 minutes. That was it. I am proud of what I got in my dissertations all things considered, but Covid ruined my degree. I should have done better.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have, to this day, never had a formal graduation. But since the results came through in June 2020, I have not had a job. And I don't think that is for lack of trying. I have lost count of the amount of job applications I have sent off. In all walks of life. In all honesty, I could probably open my sent items folder and have a count, but why would I want to do that? It's just so depressing for me to sit there, go through 13 months of applications, and... count them. But we're talking at least 100, I would have thought.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sidenote: it's 2:35am now and I am running out of energy. Basically, need job, need money, need validation in my life and sympathy when I need it. And in my opinion, Covid took that all away from me.</p>Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-7461154918140991872020-10-08T18:02:00.000+01:002020-10-08T18:02:21.747+01:00Will Biden win? US Election 2020<p style="text-align: justify;">Four years on from 2016, and we're back looking at polls, swings, gains, losses, etc. Well, in a way, it's only one year on from the last time we did this for the 2019 UK General Election.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">First, let's get the disclaimer out of the way: <b>I am not a predictor; I am merely attempting to interpret the polls in terms of <strike>seats</strike> electoral college votes.</b> In 2016, this is something that I had great success with in a way. The takeaway point in 2016 was that the swing in the marginal states was higher than the national swing, which was enough to push Donald Trump into the White House. https://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.com/2016/11/how-did-trump-win.html</p><p style="text-align: justify;">However, Trump has a very difficult task if he wants to stay there.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Theoretically, the swing that Biden needs to win is just 0.4%. That's 4 out of every 1,000 Trump 2016 voters going to Biden in 2020. You can also see this in his "easiest" path to the White House: gain Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihK3EBPQjxTE_R6HQo4EH-7FbkUuoDG1Lc9RJgx3FixLWXJWOB9dgkygzK9QZbIKDh2LV-JGDNxsd6RFxp6SX64D2Er7WITKFXO4Ff4S4-rXTqFyFDVHuABpZkv9lQeQ133DB9cuTiuA/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1008" data-original-width="1792" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihK3EBPQjxTE_R6HQo4EH-7FbkUuoDG1Lc9RJgx3FixLWXJWOB9dgkygzK9QZbIKDh2LV-JGDNxsd6RFxp6SX64D2Er7WITKFXO4Ff4S4-rXTqFyFDVHuABpZkv9lQeQ133DB9cuTiuA/w400-h225/image.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">What we actually find is that, as with 2016, the current swing in marginals appears to be bigger than the national swing. If we use the swingometer we see that if we place the arrow on what the polls say is the national swing, 2.8% (using the average of the different "poll of polls" models, so basically the poll of poll of polls). On a uniform national swing Joe Biden will get a landslide, looking at 350 electoral college votes to 188. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirRZpsp16D9G5JePK38snq8qcNFrCZpQKtMyRVcVM3LwF2FFXjS5r6ZGKLfRNVZnLm_p4zznFf1LCTqvIaTSxKsxw4ravSs7TUCRMjTdDZXujnud2pDkzbbdmFiNe7vVIDevLqigJFOw/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirRZpsp16D9G5JePK38snq8qcNFrCZpQKtMyRVcVM3LwF2FFXjS5r6ZGKLfRNVZnLm_p4zznFf1LCTqvIaTSxKsxw4ravSs7TUCRMjTdDZXujnud2pDkzbbdmFiNe7vVIDevLqigJFOw/" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">But what are the "marginal" states in this election? It's time to have a look at...</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b><i>THE BATTLEGROUND.</i></b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">This is where the election will be won and lost. These are the states in their 2016 colours, with the white line representing, to an extent, Joe Biden's "winning" post. Starting on 232 electoral votes, he needs to gain Michigan (+16), Pennsylvania (+20), and Wisconsin (+10), if he does it in order of difficulty, to get over the 270 line, because, of course, 232 + 16 + 20 + 10 = 278. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If Biden gains Florida, that means, however, he can afford to lose any two of those three states and still win the election. Even Florida + Wisconsin gives Biden 271. If Biden loses all three of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, however, or indeed if Trump makes gains (not currently predicted, it has to be said), in any of these seven targets below, then Biden's task becomes harder.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Looking at the polls across these states, however, the average swing on the current statewide polls is 3.5%, and if you weight these polls by electoral college vote, then the swing in marginals is 3.0%. This indicates that Trump is doing slightly better in the safe seats, but they're no good to him as they're unlikely to be unseated. Sorry, safe "states".</p><p style="text-align: justify;">So on election night, here is your cut-out-and-keep guide to <b><i>the battleground</i></b>. Mark these off as they are declared, and you will have an idea of what is happening. Trump's easier states to win are at the bottom, and Biden's are at the top, with the white line representing the winning point on either side. As these come in, you should be able to tell who's winning.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfJc0pnlC8RHw2JUQOJ8TSBE31DV4FQfaD5Ppf-ffgVAXLdvINBDrctw5KGgE1YkrBNHdG0DB_Crvhm-NmDKRRbwNUpNhSMUFUNl9tkW1jUJIzmgINqoKPbGU8MReLMGKnqAyCLOy5yw/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="705" data-original-width="586" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfJc0pnlC8RHw2JUQOJ8TSBE31DV4FQfaD5Ppf-ffgVAXLdvINBDrctw5KGgE1YkrBNHdG0DB_Crvhm-NmDKRRbwNUpNhSMUFUNl9tkW1jUJIzmgINqoKPbGU8MReLMGKnqAyCLOy5yw/w531-h640/image.png" width="531" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Here's one more pic dump, Trump's target list:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg20Y2_7ixMtfXCr-wfpRf8Ldrr1LRd0s0b7cyw4fLZZ1hCTytKn6Qr4qM418dMIj0iE5Y_WP2UAN44NXCZxF3TtFNEY10v0kvQksf0L00BJopCYt-eqRwz3EUHOMibcy5lpeUskWeu6Q/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1008" data-original-width="1792" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg20Y2_7ixMtfXCr-wfpRf8Ldrr1LRd0s0b7cyw4fLZZ1hCTytKn6Qr4qM418dMIj0iE5Y_WP2UAN44NXCZxF3TtFNEY10v0kvQksf0L00BJopCYt-eqRwz3EUHOMibcy5lpeUskWeu6Q/w400-h225/image.png" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">Not paid for by either campaign. Just some independent research.</div><p></p>Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-16897993258038518372020-05-08T22:26:00.002+01:002020-05-08T22:26:49.274+01:002019 General Election under Proportional Representation?<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is something I always do, and I always use the only form of PR which we can use (since others require a "second choice" vote anyway, and everybody will have different #2 preferences).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That's Regional Party List. In each region, you vote for a party, not a person, and we apply that.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, this election was difficult to do because of the fact that not everyone stood in every seat, but we'll ignore this for our purposes. Just a bit of fun, just a bit of fun...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2017 results, first, for reference: CON 280, LAB 269, LD 43, SNP 22, UKIP 7, DUP 7, SF 6, GRN 6, PC 4, SDLP 2, UUP 2, APNI 1</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2019 results, per region:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Scotland: SNP 28, CON 15, LAB 11, LD 5</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
North East: LAB 13, CON 11, BRX 2, LD 2</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
North West: LAB 36, CON 29, LD 6, BRX 3, GRN 1 (excluding Chorley)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yorkshire: CON 24, LAB 22, LD 4, BRX 3, GRN 1</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
East Midlands: CON 27, LAB 15, LD 3, GRN 1</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
West Midlands: CON 33, LAB 21, LD 4, GRN 1</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Wales: LAB 17, CON 15, PC 4, LD 2, BRX 2</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
London: LAB 36, CON 23, LD 11, GRN 2, BRX 1</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
East of England: CON 35, LAB 14, LD 8, GRN 1</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
South East: CON 46, LAB 19, LD 15, GRN 3</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
South West: CON 31, LAB 13, LD 10, GRN 2</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Northern Ireland: DUP 6, SF 4, SDLP 3, APNI 3, UUP 2</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>TOTAL:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Conservatives 289</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Labour 217</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Liberal Democrats 70</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Scottish National Party 28</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Green Party 12</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Brexit Party 11</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Democratic Unionist Party 6</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Plaid Cymru 4</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Sinn Fein 4</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Social Democratic Labour Party 3</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Alliance Party of Northern Ireland 3</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Ulster Unionist Party 2</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>(Speaker 1)</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>CON SHORT BY 37</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In this situation potential coalitions would be as follows:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
CON (289) + BRX (11) + DUP (6) + UUP (2) = 308</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
LAB (217) + SNP (28) + GRN (12) + PC (4) + SDLP (3) = 264</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It would be the Liberal Democrats who would act as kingmaker, in effect. And with the Lib Dems having ruled out any coalition with either party during the campaign, who knows what would have happened next?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>CHANGES ON 2017 UNDER RPL:</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Conservatives +9</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Labour -52</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Liberal Democrats +27</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Scottish National Party +6</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Green Party +6</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Brexit Party +11</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Democratic Unionist Party -1</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Plaid Cymru +/-0</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Sinn Fein -2</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Social Democratic Labour Party +1</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Alliance Party of Northern Ireland +2</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Ulster Unionist Party +/-0</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>CHANGES ON 2019 ACTUAL RESULT:</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Conservatives -76</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Labour +15</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Liberal Democrats +59</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Scottish National Party -20</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Green Party +11</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Brexit Party +11</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Democratic Unionist Party -2</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Plaid Cymru +/-0</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Sinn Fein -3</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Social Democratic Labour Party +1</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Alliance Party of Northern Ireland +2</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Ulster Unionist Party +2</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-36855679735755047102020-04-25T16:57:00.009+01:002023-12-27T21:49:19.379+00:00What if F1 had the Eurovision points structure?<div style="text-align: justify;">Formula One has had various points systems over the years, but for this thought experiment we're going to apply the following points structure to each year:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1st place: 12 points</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2nd place: 10 points</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3rd place: 8 points</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
4th place: 7 points</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
5th place: 6 points</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
6th place: 5 points</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
7th place: 4 points</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
8th place: 3 points</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
9th place: 2 points</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
10th place: 1 point</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(No points for fastest laps, pole positions, or sprint races)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Between 1950 and 1990, not all races counted towards the championship, but for our purposes, every race will count. Any driver not classified won't get points. The final round of 2014 had double points; again, we are ignoring this (it doesn't make a difference in any case).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The top three every season, therefore, would have been as follows, with different champions in <b>bold</b>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1950: L Fagioli 48; G Farina 43; J Fangio 36</b> <b><i>(1st title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1951: J Fangio 56 (3 wins); A Ascari 56 (2 wins); J Gonzalez 50 <i>(1st title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1952: A Ascari 72; G Farina 52; P Taruffi 41 <i>(1st title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1953: A Ascari 67; M Hawthorn 60; G Farina 56 <i>(2nd title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1954: J Fangio 87; J Gonzalez 55; M Hawthorn 49 <i>(2nd title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1955: J Fangio 58; S Moss 39; E Castelloti 29 <i>(3rd title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1956: J Fangio 63; P Collins 54; S Moss 48 <i>(4th title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1957: J Fangio 68; S Moss 45; M Hawthorn 34 <i>(5th title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1958: M Hawthorn 76; S Moss 58; H Schell 44 <i>(1st title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1959: J Brabham 57; T Brooks 44; M Trintignant 43 <i>(1st title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1960: J Brabham 67; B McLaren 65; S Moss 42 <i>(2nd title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1961: P Hill 62; W Von Trips 51; D Gurney 50 <i>(1st title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1962: G Hill 80; B McLaren 59; J Clark 43 <i>(1st title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1963: J Clark 102; R Ginther 66; G Hill 55 <i>(1st title; first time a driver scores 100 points)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1964: G Hill 67; J Surtees 62; R Ginther 57 <i>(2nd title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1965: G Hill 81; J Clark 72; J Stewart 61 <i>(3rd title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1966: J Brabham 65; J Rindt 48; J Surtees 42 <i>(3rd title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1967: D Hulme 85; J Brabham 82; J Clark 61 <i>(1st title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1968: G Hill 75; J Stewart 65; D Hulme 63 <i><b>(4th title)</b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1969: J Stewart 89; J Ickx 63; B McLaren 58 <i>(1st title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1970: J Ickx 64; J Rindt 60; D Hulme 59 <i>(1st title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1971: J Stewart 88; R Peterson 65; F Cevert 50 <i>(2nd title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1972: E Fittipaldi 88; D Hulme 74; J Stewart 69 <i>(1st title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1973: J Stewart 115; E Fittipaldi 92; F Cevert 88 <i>(3rd title; new highest ever score)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1974: E Fittipaldi 97; C Regazzoni 95; J Scheckter 82 <i>(2nd title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1975: N Lauda 108.5; E Fittipaldi 79; C Reutemann 71 <i>(1st title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1976: N Lauda 106; J Hunt 103; J Scheckter 96</b> <b><i>(2nd title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1977: N Lauda 117; J Scheckter 89; C Reutemann 88 <i><b>(3rd title</b>; new highest ever score)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1978: M Andretti 99; R Peterson 85; C Reutemann 84 <i>(1st title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1979: J Scheckter 109; G Villeneuve 89; A Jones 67 <i>(1st title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1980: A Jones 106; C Reutemann 92; N Piquet 91 <i>(1st title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1981: C Reutemann 88; N Piquet 87; A Jones 80 <i>(1st title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1982: K Rosberg 86; J Watson 71; D Pironi 67 <i>(1st title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1983: A Prost 96 (4 wins); N Piquet 96 (3 wins); R Arnoux 85 <i>(1st title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1984: A Prost 107 (7 wins); N Lauda 107 (5 wins); E De Angelis 80 <i>(2nd title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1985: A Prost 119; M Alboreto 87; E De Angelis 76 <i><b>(3rd title</b>; new highest ever score)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1986: A Prost 122; N Mansell 115; N Piquet 113 <i style="font-weight: bold;">(4th title</i><i>; new highest ever score)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1987: N Piquet 121; A Senna 104; N Mansell 91 <b><i>(1st title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1988: A Prost 154; A Senna 139; G Berger 82 <i>(5th title; new highest ever score)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1989: A Prost 129; A Senna 86; R Patrese 76 <b><i>(6th title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1990: A Senna 116 (6 wins); A Prost 116 (5 wins); N Piquet 94 <b><i>(1st title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1991: A Senna 141; N Mansell 100; R Patrese 91 <b><i>(2nd title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1992: N Mansell 138; M Schumacher 99; R Patrese 97 <i>(1st title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1993: A Prost 137; A Senna 107 (5 wins); D Hill 107 (3 wins) <b><i>(7th title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1994: D Hill 130; M Schumacher 116; G Berger 71 <i>(1st title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1995: M Schumacher 132; D Hill 101; J Herbert 93 <b><i>(1st title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1996: D Hill 129; J Villeneuve 118; M Schumacher 91 (3 wins) <b><i>(2nd title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1997: M Schumacher 120; J Villeneuve 111; H Frentzen 84 </b><i><b>(2nd title)*</b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1998: M Hakkinen 136; M Schumacher 123; D Coulthard 98 <i>(1st title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1999: E Irvine 126; M Hakkinen 110; H Frentzen 98 <i>(1st title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2000: M Schumacher 142; M Hakkinen 137; D Coulthard 123 <i>(3rd title)*</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2001: M Schumacher 165; D Coulthard 113; R Barrichello 108 <i>(4th title; new highest ever score)*</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2002: M Schumacher 190; R Barrichello 117; J Montoya 98 <i>(5th title; new highest ever score)*</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2003: M Schumacher 123; K Raikkonen 117; J Montoya 106 <i>(6th title)*</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2004: M Schumacher 180; R Barrichello 146; J Button 115 <i>(7th title)*</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2005: F Alonso 165; K Raikkonen 142; M Schumacher 87 <i>(1st title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2006: F Alonso 166; M Schumacher 153; F Massa 112 <i>(2nd title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>2007: L Hamilton 141 (4 wins, 5 2nd places); F Alonso 141 (4 wins, 4 2nd places); K Raikkonen 140 <i>(1st title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2008: L Hamilton 127; F Massa 123; K Raikkonen 103 (2 wins) <b><i>(2nd title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2009: J Button 126; S Vettel 108; R Barrichello 107 <i>(1st title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2010: S Vettel 134; F Alonso 133; M Webber 131 <i>(1st title)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2011: S Vettel 197; J Button 145; F Alonso 143 <i>(2nd title; new highest ever score)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>2012: F Alonso 150; S Vettel 149; K Raikkonen 119 <i>(3rd title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2013: S Vettel 196; F Alonso 134; M Webber 113 <b><i>(3rd title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2014: L Hamilton 178; N Rosberg 167; D Ricciardo 122 <b><i>(3rd title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2015: L Hamilton 193; N Rosberg 168; S Vettel 148 <b><i>(4th title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2016: N Rosberg 198; L Hamilton 192; D Ricciardo 145 <i>(1st title; new highest ever score)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2017: L Hamilton 188; S Vettel 168; V Bottas 165 <b><i>(5th title)</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2018: L Hamilton 206; S Vettel 171; V Bottas 142 <i><b>(6th title</b>; first time a driver scores 200 points)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2019: L Hamilton 207; V Bottas 173; M Verstappen 150 <i><b>(7th title</b>; new highest ever score)<br /></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;">2020: L Hamilton 169; V Bottas 120; M Verstappen 113 <b><i>(8th title)</i></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>2021: L Hamilton 197; M Verstappen 196; V Bottas 117 <i>(9th title)</i></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">2022: M Verstappen 211; S Perez 159; C Leclerc 157 <i><b>(1st title</b>; new highest ever score)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">2023: M Verstappen 254; S Perez 143; L Hamilton 125 <i><b>(2nd title</b>; new highest ever score)</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Most titles:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">1 L Hamilton 9</div><div style="text-align: justify;">2 A Prost 7</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">2 M Schumacher 7</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
4 J Fangio 5</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
5 G Hill 4</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
6 J Brabham 3</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
6 J Stewart 3</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
6 N Lauda 3</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
6 F Alonso 3</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
6 S Vettel 3</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
*Michael Schumacher was symbolically disqualified from the 1997 World Championship after he was adjudged to have deliberately collided with Jacques Villeneuve in Jerez. For our purposes, he has been reinstated.</div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-6390118837074218572020-01-30T16:08:00.005+00:002020-08-20T15:31:31.259+01:002019 General Election Results Analysis<div style="text-align: justify;">
Hello there. I love general elections. I get to turn into Peter Snow, by talking about exactly what happened and how it happened and what it meant.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Overview - Swing</h2>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, we'll start by looking at the swingometer. There was a 4.7% swing from Labour to Conservative. This was way above what the opinion polls were suggesting.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/452622937418235916/656620720146612236/unknown.png?width=1201&height=676" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="177" src="https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/452622937418235916/656620720146612236/unknown.png?width=1201&height=676" width="320" /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So what were the biggest swings, then? Well, the biggest swings aren't necessarily the biggest majorities overturned. Most of the really big swings, especially for Labour, were in really safe seats with next to no consequences for the incumbent.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM8ZfbzpMfTT2onTrdjHluFowIGM8Y7NsBQkPuBLqxfYz6XrUitUEWChylL82vaDoygDKOcwQgLVMsupKD8qgKuTO6M9pvD5kwHHRie4J4dxJUp5bsds4D3-x6ZKoVy0irdZCqwbfHVQ/s1600/Swings.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM8ZfbzpMfTT2onTrdjHluFowIGM8Y7NsBQkPuBLqxfYz6XrUitUEWChylL82vaDoygDKOcwQgLVMsupKD8qgKuTO6M9pvD5kwHHRie4J4dxJUp5bsds4D3-x6ZKoVy0irdZCqwbfHVQ/s320/Swings.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
What was really striking about the election is just how... normal the results are. There's not a huge divergence from the national picture and nor are there the big regional variations that we saw in 2017 (yes, the SNP did increase their vote share substantially, but in this context I'm referring solely to the Labour/Conservative battle). The swing was a little bigger in the North and a little less in London and the South, but overall the uniform national swing, the crudest model of working out the election results, was not too far off and certainly within the margin of error.</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Here, we've put the arrow on the national swing, but for the regions (and for spacing reasons, we've amalgamated the North, Midlands, and South into three groups) we've coloured the appropriate number of boxes, each one representing one point of swing, representing the swing in that part of the UK. The swing, therefore, is not particularly regionally divergent this time around.</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/452622937418235916/656628948431798282/unknown.png?width=1201&height=676" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="179" src="https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/452622937418235916/656628948431798282/unknown.png?width=1201&height=676" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
70% of the seats were within one standard deviation (3.5) of the national swing (4.7%). It's possible, therefore, to suggest that the standard deviation was quite large, but not particularly when you consider the regional swings ranged between 2.5% from Lab to Con (Scotland) to 8.4% from Lab to Con (North East). 445 of the results, therefore, fall between a 1.2% from Lab to Con and an 8.2% from Lab to Con, on a national picture. Yes, that leaves 187 seats outside of this range (including Buckingham and Chorley), but what it does indicate that the vast majority of these seats were quite safe.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<h2>
Labour and the Conservatives</h2>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
So this is the crucial bit: the crucial battlegrounds. Here are Labour's 100 easiest seats to win from the 2017 election; they needed 64 net gains to win an overall majority. And they came very, very, very short, making just one gain, Putney, from the Conservatives.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif0pZXZPjYkXf0O5bnBVIk2ULPlM8WjqDPZ9S1YLDEk3p2ZDzj9SEJul1TdnwKpYFUsHAuIdQ8y5QQnUP90_vfwRRMAGrdmA43hE3_SNjd_xyLr1POxuzcIAplcyaYZ3tTOyEpJ4H1JA/s1600/Lab+Attack.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif0pZXZPjYkXf0O5bnBVIk2ULPlM8WjqDPZ9S1YLDEk3p2ZDzj9SEJul1TdnwKpYFUsHAuIdQ8y5QQnUP90_vfwRRMAGrdmA43hE3_SNjd_xyLr1POxuzcIAplcyaYZ3tTOyEpJ4H1JA/s320/Lab+Attack.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The Conservatives had such a good night - as you can tell from their attack board. Now, some of these were SNP so were not really on the table, but they've hit almost every single Labour target in here, missing only a handful of seats below the national swing. Indeed, they've even managed a few gains beyond this target board - an eventuality that very few people predicted, if anyone at all.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJVAHVRbTc3Qh6rHaRjEGGMiqhNNMppPzpoYATRyEmLrNwrG9LYGzuaWqWFrwlvun4bWJWkrztD66HQ-it-iqHN9yliQ0LADZsfWAu2jPkByfJmHrsNiGITxYw6pLzcWmvO6ftdQtvkA/s1600/Con+Attack.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJVAHVRbTc3Qh6rHaRjEGGMiqhNNMppPzpoYATRyEmLrNwrG9LYGzuaWqWFrwlvun4bWJWkrztD66HQ-it-iqHN9yliQ0LADZsfWAu2jPkByfJmHrsNiGITxYw6pLzcWmvO6ftdQtvkA/s320/Con+Attack.png" width="320" /></a><a href="https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/452622937418235916/672040365208895508/unknown.png?width=1201&height=676" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="179" src="https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/452622937418235916/672040365208895508/unknown.png?width=1201&height=676" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
You can also see the Conservatives' success in the Labour defence, the so-called "red wall" that was breached. Labour's top 100 defences were battered, bruised, and Labour lost over one fifth of their seats. All of the following were red in 2017: the Conservatives and SNP almost wipe out the first column - one or two stalwarts hold on for Labour - and down the second column too, and most of the third column is gone too. One or two Conservative parachutists make it into the fourth column!<br />
<br />
<h2>
Liberal Democrats and SNP</h2>
</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
What about the minor parties? The SNP, the Liberal Democrats? Well, for the Liberal Democrats, it was like 2010 in many ways, with a wave of optimism, Jo Swinson declaring she would win a majority... and then went down in terms of seats. Their vote share actually increased in many areas, but as the Conservatives' vote share also went up in the same key areas too, the swing was neglible in many areas, and certainly whilst Richmond Park was no surprise for a Lib Dem gain (with a swing needed of less than 0.1%), the only other two gains were from the SNP (again, a tiny 2017 majority), and St Albans, easily the Lib Dems' best result of the night, and was generally in line with the Con/LD swing in the East of England, albeit significantly larger in that one seat. The Liberal Democrats gained 8.4% of the vote in the South East, but this was useless to them as the swing from the Conservatives to the Lib Dems in the South East, 4.9%, was not theoretically big enough to wield any seats whatsoever, with Lewes (5.1% swing required) being target #1 in the South East (CON hold). However, there's no explaining their three Conservative losses, as they were all bucking the patterns. This goes some way to debunking the myth of "the Brexit election", for these parts of the country all voted Remain and yet went from LD to Con.</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/452622937418235916/672043468822151168/unknown.png?width=1201&height=676" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/452622937418235916/672043468822151168/unknown.png?width=1201&height=676" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/452622937418235916/672043507153764382/unknown.png?width=1201&height=676" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/452622937418235916/672043507153764382/unknown.png?width=1201&height=676" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br />
What's even more striking is Jo Swinson losing her seat in Dunbartonshire East. The SNP did not, in theory, do enough to take the seat, as they only experienced a 2.7% swing towards them from the Lib Dems, but in Dunbartonshire East, they managed to reach the 5.3% swing needed to unseat Jo Swinson. Losing Fife North East in return, therefore, was a strange one, as the swing would have pointed to a larger SNP majority this time around. Nonetheless, the SNP had a good night, cleaning up all but one of their top 12 targets and adding Renfrewshire East (from Con), Dunbartonshire East (from LD), and Aberdeen East (from Con) to their list. Other than Jo Swinson, however, these are not anomolies. Indeed, the Conservatives holding on is the anomolous result here, with Moray, Banff and Buchan, and Dumfries & Galloway theoretically being lost. The SNP, therefore, will be disappointed not to hit 50 seats again given they ought to have taken these seats. They only had one loss, which was Fife North East to the Lib Dems.</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/452622937418235916/672044971800526888/unknown.png?width=1201&height=676" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/452622937418235916/672044971800526888/unknown.png?width=1201&height=676" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Was the Benjamin model a success?</h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Like any half-decent psephologist, I developed my own way of analysing the election results. This does not mean I am a predictor, it means I translate polls and votes into seats theoretically. My methodology is very similar to the exit poll prior to 2015, and uses regional breakdowns of votes to apply the regional swings to each seat in turn. This isn't that accurate, but then again neither is any system.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The only way to test the model, therefore, is to use the actual election results in terms of votes, and see what that would yield in terms of seats won. In other words, as though the actual election results was like an opinion poll, done by region as per my methodology. So... what do we come up with?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Headline figures (Benjamin model): CON 355 (-10), LAB 202 (-1), SNP 51 (+3), LD 18 (+6), PC 4 (nc), GRE 1 (nc).</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
How many of these seats did I get right, then? Well, there are 632 possible seats we modelled, albeit two of these were based on assumptions (Buckinghamshire - CON gain from SPK; Chorley - SPK gain from LAB), and 37 were incorrect. A hit rate, therefore of 595 out of 632 is not bad one bit. My model got 94% of seats correct. But let's see which seats our model did not predict correctly.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, of these 37 seats, 17 were within 2%, so these can simply be put down to "margin of error" and can be discounted, as they were effectively too close to call accurately. That leaves just 15 anomalies, and we'll look at each of these in turn:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>
<b>Banff and Buchan:</b></div>
<div>
<b>Estimated result: SNP gain from CON</b></div>
<div>
<b>Actual result: CON hold</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
The Conservatives actually increased their majority in Banff and Buchan thanks largely to a collapse in the Labour vote, with the Labour vote down by 5%. The SNP didn't do particularly well either, only up 1.3%, and both of these factors combined to increase the Conservative majority against the projection of an SNP gain.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
<b>Battersea, Bedford, Cardiff North, Portsmouth South, Warwick and Leamington:</b></div>
<div>
<b>Estimated result: CON gain from LAB</b></div>
<div>
<b>Actual result: LAB hold</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
These results have been grouped together since they were all expected to be Conservative gains but were not. Three of them (Battersea, Cardiff North, Portsmouth South) were in the top 5 Con->Lab swings, and in Portsmouth South this came about from a collapse in the Lib Dem vote, indicating a LD->Lab movement in voters, perhaps tactically to prevent a Conservative gain, as the seat was ultra-marginal in 2017. Battersea, strangely, does the same thing but the other way round, a large Con->LD movement creating a mathematical swing to Labour, despite their vote share falling by 0.4%. Cardiff North represents an anomaly in the Conservative vote (down 6%) rather than a particularly good result for Labour. The other two seats, Warwick and Leamington and Bedford, just didn't swing hard enough.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Ceredigion:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Estimated result: LD gain from PC</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Actual result: PC hold</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Against the Welsh trends, Plaid Cymru held Ceredigion. A collapse in the Lib Dem vote was to blame here, losing 11% of their vote share for some reason. In Wales, the Lib Dems' vote share increased by 2.9%, so this is an anomaly that no one saw coming.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Carshalton and Wallington, Norfolk North:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Estimated result: LD hold</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Actual result: CON gain from LD</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Carshalton and Wallington was a bizarre result. The Labour vote was well down in London but in Carshalton, went to the Conservatives rather than the Liberal Democrats as was the case in most of London. The Lib Dem vote did not change on 2017, and with a Labour to Conservative swing of 5.1% - not entirely notable - it was the Lib Dem failure to increase their votes which did for them.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm not sure what happened in Norfolk North though. There appears to have been a direct LD->Con swing (Con up 17%, LD down 18.1%) and is arguably their worst result of the night. Unpopular MP? Local factors? This should not have happened.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Dunbartonshire East:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Estimated result: LD hold</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Actual result: SNP gain from LD</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Swinson effect? Being such a high-profile MP, we can put this one under "mitigating circumstances".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Heywood & Middleton, Leigh:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Estimated result: LAB hold</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Actual result: CON gain from LAB</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The two results against Labour which the Conservatives did better than expected, taking these seats despite the regional pattern indicating they wouldn't. Heywood and Middleton, scene of a shock 2nd place for UKIP in a 2014 by-election, almost repeated itself, with 8.3% for the Brexit Party and with Labour down 11%, this allowed the Conservative to take the seat. It was a similar story in Leigh, although on this occasion the Lab collapse split between Conservatives and the Brexit Party. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Leeds North West, Sheffield Hallam:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Estimated result: LD gain from LAB</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Actual result: LAB hold</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sheffield Hallam, Nick Clegg's former seat, represented very poorly by Jared O'Mara between 2017 and 2019, was almost a dead cert to go back to the Lib Dems. It was thought that there was an anti-Clegg vote in 2017 and this was almost certain to dissipate in 2019. But instead, the opposite appears to have happened. The Lib Dems have always said that they do better when an incumbent, a familiar face, is re-standing. Despite Nick Clegg being, well, Nick Clegg, this appears to have been the case here, with the Lib Dems' vote down 1.3%. On the other hand, Leeds North West was another collapse in Lib Dem votes, down 16%.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>St Ives:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Estimated result: LD gain from CON</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Actual result: CON hold</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
St Ives, the most southerly constituency in mainland Britain, had been Lib Dem for a long time before 2015, but since then has remained Conservative. Andrew George almost resisted the 2015 Lib Dem collapse, but I suspect that now, his personal vote is dwindling, having now stood unsuccessfully three times in a row, he is no longer as familiar a face in St Ives as he once was, hence the small drop in Lib Dem vote.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So that's all the anomalies dealt with. Now, to look at the parties' best and worst results.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/452622937418235916/672472199705395240/unknown.png?width=1201&height=676" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/452622937418235916/672472199705395240/unknown.png?width=1201&height=676" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
(That list of "others" drops took forever.)</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
A lot of these don't actually result in any gains or losses, perhaps indicating voter "hapathy" given the safeness of these seats.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Most of these Labour collapses are in the North of England, for the Conservatives they're more spread out but have a significant portion in the South East and East Anglia; the Lib Dem collapses are everywhere, and Plaid Cymru's collapses, making up 4 of the top 10 other losses, are all in Wales.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
So, those are some stats surrounding the election.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
If anyone wants to know anything, my Twitter DMs (@MrRhysBenjamin) are open, so ask away.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-39304715657320484092018-02-26T01:01:00.001+00:002018-02-26T01:01:06.338+00:00Why I'm Against The UCU Strikes - In Depth - Say No to Militant Students<div style="text-align: justify;">
I really can't think of a good introduction for this post. It's a very contentious topic, certainly, and it has led to consequences far beyond what I could have thought possible. In the interim, I suppose I can plug my appearance on BBC Radio 5 Live on 22 Feb 2017 (on the "Drive" program, at 5:07pm onwards), where I answered a couple of points made by Professor Catherine Pope of Southampton University. But let's crack on with it. Firstly, I do sympathise with the lecturers and agree that the UUK's proposal is a bit iffy. But there are several major problems I have with the strike action.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
Students are being used as collateral damage</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The tuition of students (which we have actually paid for in advance, don't forget) is being withheld and causing not only a strong legal case that a service has not been provided for which one has paid (a viewpoint shared by Universities minister Sam Gyimah: "I expect all universities affected to make clear that any money not paid to lecturers - as a consequence of strike action - will go towards student benefit including compensation"). I am losing just under 10% of my contact hours for the entire semester, and I've emerged relatively unscathed: some people are unlucky enough to be losing 25% of their entire tuition for the semester. Final year students in particular are being made to feel the pressures of the few lecturers. Universities have either dumbed down their degrees or students may not be able to graduate. I myself have an assessed presentation (which is still going ahead), but no lecture to base it on (as everyone else does).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sally Hunt has claimed that if the dispute isn't resolved, the next round of strikes will be in exam periods. Is this really what UCU thinks of students? That our degrees are worthless?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
Striking has legitimised violence and militancy</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's always disheartening to see my university in the newspapers (both print and online) for all the wrong reasons. And whilst, to their credit, lecturers, or at least the ones I have seen, have striked (struck?) peacefully, militant students, who claim to be acting in support of the strikers, have run amok on campus, and they don't seem to agree on who the real "enemy" is. Is it Adam Tickell? Is it UUK? Ask students and they come up with different answers. I know who is behind these militants at Sussex (names I will not mention here) but it hardly surprises me as to who they are - I won't comment any further for fear of <strike>being accused of having too much to think</strike> libel action. And moreover, no striker has been able to answer the question of where the line is between appropriate action and inappropriate action. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<ol>
<li>Is storming into a lecture (and in so doing, crossing your own picket line) appropriate?</li>
<li>Is blockading public transport appropriate?</li>
<li>Is bullying students who need to use campus for non-academic reasons (such as first years who live on it, or those requiring counselling, for example) for unavoidably crossing the picket line, even when they support you, appropriate?</li>
<li>Is downright stupidity appropriate ("the library is crossing the picket line, study in Falmer House instead", but that's crossing the picket line too...)?</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
No one seems able to answer these questions.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I know the Student Union voted to support the strike action, but I do not think that condemning such militancy would be going against that mandate. I haven't decided on whether to endorse Frida Gustafsson for re-election yet: I feel she can be weak in a crisis, although I like the general direction she is taking the SU in. I feel she needs to condemn the militants. Now. Additionally, I feel that if more strikes go ahead, the policy should be up for re-vote as it would be for a different period of strike action.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Students - even if you support these strikes, I urge you not to join in with the militants (Sussex Supports our Lecturers). This sort of behaviour is straight outta da winta of discontent. Innit.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
UCU has lied to its members</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<ol>
<li>Professor Pope put to me on BBC Radio 5 that the UCU's report was done by an "independent body". No it wasn't. The report was commissioned and financed by the UCU and carried out by First Actuarial - a firm whose business model is to produce reports financed by the client. Naturally it's going to produce a report that its client wants to see. Why else does the Labour Party often commission reports from the TUC and the Conservatives from the CBI? Because they know they're going to get an answer they agree with.</li>
<li>The figure quoted, that members will lose up to £200,000 in retirement, is quoted without any indication of the assumed level of investment return. This is not dissimilar to the "£350m for the NHS" figure that was contentious in Brexit - the figure is true, but only just if you include ALL benefits, not just pensions. The £200,000 figure is for a lecturer above £100k per annum on salary - a minority of lecturers.</li>
<li>"Employers will pay less towards USS pensions." No they won't. UUK's proposals include a commitment to 18% employer contributions until March 2023.</li>
<li>UCU claim UUK were over-represented in negotiations. The Joint Negotiating Committee, effectively arbitrating the negotiations, have made it clear this is a downright lie.</li>
<li>The arrangements are up for discussion again in 2020, and are not fixed as UCU claims. Indeed, UUK have said they would like to reintroduce DB in these talks.</li>
<li>UCU deny the claim that there is a deficit within USS. The Pensions Regulator and PWC have confirmed (independently, and I actually mean independently) that this is a lie, and the deficit does exist. And no, whilst it may not bankrupt people immediately, when you are short one week you have to economise the next. This is the reason for so-called "austerity". See the debt bombshell on the right-hand side of this page (unless you're viewing this on a mobile)? That's why the government have had to tackle their deficit. And so should USS.</li>
<li>"Existing benefits already built up will be affected." Nope. These are protected by law, so cannot be changed.</li>
<li>And finally, the last whopper of them all, the claim pensions will be cut by 40%. Not only is this a contentious claim by a bankrolled report, but even said report says <b>only brand new staff will be affected to this degree</b>. For someone with 20 years’ service who is due to retire in 2027 having started on a wage of £33,518, they would see a £1,600 a year (10.5%) cut - according to said very own report. So the notion that people with 30 years' experience will lose 40% is a lie. (Yes, I know this is not good either, but as I said, I sympathise, because no proposals on the table look to be good for lecturers at all.)</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
UCU's proposals are even worse than UUK's</h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
UCU's own proposals would mean a cut in take-home pay for its lecturers. UCU's proposal is for employees to increase their contributions to the pension pot from 8% to 10.9%, a cut in accural rate from 1/75th to a bizarrely low 1/80th (1.25%), and employers to increase their contributions from 18% to 23.5%. Let's dismantle this policy.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<ol>
<li>For a lecturer, this means their real take-home pay will be cut. If their salary is (say) £50,000, increasing the pension rate means more taken out of it (as per tax) before it reaches the wallet. Members will have to increase their contributions by 35%.</li>
<li>Employers have had their contributions increased by 28.5% over the last 10 years by having their contributions increased by 4 percentage points over this time frame. To ask them to pay even more is unaffordable.</li>
<li>Reducing the accural rate will mean fewer benefits for lecturers in retirement.</li>
<li>This will add about £500m to the cost of pensions; Sussex alone, for example, will cost an extra £5.5m per year. </li>
</ol>
So which is it, lecturers - pay cut or pensions cut?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I hope this clarifies my position on these strikes. I hope all sides move on negotiations. We cannot go on like this - opportunistic militancy must stop.</div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-69320667362597323602017-03-16T11:32:00.000+00:002017-03-16T11:32:24.209+00:00Article 50, my dear. And it seems not a moment too soon...<div style="text-align: justify;">
You probably weren't watching on Saturday night. After all, I wouldn't expect many in the UK to. I am, of course, referring to the popular Swedish television program <i>Melodifestivalen</i>, which, to all intents and purposes, is the selection program Sweden use to pick their Eurovision entry. After changing an explicit lyric to "freaking", Robin Bengtsson emerged as the pride of Sweden that will be representing his country in Kyiv in May.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Speaking of representatives sent to European countries, Theresa May recently returned from the European Council Summit, where a number of rather dull things were discussed; Brexit was not among them. But earlier this week, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill was passed through the Houses of Parliament and was given Royal Assent on 16 March 2017. Mrs May has said she will trigger Article 50 within the next two weeks.<br />
<br />
Finally.<br />
<br />
In the 9 months since the referendum, the political landscape, both at home and abroad, has changed substantially. On the morning after the referendum, Jeremy Corbyn called for the immediate triggering of Article 50, something which many people forget. A couple of hours later, David Cameron announced he would be resigning as Prime Minister. It is, perhaps, a testament to the organisation and the rules of the Conservative Party (which have been around since 2001) that the whole process of finding candidates only took two weeks, and the system, whereupon candidates are nominated by MPs and then the final two are put to the party's membership. That Andrea Leadsom, my pick for leader, had to withdraw was unfortunate, but it has to be said it looked inevitable after she walked into the trap of <i>The Times</i>. The Labour Party also had a leadership election, but the less said about that mess, the better.<br />
<br />
Then, we had the intervention of Gina Miller, which, to the surprise of many, the High and then Supreme Courts agreed with, interpreting Article 50 differently to how pretty much everyone else did and stating that in order to enact Article 50, Parliament would have to vote for it based upon the rationale that the royal prerogative cannot be used to remove what was made law by Parliament. The only problem with this, however, is that Article 50 only states that a member state must "provide notification" of intention to withdraw. I have the view that the European Communities Act 1972 and Article 50 are two mutually exclusive events and thus I do not believe the ruling was correct. But now that it has passed, it is somewhat immaterial.<br />
<br />
The problem with all of this is that the longer the posturing over this has gone on, the bigger the amount of virtue signalling and generalisation, and that all of this has led people to forget the real reasons that people voted to leave the EU. After all, let us not forget that if anybody was playing on fear in the referendum, it was Remain: our households are meant to lose £4,300 per year, don't forget, as well as World War III, the global Brexit recession, and the slaughtering of the first-born. OK, I lied: they never said the last one, but the tone of "project fear" was such that it would not have been out-of-place.<br />
<br />
Cynics say that this is no better than the Leave campaign, talking about immigration and how they're all coming over here, stealing our jobs, and so on. But those who say that are guilty of conflating the official and unofficial Leave campaigns. The official Leave campaign, Vote Leave, did nothing of the sport. Yes, immigration was the trump card of the Leave campaign (because there really was no credible defence Remain could offer), but the argument put forward by the Vote Leave was not one of reducing immigration, but only seeking to end the postcode lottery of free movement of people from within the EU.<br />
<br />
In fact, I will take this opportunity to quote this bit of Gisela Stuart's speech in the House of Commons on 31 January, which acts as mythbusting:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I chaired the official leave campaign. The leave campaign was clear that it was about taking back control of our borders. That meant we wanted an immigration policy based not on geography, but on skills and economic need. We wanted to take back control of our laws and of our trade negotiations. I also happen to think that the Government should actually honour the election pledge that was made that [...] money saved from not making direct contributions to the EU should go to the NHS, which is short of money."</blockquote>
<br />
All of this posturing, however, including the "missing NHS money" (which, as you will note above, Gisela Stuart has not backed down on), has led to people forgetting the positive vision that was set out as a basis for leaving. I include myself in this. When we look at the "Wirtschaftswunder" between 1945 and 1957, and indeed, the Thatcher revolution of the 1980s, it goes to indicate what can happen when you deregulate your economy. European regulations, not least on a political and economic level, have stifled our economy for decades now. We don't live in an era of regional trading blocs. In the last 30 years, we have seen a breakdown of the USSR and Yugoslavia - both protectionist trading blocs. The EU is such a protectionist trading bloc. We live in a globalised world - as the 6th Doctor (Colin Baker) puts it - "whether you like it or not". For our youth - my generation - the dream is no longer to work for MNCs, but to create new ones. We still have a fantastic entrepreneurial spirit in this country, and it's time that what we do is to deregulate our economy massively. By leaving the EU, we have a fantastic opportunity to do that. The trade deals of the EU are lower than many other nations - even if you include the value of the single market.<br />
<br />
Even at a more micro level, when we look at the tariffs that are placed on imports coming into the EU, and the disastrous buffer stock schemes, which combine to push up the prices of agricultural produce somewhere between 10% and 20%, hurt consumers. That is, of course, not even taking into account the fact that the African producers are finding it harder to sell their goods within the EU. We have such a fantastic opportunity, seeing as how an independent nation outside of the EU, as the United Kingdom will become, will be able to do so. Only a government of complete incompetence would slap tariffs on these new produces. This will, of course, drive down inflation - and quite right too. It is largely for these reasons that I will never support Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders's protectionist policies in the United States, but it is perhaps indicative of US politics that the election there became about personalities rather than policies.<br />
<br />
But the longer the debate goes on, the more we are losing sight of all of this. It is not about the opportunities that Brexit provides any more. It is about virtue signalling and labelling Leave voters as racists, sexists, homophobes, and so on. One person even told me recently that:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />"The same people who insist "marriage" can only be between a man and a woman are the same people who voted for Brexit."</blockquote>
<br />
I don't think this is true, and nor is the standard of this debate good for our country. What we need is to get on with Brexit. Because not doing so will not allow us to see the opportunities that Brexit is offering. Instead, the longer we dilly-dally, the more we can go on posturing about how "racist old white people" have "ruined" the country. That is not what I want to see. I want to see a United Kingdom making the opportunities work. Because, as Robin Bengtsson sang on Saturday, "I Can't Go On".</div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-47526090631719033712016-12-20T17:10:00.001+00:002021-01-12T12:54:46.317+00:00Now What? - England in Bangladesh and India - Review<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let's make one thing clear: England were never expected to win this series. An embarrassing failure to beat Pakistan on home soil in the summer, exasperated by an even more embarrassing defeat to Bangladesh in Dhaka, and England landed in Rajkot, as reported by ESPN Cricinfo, "weary and unprepared".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
England's performances, however, got worse as the India series went on. From being the stronger side in a drawn Rajkot game to making 400 and losing by an innings in Mumbai and Chennai, England have now reached what must be their nadir. They must not stoop any lower.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
England's record in 2016 is played 17, won 6, drawn 3, and lost 8. It means England have failed to win their last three test series - and have only won three out of their last nine in a barren spell now stretching over 19 months. The blame game for the Indian disaster has already begun - The Daily Telegraph being particularly unsavoury - but there was a catalogue of avoidable management errors both on and off the field. It's time for Cook, in particular, to go. Ostracising bowlers on the field who aren't bowling terribly - and continuing to bowl players who were - is a sackable offence in itself.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We'll begin with the batting. England finally got their act together in the first innings in the final two tests by making over 400. To an extent, therefore, the defeats in Mumbai and Chennai cannot be exclusively blamed on the batting. In the second innings, yes, there were some utterly terrible pieces of batting, but when you put 400 on the board in the first innings, you expect to have done your job. However, Liam Dawson, Joe Root, and Jonny Bairstow were the only Englishmen to have made it into the top 10 for the series averages.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqEFTgpzlS1fzGV40mJEilpWqLHdpDdsbGUKrRRgnqahRSzWp0cQWJbgAdymf-AEdwBjx3FBwS6J1sgNLl6zKm7iKWIHrcHFaZd1yRDanBz_o8F3cH4no0TJMu7pYbdB_-pzwvFwOPLQ/s1600/Batting.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqEFTgpzlS1fzGV40mJEilpWqLHdpDdsbGUKrRRgnqahRSzWp0cQWJbgAdymf-AEdwBjx3FBwS6J1sgNLl6zKm7iKWIHrcHFaZd1yRDanBz_o8F3cH4no0TJMu7pYbdB_-pzwvFwOPLQ/s400/Batting.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQaQmJzWBLl26IypmSyFKpOB4H-3gqtbLUNY_aZv79sMjEMEZ99DCFRoDWZ5-STOpQUeDCetDscNElxiXvY3IffHNrGKb5lc2vFy02pPlvlfFHeTPU6AEc3YGwY0SPXBMpqrtrk7Jb_A/s1600/Consistency.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQaQmJzWBLl26IypmSyFKpOB4H-3gqtbLUNY_aZv79sMjEMEZ99DCFRoDWZ5-STOpQUeDCetDscNElxiXvY3IffHNrGKb5lc2vFy02pPlvlfFHeTPU6AEc3YGwY0SPXBMpqrtrk7Jb_A/s320/Consistency.jpg" width="320" /></a>Indeed, these numbers aren't exactly shockingly bad for these three, and indeed there are a few bubbling under it. The issue is that for somebody like Moeen Ali, there was not enough consistency. Look at this graph on your right. Throughout the series, this highlights Bairstow's consistency with the bat as he kept his average stable. Moeen Ali, on the other hand, in his nine innings, made 2 centuries, 1 fifty, and 1 forty, but did not score above 20 in any of the other five, hence the volatility in his series average over time. </div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
It's OK making 400 in the first innings, but in the second innings England's batting was woeful, as this shows:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu-uVL-g_nGC0YXHsf2N92t2ipOyXOI_EEGIjQUBYbjQTus1Vbz2XVkr_YQBnXu6V8anTug6RZWy3ZkUJwalwbkQZeWEHFT3WRCV6Jgiu5-IxVmfj9WEGkqeAGukqQcMNYkr2k22MMGQ/s1600/2nd+inns.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu-uVL-g_nGC0YXHsf2N92t2ipOyXOI_EEGIjQUBYbjQTus1Vbz2XVkr_YQBnXu6V8anTug6RZWy3ZkUJwalwbkQZeWEHFT3WRCV6Jgiu5-IxVmfj9WEGkqeAGukqQcMNYkr2k22MMGQ/s400/2nd+inns.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Only Haseeb Hameed, Alastair Cook, and Chris Woakes had a higher 2nd innings average in the series than the 1st innings. Only Root, Cook, and Hameed had anything respectable in the second innings. Everyone else couldn't average 35 in the second innings. This is also one of the reasons England lost. Time after time. Right?</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
No, the fault really lies with the bowlers, and with Cook's terrible (mis)management of them, and Batty in particular. No matter what you score, you shouldn't be conceding 759-7 on any pitch, even a road. On Batty, he was probably England's best spin bowler in Chittagong - so why was he ostracised after that? Well, in Dhaka, they wanted to give Ansari a go. For some bizarre reason, probably to do with thinking that's 20 years out of date, for Rajkot it was decided that off spinners can't bowl to right handers (despite Batty getting 3 of his 4 wickets by bowling around the wicket to right to handers). Ansari duly played in Rajkot and Visag. In Visag, Ansari was taken ill and so England found themselves a bowler short. In Mohali, Batty was finally selected, but did nothing except run around the outfield all day, as it transpired that 3 spinners was not the right answer. England made completely the opposite mistake in Mumbai, and picked 2 spinners, but then ostracised Woakes. In Chennai Cook ostracised Stokes. Ostracising your bowlers *on* the field is something no captain would ever do unless it was not spinning (so he would not bowl any spin) or vice versa. But he didn't ostracise a discipline, he ostracised good bowlers. Only in Rajkot in the India series did Cook make full use of the tools at his disposal.</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
After Mumbai, where Ali and Rashid were made to bowl over 50 overs each with only 10 for Joe Root, Alastair Cook declared those two were England's best spinners. Sorry, Alastair, but the series stats disagree. Whilst Rashid finally came good in the India series (after a poor Bangladesh one), Moeen Ali had an absolute shocker with the ball, and <i style="font-weight: bold;">must</i> be time to drop him - or at the very least use him as a specialist batsman. </div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyKQO81j032J-SnIRXnjtBSy7534cwMcAZACrJLnthWlQb4qtpakxCphqOyFgBNvbSb7VcdXtjkFOgDsM30oimF_WvX-h0TJeqkfh2rKKzV8rJDeQgtEAPgRKyApjz5AfFJ6a3G-jA-Q/s1600/spin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyKQO81j032J-SnIRXnjtBSy7534cwMcAZACrJLnthWlQb4qtpakxCphqOyFgBNvbSb7VcdXtjkFOgDsM30oimF_WvX-h0TJeqkfh2rKKzV8rJDeQgtEAPgRKyApjz5AfFJ6a3G-jA-Q/s400/spin.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Arguably England's worst spinner on this tour, Moeen Ali averaged a pathetic 64.90, the worst of any English spinner (save for Batty, who didn't take a wicket in his "thank you for coming" outing in Mohali). Ali only took a wicket, on average, every 18.5 overs, and went at 3.45 runs per over, worse than Dawson and Batty. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The seamers don't get away with it either. Of the bowling averages list, only 4 Englishmen made it into the top half:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNvI0eOh9R3eAdEx1mrZjVww0b7h4XgdHHIAaAOl7uje7pPBWMbV5p5m2PAbH4cZ-OjQNcWoDCmVrOMUDuMF_T1BEsrKy1xF6GoZi2ufcMQcCgMzn2tr5BnYLEqpMMvk98k6us_VDO7g/s1600/best+bowlers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNvI0eOh9R3eAdEx1mrZjVww0b7h4XgdHHIAaAOl7uje7pPBWMbV5p5m2PAbH4cZ-OjQNcWoDCmVrOMUDuMF_T1BEsrKy1xF6GoZi2ufcMQcCgMzn2tr5BnYLEqpMMvk98k6us_VDO7g/s400/best+bowlers.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Broad, Stokes, and Rashid are probably, therefore, the only bowlers to escape this tour with their dignity somewhat intact. But when you have a look at the worst bowling averages of the series, only three Indians are in it. Jake Ball played two games (one more than Gareth Batty incidentally) and yet could only take one wicket in 246 tries, spilling 140 runs in the process. Chris Woakes could only do a wicket per 154 deliveries at 81.33 runs each. It was also a lacklustre performance from Anderson, with a strike rate of 118.50, a far cry from his career figure of less than half of that, 57.47. </div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9uuA-LLo8bU9O6WdizxnzACKIAMoFuvdakL_A7qZlGtv8ecj6ApNY5Mh1YW-rPbKEp3UINkUHP2KUFHyH1e-7x7_YHgdxXZc6LXPRMJp_xV9o02AxDdaURLxL7PeH2Mk5dCJkOpcFHg/s1600/worst.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9uuA-LLo8bU9O6WdizxnzACKIAMoFuvdakL_A7qZlGtv8ecj6ApNY5Mh1YW-rPbKEp3UINkUHP2KUFHyH1e-7x7_YHgdxXZc6LXPRMJp_xV9o02AxDdaURLxL7PeH2Mk5dCJkOpcFHg/s400/worst.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Captain Cautious made too many mistakes, and it's time for Joe Root to have a go. If his 3 overs in Mumbai when he made the best captaincy decision England made in the entire series are anything to go by, England may have a better captain again. An attacking captain. Like Vaughan. In Visag, Cook turned to Ansari before either Ali or Rashid - why? Ansari was picked as England's third spinner, and indeed after Dhaka, if you had to pick between Batty and Ansari (as England did), what did Ansari provide that Batty didn't? On the evidence of Bangladesh, nothing.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Going forwards, England's 2017 schedule is so packed that England will inevitably rest some of their players (a policy I'm not a fan of - Gareth Batty, who was 38 in the summer, played every single Surrey fixture bar one). Root, Stokes, Buttler, Rashid, Ali, Woakes, and possibly Bairstow currently play in all formats. That's not even accounting for players such as Jason Roy or Stuart Broad who want to get into the other formats' teams. They may find themselves missing the dead rubber in each format. We may end up with a situation where we get to the final test against the West Indies and we go in with Cook, Hameed, Jennings, Roy, Foakes (wk), S Curran, Broad, Batty, Wood, Finn, Anderson - or something equally ridiculous.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Time for England to let go of the lacklustre Cook and move on.</div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-65912059993662021152016-11-14T20:44:00.000+00:002016-11-14T20:44:01.183+00:00How did Trump win?<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yep, this is another one of my stats pieces, so if you're looking for lots of speculation about sociological factors, you're not in the right place.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Donald Trump defied the odds to win the US Presidential election. But how did he defy the odds and the polls? What did he do that we got completely wrong? Let's delve into it to find out.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgTOGwSLHPWtfBmcyhVsimOJLGkJuZrr74RVnnwjWLQahQ1wuqxPaV9OHV7KNrPwu13JvOGGTpy6TVsHgZZzC4kDeS8f68lfx4MDU-LaK7MPLXEMB0STDwOpDQFxDdR8vP-p6P7enehQ/s1600/Results.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgTOGwSLHPWtfBmcyhVsimOJLGkJuZrr74RVnnwjWLQahQ1wuqxPaV9OHV7KNrPwu13JvOGGTpy6TVsHgZZzC4kDeS8f68lfx4MDU-LaK7MPLXEMB0STDwOpDQFxDdR8vP-p6P7enehQ/s400/Results.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Trump really had no right to go down the board as far as he did, really. Taking Michigan, for example: Trump needed a 4.8% swing to take this and he got a 4.9% swing here. We don't have any figures yet for the congressional districts in Maine and Nebraska, but all throughout the night the the BBC were predicting that the second one in both states would swing to the other party. I found this odd considering how deep they were in "safe" territory on both sides. As it was, Nebraska II stayed red.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Whilst 306 vs 232 seems like a big margin, it really wasn't. Had Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Maine II gone blue, we would have had a 269 vs 269 tie, and then, would Paul Ryan really have voted for Donald Trump in the House of Representatives? We will never know. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Just how uniform is America? Actually, all the swings in each particular state were close to the national swing of 1.9% from Democrat to Republican. We can further look at this by use of a box plot, indicating the swings in each state. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbsxUjufuf2AJdiK8jXjDlE4FV0kkTK1khimXHG0qkQ2Nty4r9Ub33SQMMd93YJUIPDPGUQNGQnggF0zETRPCe0JXpvB0v9EhQAwrAH3A-GKwS9tye1G7ctSm9bp31yv7LWzeGA3apXA/s1600/box+plot.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="100" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbsxUjufuf2AJdiK8jXjDlE4FV0kkTK1khimXHG0qkQ2Nty4r9Ub33SQMMd93YJUIPDPGUQNGQnggF0zETRPCe0JXpvB0v9EhQAwrAH3A-GKwS9tye1G7ctSm9bp31yv7LWzeGA3apXA/s400/box+plot.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Immediately, your eyes are drawn to Utah, where there was a huge swing to the Democrats. There wasn't, really - Evan McMullin ran as an independent and gained real momentum, taking many votes off Donald Trump, but ultimately unsuccessful in his bid to win the state. And that leads me onto the third party effects.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Gary Johnson hit 9% in New Mexico but it really was a terrible election night for him, and he is the reason Donald Trump won, one might argue. Two days before election day, Johnson was polling at around 7%, and with Trump looking like he couldn't win, Johnson's campaign team released a video telling the public that a vote for the Libertarians would be a vote to block Hillary Clinton from becoming President, as Donald Trump couldn't win...</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /><iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jxlQVA2UTtw/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jxlQVA2UTtw?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
As I explained in my first blog post on the election, Johnson's support was mainly from dissident Republicans who had voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 but did not want to vote for Donald Trump. But it appears they did not recognise this fact; throughout the campaign Johnson's campaign targeted dissident Bernie Sanders supporters, highlighting his similarities on social and foreign policy to Sanders'. But by telling his supporters that Trump couldn't win, in effect he was telling them it was safe to vote for Trump. Oops. On election day, his poll numbers dropped by 3% and Donald Trump's increased by 3%. Gary Johnson's campaign manager put Donald Trump in the White House.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
But let's go back to the swings between the Democrats and the Republicans, The national swing, as has already been stated, was 1.9% from Democrat to Republican. Not enough on a uniform national swing? Correct. But in the swing states, that figure was much higher, 2.8%. It is therefore a great targeting strategy from the Trump campaign, and poor from Clinton's campaign that she did not visit Wisconsin once. Wisconsin should have stayed blue; it went red.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigOOLWOk1JT6aGnHdRwTE_NRL0Cd8pB-6TOYZnuFDKVvmx2tx84AmGVo0PfuKdHQ2yxOI8n3VLKlxn_nkfTkjONrs7Fltu8YQZf53cNKtdMbwEXf83XE2YS4uLqUcxREbfMA5HYSqR6Q/s1600/swingo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigOOLWOk1JT6aGnHdRwTE_NRL0Cd8pB-6TOYZnuFDKVvmx2tx84AmGVo0PfuKdHQ2yxOI8n3VLKlxn_nkfTkjONrs7Fltu8YQZf53cNKtdMbwEXf83XE2YS4uLqUcxREbfMA5HYSqR6Q/s400/swingo.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1OYXNxZMVCSQT4x4WLfXHCUBI06PDJ8wSSKYx0nmoOgg0bFLF31WxQNTerGT_DFRreAUdsNOEGfZQjWR6LqAglApO_6_QcxQk6TPYtmq7G6P01OHXs-905zj5oaC6_hiOjB8t31qZvw/s1600/swing+states.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1OYXNxZMVCSQT4x4WLfXHCUBI06PDJ8wSSKYx0nmoOgg0bFLF31WxQNTerGT_DFRreAUdsNOEGfZQjWR6LqAglApO_6_QcxQk6TPYtmq7G6P01OHXs-905zj5oaC6_hiOjB8t31qZvw/s400/swing+states.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
As I've already said, the biggest Democrat swing was in Utah, but aside from that only 10 out of 51 "states" for which we have data (we are missing the 5 congressional districts, but we do have the District of Columbia) produced swings from Romney to Clinton. The other 40 all produced some sort of swing from Obama to Trump.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Clinton, to give her credit, did very well to hang on to Virginia and Colorado. At the beginning of the night, Arizona and Georgia were not "called" immediately, and as these were safe in Republican territory, this was a good sign for Clinton. Nonetheless, the fact that these states stayed red despite swings to Clinton showed us just how terrible the strategy was - that they decided to attack marginal Republican states rather than defend their own states like Wisconsin and Michigan. Her attack board was a complete failure:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUyKLdrsincz_rlCNJoS746xiODG8FlDR36HGyYDp2_26t91tUxuzp2GAHWP1Jr1N9nZ1NDPKQ9ty_x5gftuMLmD0Y_eraB2sI8pPXxrrjJ63ns-_tZpyCkpgxCLq9VHyjWw_FxTrOkw/s1600/clinton+targets.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUyKLdrsincz_rlCNJoS746xiODG8FlDR36HGyYDp2_26t91tUxuzp2GAHWP1Jr1N9nZ1NDPKQ9ty_x5gftuMLmD0Y_eraB2sI8pPXxrrjJ63ns-_tZpyCkpgxCLq9VHyjWw_FxTrOkw/s400/clinton+targets.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Trump missed Virginia and Colorado (number 3 and 4 targets), but he picked up states lower down the board that required such a large swing we didn't even consider them individually - Michigan, Maine II, and Wisconsin. This compensated for his failure earlier on.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8Hzm3fkYnvkfVOlDzg_6SbfHA5UUVAcAxrU1sZxDd5xk98-Zyo_NdDw_wKZmx7ixbUnVjQ8ljRelxpXmAng7lpzXsHBRaAtSv3apWeD9lvzBOjDvRttJ4Sj9ESED-VlL1oiC0RCU2ww/s1600/trump+targets.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8Hzm3fkYnvkfVOlDzg_6SbfHA5UUVAcAxrU1sZxDd5xk98-Zyo_NdDw_wKZmx7ixbUnVjQ8ljRelxpXmAng7lpzXsHBRaAtSv3apWeD9lvzBOjDvRttJ4Sj9ESED-VlL1oiC0RCU2ww/s400/trump+targets.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
For the Democrats to win the presidency back in 2020, the easiest path to victory (notwithstanding the congressional districts) is to take Michigan on a 0.2% swing, Wisconsin on a 0.5% swing, and Pennsylvania on a 0.6% swing. That would put the Democrats back in the White House - and it gives Donald Trump no room to mess up. At all. Ohio may be out of reach for the Democrats (4.3% swing required), but it may not be necessary.</div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-90051706104679689592016-11-02T17:57:00.002+00:002016-11-02T17:57:26.362+00:00US Election 2016 - Update<div style="text-align: justify;">
There's now under a week to go until election night, and since my blog post in May, a lot has happened, but this is what the ramifications mean.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As I said in May, it's incredibly difficult for the Republican candidate to win, irrespective of the fact that person is Donald Trump. As such, on a uniform national swing, he needs a 2.7% swing from the Democrats to the Republicans to win. In other words, everyone who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 needs to vote for Donald Trump, as well as 2.7 out of every 100 people who voted for Barack Obama.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A poll of polls is the cumulative amalgamation of several polls over a very short period. So I'm going to construct my own poll of polls, looking solely at polls published on 1 November. They show the following:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFWpCS0ksxXoUbtr6Mki6ZRqTv4VuFWck_RoFxlOzPvTJx_WfJv-fYzjrx3-KAM1TxgZ_bO3xptFrh8Qe7WWm0KqbvntKipy-SSkf6iM1KmpCqPnl20u_m6acO104I58R7RZAk2C21cw/s1600/1+Nov+Poll+of+Polls.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFWpCS0ksxXoUbtr6Mki6ZRqTv4VuFWck_RoFxlOzPvTJx_WfJv-fYzjrx3-KAM1TxgZ_bO3xptFrh8Qe7WWm0KqbvntKipy-SSkf6iM1KmpCqPnl20u_m6acO104I58R7RZAk2C21cw/s400/1+Nov+Poll+of+Polls.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
This was weighted in favour of polls with larger sample sizes. Now, what does that mean on the change on 2012, and then on the Swingometer?</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2ujpqn8EAxR6UI9m-XOcMM1rMo5-gn6RXtsxiD2lCRyzduVnFPdxcVAXh4g7jiYlZkVt53O6ZA9706YP8ju1BOsJ_BMj2-uhQtES23n8BqNYWOcke3AjZ-yeMgnAyxbkhfZGrocEV8A/s1600/swing+1+nov.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="112" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2ujpqn8EAxR6UI9m-XOcMM1rMo5-gn6RXtsxiD2lCRyzduVnFPdxcVAXh4g7jiYlZkVt53O6ZA9706YP8ju1BOsJ_BMj2-uhQtES23n8BqNYWOcke3AjZ-yeMgnAyxbkhfZGrocEV8A/s200/swing+1+nov.jpg" width="200" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrKXYKnyYk0_ZSEEJC1HtPO0BpQ7wqH3dm13a4UWdBnwbYJvfM8juFQ6tFerfefbHh4kcPRkEMJSN_1IA0GBKxsW4TAv02R2R1hQhHAP2-QkmaJXEKalqJqmfG2IiyzBO7kSElJlYKhg/s1600/1+Nov+Poll+of+Polls+change.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="111" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrKXYKnyYk0_ZSEEJC1HtPO0BpQ7wqH3dm13a4UWdBnwbYJvfM8juFQ6tFerfefbHh4kcPRkEMJSN_1IA0GBKxsW4TAv02R2R1hQhHAP2-QkmaJXEKalqJqmfG2IiyzBO7kSElJlYKhg/s200/1+Nov+Poll+of+Polls+change.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
On a Uniform National Swing, Donald Trump would become president as things stand. The biggest problem for him, however, is that he's not, in terms of <strike>constituency</strike> state polls, doing enough. He wouldn't win Virgina (#3 on his target list), Colorado (#4) and Pennsylvania (#5), Incredibly, that would be 269 vs 269. Otherwise, the swingometer is consistent uniformly. Making a bad situation worse is that there would be a Democrat gain in North Carolina. Clinton is on her way to the White House.</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Furthermore, the indepedent Evan McMullin in Utah means that Donald Trump could lose 6 electoral votes.</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
A lot of air has gone out of Gary Johnson's balloon sadly, meaning that his potential targets in New Mexico, for example, are heading to Clinton and not to Trump. Johnson's highest state at the moment is Maine, but he's 34 points behind Hillary Clinton there. Gary Johnson can stop Hillary Clinton from becoming President. Donald Trump will not win.</div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-11047819165898172442016-06-30T00:02:00.000+01:002016-06-30T00:02:05.895+01:00The Psephology - Why Did Leave Win?<div style="text-align: justify;">
I was for a Leave vote - but I'll be honest. I didn't think we were going to win. Particularly at about 10pm on the night, when Nigel Farage conceded off the back of two entrance polls, I found myself, as with last year's general election, repeating a pattern - going into overdrive and hoping, rather than expecting, a result better than what the poll suggested. And two years in a row, I got it. But there are many patterns to determine as to why Vote Leave won from the psephology.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
Reason One: AV</h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Remember the AV referendum? Nope, nor do I. But what is interesting to see is that there is a very strong correlation between the AV votes and the EU Referendum votes (discounting Gibraltar, as they did not vote in the AV referendum). Those who voted for AV are more likely to vote for Remain. Admittedly, the top end gets a little bit complicated, but one could say that London, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, the three anomalies, are so far away from the rest of the country we should consider them outliers and not count them.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXosYo3SFHXzE0Flc73VlrwHxnxz-3NNTCwADzUcmqGiKOEk7hFCxBFseqKhyphenhyphen1_8PlbrQMDnnmlyiV4AD81mvaLcze6_pRDfcZE_TBtmj-dqJZBbV0m3Ziwl3rq-aSHfWMqvVnE4pCXQ/s1600/AV+Brexit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXosYo3SFHXzE0Flc73VlrwHxnxz-3NNTCwADzUcmqGiKOEk7hFCxBFseqKhyphenhyphen1_8PlbrQMDnnmlyiV4AD81mvaLcze6_pRDfcZE_TBtmj-dqJZBbV0m3Ziwl3rq-aSHfWMqvVnE4pCXQ/s400/AV+Brexit.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
When one discounts those three outliers (London, Scotland, and Northern Ireland), you get an even more interesting chart:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWt2U6upRR8RRa4ZuJ6fZhL4FQHd19jzIL-KFnRfOD_a7RWngXYwytma7D-U40KPKG8Qu6WhUuBF5iInmqjdo0_EMHtOKqZj1R1OzZDIhDQtPfg0s3SXG8AxYFKZIM0Hmk8W6Ie13c3Q/s1600/Brexit+no+outliers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWt2U6upRR8RRa4ZuJ6fZhL4FQHd19jzIL-KFnRfOD_a7RWngXYwytma7D-U40KPKG8Qu6WhUuBF5iInmqjdo0_EMHtOKqZj1R1OzZDIhDQtPfg0s3SXG8AxYFKZIM0Hmk8W6Ie13c3Q/s400/Brexit+no+outliers.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The one anomaly that sticks out there is the South East of England, and to this we can speculate that the Liberal Democrats had a lot of support in that part of the world when the AV referendum occurred and so people voted for the Lib Dem option. Either that or they voted against the EU because the Common Fisheries Policy affected them more than most.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
But why are London, Scotland, and Northern Ireland so far away from the rest of the country on the EU and on AV? I really don't know regarding Northern Ireland, because their politics are so far away from the rest of the UK anyway.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Scotland and London, in general elections, is quite far Left wing, and so are in favour of cases such as electoral reform and so on, as well as Right wing parties doing disproportionately badly there: they are, famously, UKIP's least successful hunting grounds; it has now started to gain a foothold in Wales. Unfortunately, the BBC's results page for Election 2015 is not as comprehensive as it was in 2010, for it did not do regions, and as I lack the patience to calculate it myself, we can only guess as to whether there's a correlation there.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Whilst one might retort this with the fact that UKIP are now also in favour of electoral reform, one has to remember they changed their mind after getting oh-so-close in about a million seats in the general election, and they were against AV at the time. I have neither the time nor the patience to go through all 400-odd counting areas, mind you, so I can't break this down any further. For now.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Reason Two: The Generation Game</h2>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There has also been much talk about how "old white people" ruined the referendum result and should not have been allowed to vote in it, blah, blah, etc., etc. Now, not only can you ban old people from voting unless you ban terminally ill patients (because they don't have a future too, right?), but I think the first piece of interest here is not that it was the age <i>per se</i> that was the main difference, it is the jobs that these generations take. Our nation very much has its jobs being a generation thing. Allow me to explain.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
How many students are between 18-24? Probably about 95% of them, if not more. And practically every University argued for a Remain vote. By contrast, how many 18-24 year old fishermen are there? Virtually zero. And how many fisheries argued for a Remain vote? Virtually none of them, if at all. The age gap came from jobs. How many young people work for JML? Tate & Lyle? These firms supported Leave and the workers did what they thought was best for their job. It correlates (and causes) the age gap.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, the turnout of the youth compared even to last year's general election is striking. According to the Intergenerational Foundation, a group that moans about the generation divides, 43% of 18-24 year olds voted in last year's general election. Now that dropped to 36% for the referendum, a drop of 7 percentage points compared to a rise of 6 percentage points across the country as a whole.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are about 5.9 million 18-24 year olds in the UK (a figure I came up with thanks to a population pyramid and some dodgy maths). Now, if only 36% of them were bothered to turn up, and polls suggest that between 72% and 75% of them voted Remain, if we take the midpoint of that range and apply those two figures, there were only about 1.5 million "Remain" votes from young people. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Would 16-17 year olds have affected the result? No: there's no guarantee as to whether they would turn out or not and as to how they would vote. Even with a full turnout, the Independent says that 16-17 year olds would have to be 93% Remain. Using a bit of GCSE Maths from that figure, there are approximately 1.5 million 16-17 year olds in the UK. A 100% turnout with 100% support for Remain would have resulted in a win for Remain by about 198,000 votes. And that's not accounting for turnout, a less-than-100% Remain support, or any waiverers up the age ladder choosing to Leave on the basis that they "know" Remain would have more support (a theory which is difficult to explain in words). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So let's apply some polling and so on, shall we?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The one poll done had 16-17 year olds at 82% support, so straightaway the result wouldn't have changed. There's no research done on whether they would have turned out, so we have to guess using the following graph (using Sky data) and seeing where what your physics teacher might call "the curve of best fit" goes:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje3bIyneaf2XxqCQ-b0Mdi6WyyXLGXqM5TuZ6xWnIKZGPbMY0z5pT9u6iwvHLMhsgWRTNCJvIpmoNLK-SGT0qiIx1zBi9cDFrlXMRSzxmyhl_r3ZZV815W828D4Gsmds0Zblhpi3ZuUQ/s1600/Brexit+turnout.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje3bIyneaf2XxqCQ-b0Mdi6WyyXLGXqM5TuZ6xWnIKZGPbMY0z5pT9u6iwvHLMhsgWRTNCJvIpmoNLK-SGT0qiIx1zBi9cDFrlXMRSzxmyhl_r3ZZV815W828D4Gsmds0Zblhpi3ZuUQ/s400/Brexit+turnout.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Oh dear. We'll call it about 25%, and so there may only have been an extra 300,000 remain votes overall and an extra 66,000 votes for leave, which would still have kept the margin of Leave's victory above a million votes.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Reason Three: The Even Silenter, Even Bigger Majority</h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It seems quite clear, that after the general election and now the referendum, that the silent majority are growing in number. Why are the majority silent? Because of what I would call the "violent left" - the kind of people who see the Tories and all Right-leaning people as scum, the kind of people who buy the Socialist Worker (of which there is currently a petition to ban as its actions have contravened the Terrorism Act 2000), the kind of people who protest democracy and election results.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These people tar all Tories as "scum" and screech a lot whenever something doesn't go their way. Think of Margaret Thatcher's death. Or the defacing of the cenotaph after the Conservative victory last year. And now people demand a second referendum because they didn't get their way and want to move the goalposts so that we will have a "neverendum", resulting in Remain, the status quo, winning forever.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As a result, many Tories and Leave voters who aren't every name under the sun stay in the shadows. In 1992 this was called the "Shy Tory" factor, and it's now bigger than ever. Or, rather, it's a "shy (seemingly) unpopular opinion" factor, because it also applied to Gordon Brown in 2010. Over 17.4 million Leave voters cannot all be racists, xenophobes, sexists, etc.. Logically, therefore, there will be people who do not want to be associated with this brush - and that's the beauty of a secret ballot.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I was not as active in the referendum campaign as I had been in others (because the date of the referendum was very poor for me) and so I did not meet as many people as normal. But of the people I did meet from Leave, a lot of them were worried, scared even, and upset that they had been called racists, morons, etc.. Therefore no one wanted to be seen dead in Leave shirts for fear of assault, or even, perhaps <a href="http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/nus-will-condemn-israel-and-ukip-but-not-isis--lJLK98e7Ul" target="_blank">death by association, as the NUS have condemned UKIP</a>, Israel, the Holocaust Memorial Day, and cisgender gay men. But not ISIL. Anyway, that's a story for another day.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The "old white people" are under attack from the over-politically-correct violent Left, whose notion of equality is to drive the "pale, male, and stale" into the ground. And this limits freedom of speech as a result. One day, these people may become leader of parties like Labour, the Greens, and so on, which keep getting dragged further left and left by its members (Jeremy Corbyn's crisis springs to mind, I hope he doesn't get bored of IKEA when choosing a new cabinet).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But come election day, when you don't have to say anything, just stroll up to a polling station and put a cross in a box, the silent majority shuffle along to the polling stations and defy the polls. Last year, this led to accusations that David Cameron fixed the election. This year, no one can say such a thing (it's the pens wot won it, of course...).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
________________________</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I am an amateur at these things, so whilst it might not be accurate it at least goes some way to getting an answer... right? Please feel free to comment below.</div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-26761922417427197832016-05-24T00:27:00.000+01:002016-05-24T00:27:23.216+01:00Why I Want a "Leave" Vote in the #EURef<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'd love to stay in a reformed European Union. I really would. The problem is that it just doesn't want to reform, and will never reform. In fact, the famous debate in 1990 where Thatcher went "no, no, no" is still relevant. And it's not just me. There are those on the Left who want to leave. There are those who believe in globalisation, so want to leave. And anyone who believes in democracy should want to leave the EU.<br />
<br />
<h2>
DEMOCRACY AND ACCOUNTABILITY</h2>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The first big problem with the organisation is... er, where the hell is it? It's not like Westminster, where you can stroll up to Parliament and say "this is the British parliament". There are over 90 EU buildings in Brussels alone, as well as a lot more in Strasbourg and Luxembourg. So, straight off the bat, it's not transparent enough to be held accountable. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, we all know how British elections work in a constituency. Once every five years, you put a cross on a paper, they're all counted up, and we declare a new Prime Minister. Straightforward. Now, if you try to explain how the EU works without researching it beforehand, then I'll give you £5. There are several main institutions, and, again, £5 to anyone who can tell me the difference without researching it.<br />
<br />
What is the difference between the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Commission, and the European Parliament?</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are four Presidents of the EU, for crying out loud. And again, £5 if you can tell me the difference between them without research. This is getting expensive. In fact, Labour MP Kate Hoey says that "I wouldn't profess to understand the detail of how it all works".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, who's in charge of the EU?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Er...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, name the British Prime Minister. Yep, that's him: David Cameron. Now, name the four Presidents of the EU. Er... um... ah... no... er... no, I'm stuck.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And so that leads us to just how unaccountable the EU really is. I can name two of my MEPs in London, and I don't even know how many represent me. In fact, I'm not sure anyone aside from me knows who their MEPs are. Some friends of mine have even said "what is an MEP?" And that's because MEPs are completely useless - not as people, but in terms of power (the one MEP I know personally is a nice man). The European Parliament cannot propose legislation, initiate legislation, or repeal legislation. It has a strong claim to being the most useless parliament in the world. Only the European Commission can do these things.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Once something is European law, there is NOTHING that can be done to change it.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The European Commission debate laws in secret and we cannot access their deliberations. Jonathan Hill is the Brit on this panel - no, not the ex-Fulham football coach - and no one's ever heard of him in this country. What's more, no one ever voted for him. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In fact, I would go so far as to say that the European Union is not undemocratic, but anti-democratic.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As a result, because they're not accountable, let's have a look at the Brussels gravy train (courtesy of investigations by "Brexit: The Movie"). The following are all inside the EU and open to EU people only: a shopping centre; a hair salon; a sports centre; a sauna; and a massage parlour. In fact, 10,000 Eurocrats are paid more than David Cameron - 1 in 5 of everyone who works for the EU. Yep, they employ a staggering 50,000 people.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But here's yet another list of allowed expenses for EU officials: relocation allowance; household allowance; family allowance; entertainment allowance; private healthcare allowance; private education (for your children) allowance; viagra. MEPs get, on top of this: £250 per day for turning up; £41,000 per year for phone and computer bills; £225,000 per year to cover staffing costs; a lower rate of tax. This is what led to Nigel Farage's expenses scandal.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
People also talk a lot about the UK's 'influence' within the EU. Well, the UK has voted against the European Council 72 times, and has been defeated on every single occasion. In addition, only 3.6% of European Commission officials actually come from the UK. So no, we don't have any "influence", and we cannot hold it accountable.<br />
<br />
The anti-EU scenes we see in Athens and so on are markedly similar to what we saw in the 1970s in the UK. Strikes, strikes, and more strikes. What we see is the people saying one thing and the Eurocrats saying another, and since the European Parliament is powerless, it is no more than a flowery gesture. Europeans voted in a bunch of far-right parties into it in 2014 to indicate a protest. You could make the argument UKIP counts here too, seeing as it was the first time anyone other than the Conservatives or Labour won a national election since 1910.<br />
<br />
The EU could propose the slaughtering of the first born and probably get it through. That's just how undemocratic and anti-democratic the EU really is.<br />
<h2>
SMALL BUSINESSES</h2>
<br />
Now, not only does the EU give lots of our money to the Arts in the UK (which is why they're all in favour of a remain vote, the BBC included), they've also destroyed industries altogether. The European Union's quotas system has meant that the UK's fishing waters have been divided up with other nation states, and the British government was powerless to stop this happening. This means that the fisheries in particularly the North East of England are losing out - The Netherlands have rights to an area approximately 3 miles off the coast of the River Tyne. When the non-EU countries, such as Norway, are selling their fish to us, we know we're in trouble. In fact, the EU has even tried to pay off British fishermen to destroy their boats! They foresaw the negative impacts on the UK economy that were to be caused, which makes such a policy even more ridiculous.<br />
<br />
Now, a bit of background. Germany and Britain, at different stages, embraced free market policies and saw huge booms in their economies, albeit with a slight time lag. Germany's post-war recovery, free of government intervention, was dubbed an "economic miracle". By contrast, the post-war UK economy consisted of a paternalistic and failing government. There was even a governmental advice video saying that one should leave 18 inches between chairs and furniture. It took nearly 10 years for rationing to go. The economy grew a little, but it had such a low base after the war it was virtually impossible for it to reduce further. What's better to look at was inflation, rationing, and beaurocratism. In the 1970s, we were called the 'sick man of Europe'. When the UK finally adopted the free market in the 1980s, we haven't returned to how it was beforehand, so this is clearly the way forward.<br />
<br />
We should have seen what was coming when we signed up to the EEC. Firstly, the architect wasn't German, he was French, and had spent much of the war advising the British government to implement a lot of the regulations that led to the 1970s disaster. Secondly, Ted Heath signed a document so big it required two strong men to carry it. Nowadays, there is so much regulation that (aside from the environmental effects of having so much paper) if one tried to codify it, the regulations would be as high as Nelson's Column. Even the EU themselves won't say how many laws there are.<br />
<br />
Only 6% of British businesses export to the continent, so let's have a look at some of the rulings and laws that affect daily life and that domestic firms must abide to even though there's no reason to seeing as they do not export to the continent:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MGeDX-6DINM/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MGeDX-6DINM?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
If you can't play the video above, there's a total of over 20,000 laws experienced between the time you wake up and the time you get in your car. [Caution: you may be about to see something Left wing on this blog...] Big businesses don't particularly mind regulation. After all, it keeps the small people out and has the power to lobby for bigger regulations and corrupt the EU at its very cores - note the plural.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
In fact, there have been some ridiculous regulations imposed by the EU:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
- Bananas must be a certain weight and bendiness</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
- Children cannot blow up balloons</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
- Cucumbers must be a certain shape</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
- You can't eat your pet horse, but you can eat someone else's</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div>
Yes, the 6% of firms will need to abide by EU regulations, but similarly, anyone who exports to the US needs to abide by US regulations, anyone who exports to China needs to abide by Chinese regulations... yadda yadda etc etc.</div>
<h2 style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
GLOBALISATION AND PROTECTIONISM</h2>
<div>
Small failing firms cannot compete with their rivals in developing nations. The answer? To stop the UK and other EU nations from trading with such nations, the EU has imposed tariffs, quotas, and regulations. This means that the developing world cannot improve, nor can we import cheaper. This is why the Remain side cry "but we trade with the EU a lot". Because there are no alternatives.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In 1990 Thatcher predicted that "a totally protectionist policy [...] would lead to retaliation against us, reduce the capability of our export industries and therefore our standard of living, and make our industries inefficient and therefore cost the housewife a great deal more. I note also that [people complain] about goods entering Britain from Third world countries where wages are far lower. I have heard [them] say several times [...] that Third world countries need help. They need trade as much as they need aid."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
She was right.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Protectionism is only necessary to protect failed industries. The EU is effectively a locked-off country, not willing to trade with anyone else. Cheaper goods give us, consumers, more money - and if we're not willing to trade with anyone outside of the little "band" that is the EU, then that's what happens. Prices have gone up. The consumer has lost out. Living standards have been squeezed. The poor have got poorer.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If we are going to help the Third World, then we need to start trading with them. Think of African producers who can't even sell their goods to us so get no money at all. The third world needs trade as much as it needs aid. And if we think that we can't get foodstuff from Africa, then what are we? And it wouldn't eradicate the UK's economy. Some people in this country (well, my mother did, anyway), always like to "buy British" when possible. So the UK economy would not be eradicated as the Remain side are scaremongering people into telling us.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In fact, the EU is so protectionist that it engaged in a one-way buffer stock scheme, where the government artificially controls supply so that the price is what they want. The EU bought so much produce off the market and allowed it to rot, creating an artificial shortage and higher prices. This led to the infamous "wine lakes" and "butter mountains":</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>EU protectionism adds between 10% and 20% to the cost of food.</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
But if you're protecting something so key, such as steel, then this has a knock-on effect to other industries. So not only is the steel industry affected, then so is, basically, the entire manufacturing industry. <i>Tate & Lyle</i>, a sugar company, also suffer for the same reason in the sugar industry. This has cost thousands of jobs and a downsize of 50% in the last six years. In fact, such policies cost the company about £80m per year. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So not only are consumers and producers losing out, but in the long term the protected firm will lose out too. Protecting a firm does not make it more competitive. It is nothing more than a bit of a giveaway. The firm needs reform and throwing money at them won't help. The problem gets worse... and worse. Tariffs on foodstuffs are approximately 12% and manufactured goods 4%. If we leave, is that really such a big price to pay for the 6% of British firms that do export to the EU? No.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The EU is now an economic basket case. Every continent in the world (Antarctica aside) is now outgrowing Europe. The Chinese are leading the way, smashing down the shackles of communism to open up their borders to trade and we've seen the results. Other ex-communist nations are doing the same thing - Azerbaijan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Armenia, Montenegro, Serbia, etc... The EU is the only declining trade bloc in the world. We have shackled ourselves to it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And now the big question....</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h2>
COULD WE SURVIVE ON OUR OWN?</h2>
<div>
One word: Switzerland.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
1 - Zurich is the wealthiest city in the world and has the highest quality of life in the world. </div>
<div>
2 - Switzerland has Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with many countries in the world.</div>
<div>
3 - Swiss exports per head are five times higher than ours.</div>
<div>
4 - Swiss unemployment is 4.5%; the EU is 10.2%.</div>
<div>
5 - Many leading firms are based there - and it's not in the EU!</div>
<div>
6 - GDP per capita is approximately twice as high as the UK.</div>
<div>
7 - Average wages are higher than the UK.</div>
<div>
8 - It is a more equal country, and high taxes are not existent here. Taxing the rich does not automatically make the poor richer, it drags everyone down to a poor level.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And people say that becoming another Switzerland is a bad thing.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Indeed, Swiss economists say that non-membership of the EU is the sole reason as to why they're doing so well. It's more democratic than the UK (let alone the EU), is one of the least regulated in the world, and even the EU admit Switzerland is ridiculously innovative.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"Ah", I hear you shout, "but won't we need a trade deal?" Er... no. Go to your local shop and note where all the goods are from. Even the import tariffs won't stop people importing from non-EU countries at the moment. But we have no trade deals with some of these countries... and that's the thing. <b>YOU DON'T NEED TRADE DEALS TO TRADE.</b> </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But fear not, Remainers, for the EU will want trade deals with us anyway. The EU is desperate to keep the goods flowing into the UK. How many Audis, Volkswagens, BMWs are there on our streets? We are the biggest market for the rest of the EU. We need self-belief and self-confidence. They need us more than we need them. And because we don't <b><i>need</i> </b>trade deals to trade, we hold all the negotiating cards.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But trade deals are still useful. However, the EU are rubbish at them. The GDP of the countries with which the EU has trade deals with combines to £5trn. But Switzerland's are nearly six times that at £29trn, Singapore seven times the EU at £35trn, and South Korea nine times at £45trn. Tiny Chile has trade deals with countries whose GDP sums to £50trn! Even if you add to the EU the value of its own internal market, you're still only on £18trn.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Leaving the EU would mean we could race through some of these deals. Even Obama's "back of the queue" comment is meaningless considering we'd be only second in line. There's so much potential in the UK economy shackled by the EU. And we're already seeing new firms, new businesses in the UK. Over 400,000 new businesses in the last five years. And leaving the EU and such shackles could cause rapid expansion and the end to the oligopolistic firms in energy, transport, and so on. We can do it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h2>
CONCLUSION</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
OK, there are some benefits to the EU. Cheaper phone rates, fags, holidays, and booze abroad. But that's really not worth all of the cons.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Do we want to be governed by an anti-democratic organisation that can impose laws, rules, and regulations on us? A vote for the European project? For greater political integration? For an economic basket case?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There will be no second referendum, despite what Farage may say. This is an unbelievable opportunity. And we need to grasp it by both hands to create the better Britain everybody wants.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let's vote against anti-democratism.</div>
<div>
Let's vote against overregulation.</div>
<div>
Let's vote for a better Britain.</div>
<div>
Let's vote leave.</div>
</div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-37043695895854623262016-05-18T23:28:00.001+01:002016-05-18T23:28:19.967+01:00US Election 2016<div style="text-align: justify;">
Swing is a very British concept. The transition of voters from one party to another. Popularised by psephologists David Butler and Robin McKenzie, the swingometer has been a staple of British election nights since the 1950s. But could it be used for an American presidential election?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Taking cue from Peter Snow, I will be showing you exactly what could happen on US Election Night. The difficulty is that the swing in America is not uniform at all, so the swingometer may be completely pointless.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Indeed, Donald Trump need not do well in certain states in order to win the election. In contrast to the 150-200 seats at British general elections that change hands, only 10 out of 56 (don't ask) states have the potential to change hands. They are referred to as "swing states" and so the swing in these 10 states determines all the difference. Swing variation in these states in America is incredibly high, so it's left to us, the Brits, to act like sheep, wafting from Labour to the Conservatives and vice versa in unison.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But could you actually use a swingometer for the US presidential election?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yes.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And here it is.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiknVrwHOU4HlJiCIgcpSOLlsZADI1PqKZOfAWDOg10P7SR_K06VFto32814bw0GxylLKcyXqvHoYxc9cHYqffnH31SH1HyhkPVgkGGLHVv01ksZLI8PzvRzr8ZQtJ97hCbZqUJOBpK5g/s1600/US+swingometer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiknVrwHOU4HlJiCIgcpSOLlsZADI1PqKZOfAWDOg10P7SR_K06VFto32814bw0GxylLKcyXqvHoYxc9cHYqffnH31SH1HyhkPVgkGGLHVv01ksZLI8PzvRzr8ZQtJ97hCbZqUJOBpK5g/s400/US+swingometer.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The first thing that jumps out is just how well Barack Obama did four years ago. There's not much realistic territory for Hilary Clinton to get into as a result. Only North Carolina could she take, otherwise she would need a swing of 3.6% to take the next state, Nebraska's 2nd District. And no, that's not a rule from Mornington Crescent.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Because Obama won every "swing state" save for North Carolina, Donald Trump has a mountain to climb. Trump needs a uniform swing of 3.7%. After the Obama landslide in 2008, Mitt Romney could only muster up a swing of 1.7%, and so Trump really needs to do well.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
That said, because Obama did so well, it will be difficult for Clinton to obtain a swing to the Democrats. A swing to Clinton of 1% would take North Carolina, giving her an extra 15 seats in the electoral college (don't ask). </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
In fact, the target list for Clinton is quite thin, and it's more that she will be looking to hang on rather than attack. Resultantly, Trump's target list is quite expansive, and there are some winnable targets on here:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE-0lp4AnSn-o2TT4BYEXzAmUW8zevQxmk7atsZVRsNRhnGADwzbn5QTchsY9Qr4RJFow7cCZdwwMuSfnqesWfBUmFz6_Se54qb9KRfzFszeJ4smd9pQPOPiUvBrfzueuGoGkoHa0e0g/s1600/Trump+targets.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE-0lp4AnSn-o2TT4BYEXzAmUW8zevQxmk7atsZVRsNRhnGADwzbn5QTchsY9Qr4RJFow7cCZdwwMuSfnqesWfBUmFz6_Se54qb9KRfzFszeJ4smd9pQPOPiUvBrfzueuGoGkoHa0e0g/s400/Trump+targets.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The nine swing states that Romney didn't win are listed as Trump's targets. Florida might just go to Trump because the majority for the Democrats was so narrow, a swing of just 0.4% would take this. The opinion polls, however, for Florida, strangely are very similar to the swing we are currently seeing in the opinion polls nationally - so maybe there may not be such huge swing variations this time around. Applying the current swing we see nationally to Florida, we are within the margin of error for that state's latest poll, which has Clinton on 43% and Trump on 42%; the uniform swing has 42% for Clinton and 41% for Trump.</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFSJtCt2cjwHn5KUZ-xNEAYry0uy0SZI3RPQVyNQmDT9xsbkFDZlyDqqiBrsAhJd2piSg2Ob0GyikcoZtZzuizKgSm1W9429QOCRTfUsK5lCOMuUSr8pu2HBpa-TxC7tj7TC20l-rpcQ/s1600/Florida.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFSJtCt2cjwHn5KUZ-xNEAYry0uy0SZI3RPQVyNQmDT9xsbkFDZlyDqqiBrsAhJd2piSg2Ob0GyikcoZtZzuizKgSm1W9429QOCRTfUsK5lCOMuUSr8pu2HBpa-TxC7tj7TC20l-rpcQ/s400/Florida.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
But if Florida stays blue, then Trump has no chance. As well as holding North Carolina, he needs to win Flordia, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Pennsylvania (in order of difficulty) to get into the White House. The other four "swing states" of New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada, and Wisconsin are only worth 26 electoral college votes, and so if Trump loses Florida, Clinton is the US president.</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
If Trump takes Florida (as well as holding North Carolina), then he still needs Ohio, one of the first key marginals to declare. Losing this would be a disaster because he would still then need to go down as far as Wisconsin on the board even if he takes Florida.</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Trump won't particularly mind if Virginia goes blue, because he then won't need to take Wisconsin. Similarly, if he wins those top three but loses Colorado, he need only take New Hampshire (4) and Iowa (6) to compensate. Pennsylvania is the other key state and, like Florida, is worth north of 20 votes. Consequently, lose this and he will need to take the other four states.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
However, lose two of those five states and Trump is toast. If disaster occurs for Trump and he loses both Florida and Pennsylvania (but takes the other three) then he'll need a miracle and ridiculous swings to win. He'd have to go deep into Democrat territory to win. On top of the remaining "swing states", he'll need to take (in order of difficulty): Maine's 2nd District (4.3% swing neeeded); Minnesota (4.4%); and Michigan (4.8%).</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Trump's only chance, then, would be for Gary Johnson, the (probable) Libertarian candidate, to take votes off the Democrats. Can that happen? Gary Johnson is what the Brits might call a "Thatcherite" (and is my personal choice for president), and so it seems more probable that he will take votes off many of the centrist or slightly-right-of-centre voters that voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. Johnson is polling at north of 10% currently though. What we don't know is who he's taking these votes off. Swing time! The last national poll to include Johnson has Clinton on 42%, Trump on 34%, and Johnson on 11%. Using that, here are the swings:</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZdwSSL0HdaMnDnfX2SFkYR2P7ERnrG9GFYUdkGplg_AzZro8NcZTC6LrQ_eY5A3fefFuryNoFomNRPOupW_SKlZMFIJ92r2C1_lbJITvvYDf2wuSKuIDkPjM0cFunTzeRwrrZq6mFTg/s1600/Dem+to+Lib.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="111" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZdwSSL0HdaMnDnfX2SFkYR2P7ERnrG9GFYUdkGplg_AzZro8NcZTC6LrQ_eY5A3fefFuryNoFomNRPOupW_SKlZMFIJ92r2C1_lbJITvvYDf2wuSKuIDkPjM0cFunTzeRwrrZq6mFTg/s200/Dem+to+Lib.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUDAbRpAs3hj-ric1nVo11gKlnJNgb47FhmC629iUV6yYEM683E4Y5FxUoS6ZN6XgHkKjUzEGMgAQG9yOP5P98pj9sF8r9YtFItw7O88pvRT8gBGwSt2d3tx7GvtTnjC30qhdaUUB3-Q/s1600/Rep+to+Lub.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="111" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUDAbRpAs3hj-ric1nVo11gKlnJNgb47FhmC629iUV6yYEM683E4Y5FxUoS6ZN6XgHkKjUzEGMgAQG9yOP5P98pj9sF8r9YtFItw7O88pvRT8gBGwSt2d3tx7GvtTnjC30qhdaUUB3-Q/s200/Rep+to+Lub.jpg" width="200" /></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So it's evidently quite clear - Johnson is taking more votes off Republicans than he is off Democrats. So that sinks Trump.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But can Johnson win anything in terms of the electoral college?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Johnson cannot win any votes for the electoral college with these kind of swings, though, because of just how badly the Libertarians did in 2012. The best result was in the not-too-safe state of New Mexico, where the Libertarians polled 3.5%. Now, if that swing was replicated in New Mexico, Johnson would have around 15%, but the winning candidate (which should be Clinton) will still have about 44%. Trump would have around 35%. Again, this matches (near enough) the state opinion poll for New Mexico, so maybe America will behave more uniformly this time around. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQNf8CpSIgEQ56kci7Bvn_HVWD756jrRXm4Q0P2ikWxxUNVFlg1joLQ5EG3wgslLufbaD1UdkiCgImqhhT_FxpaR00_-olasA89Q-xxGHH3vzJ-3wcweVp4GahWeE40PAyViz4vF1cmg/s1600/new+mexico.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQNf8CpSIgEQ56kci7Bvn_HVWD756jrRXm4Q0P2ikWxxUNVFlg1joLQ5EG3wgslLufbaD1UdkiCgImqhhT_FxpaR00_-olasA89Q-xxGHH3vzJ-3wcweVp4GahWeE40PAyViz4vF1cmg/s320/new+mexico.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And after all that, it's time to ask the question for the other side - can the Democrats do any better than they did in 2012?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt1ETL4NeTk-3aIP0FBn9sjDWsyknISkV88tW4oMBvbxnkdlKTqrg8zKITZt_WPix12vFZup4-2KWdZ8Of-U7k8ekXCvBVhFES3P_R6ci3OOerOouy0BNmMaURbMYhrOcH2XqduvPk1A/s1600/clinton+targets.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt1ETL4NeTk-3aIP0FBn9sjDWsyknISkV88tW4oMBvbxnkdlKTqrg8zKITZt_WPix12vFZup4-2KWdZ8Of-U7k8ekXCvBVhFES3P_R6ci3OOerOouy0BNmMaURbMYhrOcH2XqduvPk1A/s400/clinton+targets.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
We've gone down to #6 on this list because Barack Obama managed to take Indiana in 2008 - but Romney won this back in 2012. It's not considered a "swing state", but as Obama had this in 2008 it's worth using as a barometer for a Clinton landslide.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
North Carolina is the first example of non-uniformity - and so this may get shoved into Democrat territory so much so that whoever the Republican candidate is in 2020 will struggle to win it. Here's the uniform projection versus the state poll - and the swing for the state poll:</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyPMyviyTVmtGe_pLm_FRAh2jqRsIYVlWpuY2TN-zAOGoArQXLvl6QYlaivjxvKNY5gWNW949r8kw_n8xFl5Uz7OuNG5qQuEXnLPtCVehI3r8CTcYQhiFXTGyilSETDnPPsM-08_Yn9g/s1600/North+Carolina.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="112" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyPMyviyTVmtGe_pLm_FRAh2jqRsIYVlWpuY2TN-zAOGoArQXLvl6QYlaivjxvKNY5gWNW949r8kw_n8xFl5Uz7OuNG5qQuEXnLPtCVehI3r8CTcYQhiFXTGyilSETDnPPsM-08_Yn9g/s200/North+Carolina.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiELNNgy9kfzCd8L599ZqoTtjcwLMBzDjwZLK-4yVlwFYBFsyCrxFrKkxwa_QWX_FC9r0RVMzNGulW8Pm6FXWfTvl8UtJ6vZSxf3YjNPmBpMHg1XoFnluIa7ROGVjMMOlvRmSufI49F4Q/s1600/north+carolina+swing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="111" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiELNNgy9kfzCd8L599ZqoTtjcwLMBzDjwZLK-4yVlwFYBFsyCrxFrKkxwa_QWX_FC9r0RVMzNGulW8Pm6FXWfTvl8UtJ6vZSxf3YjNPmBpMHg1XoFnluIa7ROGVjMMOlvRmSufI49F4Q/s200/north+carolina+swing.jpg" width="200" /></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If the swing we see in the state poll of a whopping 7% from Republicans to Democrats is typical across all of America, then Clinton is looking at whatever a "landslide" is in America - 414 electoral college votes. She'd win Nebraska's 2nd (3.6% swing needed), Georgia (3.9%), Arizona (4.6%), Missouri (4.7%), Indiana (5.1%), South Carolina (5.3%), Mississipi (5.8%), and Montana (6.9%), giving her an extra 82 on the 332 Obama had four years ago.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
How do the state polls in those seats shape up? Georgia shows a swing to the Democrats of 2%, Arizona 2.5% to the Democrats, Missouri's polls are too wide-ranging to be conclusive (so this could fall on the night to the Democrats!), Indiana 1.5% to the Democrats, and Mississipi 4% to the Democrats. In the other states listed above no polls have been done. But there's a pattern here - that the Republicans seem to be doing badly in their own states and matching the uniform swing in the Democrat-held swing states.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
So if North Carolina goes, Trump needs to win those five states we talked about earlier as well as the next three. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The uniform national swing shown on the swingometer is this:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjn6t2JCiyxJoJliZf1v6_djLc_q2oH5_xCpqRHp2-oYz_0Bs1KtQoI4gUHXgrW53oCmJuqjqcU5aCn_4nqtc6NqSV8f_q_v97dK-IyAF8t_jYZDEYLt0Ud8ZkjRJW9VEUMHngCGNkH5g/s1600/UNS.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjn6t2JCiyxJoJliZf1v6_djLc_q2oH5_xCpqRHp2-oYz_0Bs1KtQoI4gUHXgrW53oCmJuqjqcU5aCn_4nqtc6NqSV8f_q_v97dK-IyAF8t_jYZDEYLt0Ud8ZkjRJW9VEUMHngCGNkH5g/s400/UNS.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
It's oh-so-close to taking Florida, but not quite.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Looking at all the evidence above, I'm calling the election for <b>CLINTON</b>. The rise of Johnson to take votes away from the Romney-ites, the failure of Trump in his own states, and the likelihood of Clinton taking Florida gives Trump virtually no chance.</div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-39774577513023237372016-05-03T00:17:00.000+01:002016-05-03T00:17:20.025+01:00#BackZac2016<div style="text-align: justify;">
Firstly, I will <b>not</b> be blogging on the London Mayoral Election in large detail for one simple reason. The way the campaign has been run by Khan, accusing Goldsmith's supporters of Islamophobia, is untrue. Goldsmith has never referred to Khan by his religion, and no one is suggesting that he has extreme views. Khan does, however, have serious questions to answer on his judgement, including publishing a step-by-step guide on how to sue the Metropolitan Police, and he cannot be allowed to shout "islamophobia" to close these questions down.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On the issues themselves, Zac Goldsmith's Action Plan for London is fully costed and has the best policies of anyone. However, these have all been shielded because of the poor campaigning tactics started by Khan. Dispute that? Well, he was the one who took the term "radical" out of context, when Goldsmith claimed that his political views were "radical" and "divisive".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Anyhow, I digress.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Khan's fares freeze will cost TFL £1.9bn - and that is in Mike Brown (TFL Commissioner)'s own words. Khan denies that Brown has said this, but it is on tape.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What I particularly like is Zac's plan to solve the housing crisis. Not only has he pledged to build lots of homes, but he will do so without expanding onto the green belt - and (this is the clever bit) - has promised to unlock the land by investing in transport, because it's no good building houses in the middle of nowhere.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So it's a very simple choice, really. </div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-5788486067484236522016-01-15T00:24:00.003+00:002016-01-15T00:24:25.721+00:00Debunking the myths of "Inequality Briefing"<div style="text-align: justify;">
I was shown today Inequality Briefing's videos on wealth and income inequality, and I found myself smashing my head on the desk within seconds of them. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Wealth inequality's myths have already been debunked <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/10/09/brain-curdling-nonsense-on-wealth-inequality-in-the-uk/#2715e4857a0b10fb9898670b" target="_blank">by a contributor to Forbes</a>, describing it as "brain-curdling nonsense", but as far as I know, income inequality has not yet been disproved. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
"Brenda is an experienced nurse; [...] Brian is the boss of one of Britain's biggest companies."</h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/28/2523A87B00000578-0-image-a-1_1422446405140.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/28/2523A87B00000578-0-image-a-1_1422446405140.jpg" height="232" width="320" /></a>We've not even got a fact yet and it's already ridiculous. In the United Kingdom, inequality is always going to arise due to the fact that the UK is a mixed economy: it is reasonable to presume that Brenda is a public sector worker, as 94% of all NHS operations are public sector, and Brenda apparently works at "one of Britain's busiest hospitals". The public sector is nationalised (by definition), and <b>everyone</b> knows that nationalisation does not work. It is extremely inefficient, thanks to hopeless central planning, and therefore a lack of market pressures upon wages (in either direction). By contrast, the private sector is free from government interference. Therefore, wages are free to go up or down to meet the demand of the market - <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/private-sector-wages-growing-three-times-quicker-than-public-sector-a6690026.html" target="_blank">according to the Independent, private sector wages are growing three times as fast as public sector ones.</a> The private sector is, loosely speaking, meritocratic. The inefficient public sector is not. Therefore, we shouldn't even be comparing an NHS worker to a CEO.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
"Wages for average earners like Brenda have hardly changed in a decade, whilst food prices are going up, and gas and electricity bills are rising."</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let's divide this one into three - "wages [...] have hardly changed in a decade" apparently. No, they haven't. If we take "a decade" to mean the period of 2004 - 2014, wage growth rose in real terms <b>every single year</b> until the "great recession" in 2008, and have done so again since 2014. "Food prices are going up", apparently, and "gas and electricity bills are rising". Now, seeing as I am unable to find tabulated data for gas and electricity for me to create my own graph, we'll just have to use one from one of the UK's major energy suppliers to retailers, which tracks retail pricing. But yes, as for wages and food, it's time for one of <i>Benjamin's Blog</i>'s own graphs (because I know you love them really). According to the data at <i>Trading Economics</i>, we are now going to draw a line graph with two lines on it - average wage growth and food prices since January 2014 (thus keeping the video relevant, as it was produced in 2014). Are you ready? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.catalyst-commercial.co.uk/energy-blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Brent-Crude-and-Wholesale-Gas-Price-Jan15.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.catalyst-commercial.co.uk/energy-blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Brent-Crude-and-Wholesale-Gas-Price-Jan15.jpg" height="214" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPNCw9Jziunk47vLXKgIvczgQ3O47vWsnAMYN5pxhXseChSsvbDg78h9s2OHtI9I1GypaLLiTHBRqdn2VYdBEOqv11VsE6nCk9alMflhd7F-wnovrL9Mn84W4jnq2Ez08deoc2zH8i4Q/s1600/graph.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPNCw9Jziunk47vLXKgIvczgQ3O47vWsnAMYN5pxhXseChSsvbDg78h9s2OHtI9I1GypaLLiTHBRqdn2VYdBEOqv11VsE6nCk9alMflhd7F-wnovrL9Mn84W4jnq2Ez08deoc2zH8i4Q/s400/graph.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
So energy prices are falling, food prices are falling, and wages are rising. Indeed, since January 2014, food prices have only risen in real terms in two out of 23 months (for which data exists). Forbes are right - inequality briefing, so far, is nothing but a bunch of brain-curdling nonsense. And we're still not even a third of the way through...<br />
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
"Most people in poverty in the UK are actually in work."</h2>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is referring to relative poverty, and therefore is not a sufficient measure. Living standards have, as we've seen above, been rising since January of 2014.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
"As people on average incomes are increasingly squeezed, less money is spent on our high streets."</h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even though we've already disputed the first clause of this statement above here, this statement nonetheless is a case of <i>post hoc, ergo propter hoc </i>- if two things occur at the same time and one assumes that one causes the other absurdly, this is a case of <i>post hoc, ergo propter hoc. </i>Why is this particular statement a case of the above? High street spending fell thanks to the recession, but <a href="http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2296913/Surprise-retail-bounce-offers-glimmer-hope-economy.html" target="_blank">it has been growing since 2013</a>, and internet sales have increased all throughout this period. The Portas Review, released in 2011, and <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6292/2081646.pdf" target="_blank">available here</a> (don't read this from cover to cover, it's very boring), estimates that internet sales accounted for 50% of the growth of the retail sector between 2003 and 2010. The same report also predicts internet sales to rise substantially by 2015 - a prediction that was borne out to be true.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
[Goes on to argue for redistributive taxation]</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In terms of pre-taxation, the British Gini coefficient is actually one of the most equal countries in the world pre-taxation and transfers, according to the OECD. This means that the wage distribution in itself is actually what some people might describe as "fair". Even when you apply the taxation laws, our Gini coefficient drops further, and the amount of people in relative poverty in the UK is extremely small. So why do some countries drop further than others? Simple - it's the negative effects that redistribute taxation have. You can't stifle wealth creation at the top, otherwise they'll pack up and leave to other countries. And then there won't be any wealth. The businesses owned by the super-rich that others depend on will therefore close down too, as they can't afford to operate with these levels of taxation in the UK. Oh, oops, it's an essential service and a natural monopoly. Ah. That means that the people can't actually use the service at all now. That means that with redistribute taxation, <b>we are all worse off.</b> But still, for the people who have had their brains curdled, it doesn't matter that the poor are poorer, because we're more equal and the rich are less rich.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmQCja1e_Bvc2tihyRhlN508sEMx7slfHbRKXCxqarH8QmkRVxIHjpdgrXdAui6Tg2te6vmkmV-2MN9Gb9xxR8mjswZOLXQUgcPz98Wq7TqCjJF7Fq5dEOli7wpsXvBTBjNjC2r2ryBg/s1600/inequality+down.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmQCja1e_Bvc2tihyRhlN508sEMx7slfHbRKXCxqarH8QmkRVxIHjpdgrXdAui6Tg2te6vmkmV-2MN9Gb9xxR8mjswZOLXQUgcPz98Wq7TqCjJF7Fq5dEOli7wpsXvBTBjNjC2r2ryBg/s320/inequality+down.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In any case, <b>INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM IS FALLING.</b> Don't believe me? Well, have a look at perhaps maybe the graph on the right, with data according to the World Bank? Still don't believe me? How about we try that Left-wing rag, colloquially referred to as "The Gruniad", thanks to its colossal backlog of spelling errors in the 1970s? Surely if this admits that anything other than a Labour government are reducing inequality, it must be true. It would be like the <i>Daily Mail</i> praising Jeremy Corbyn. And what's that, Gruniad? <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/10/income-gap-narrowest-margin-25-years" target="_blank">Income inequality in the UK is actually falling</a>? Surely there's no disputing it now. Even in the global economy, income inequality is falling <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/06/17/stop-whining-about-the-1-inequality-is-falling-and-will-continue-to-do-so/#2715e4857a0b6215c3d24bc7" target="_blank">according to this article</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, if you're from <i>Inequality Briefing</i>, stop scaremongering, and actually #ShareTheFacts.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />Rant over.</div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-44871265555290962992015-11-05T01:51:00.001+00:002015-11-05T01:53:16.556+00:00Majorism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/3/2/1425340205709/b962b6a2-33cc-4446-b28e-6b5e0a6e9f0a-2060x1236.jpeg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=a36f2fdba46daf1d0ad07e65817dbb9c" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/3/2/1425340205709/b962b6a2-33cc-4446-b28e-6b5e0a6e9f0a-2060x1236.jpeg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=a36f2fdba46daf1d0ad07e65817dbb9c" width="320" /></a>I'm currently in my final year of The John Lyon School in Harrow. For six hours per week, I have Politics, with the fantastic Mr J Armstrong. You can follow him on Twitter, actually. But the reason I'm mentioning him is that we often have a fascinating discussion on a three-letter suffix, and where it can be applied: "-ism".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Socialism exists as an ideology, so does Liberalism, and Conservativism. Within these, you have your "sub-ideologies": socialism can be broken down into Marxism (original and orthodox), social democratism, and Blairism; Liberalism can be broken down into Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism, as well as neo-Liberalism; Conservativism can be broken down into Traditional Conservativism, One Nation Conservativism, and Thatcherism (or "New Rightism").</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Not one person, Left, Right, or centre, would deny that "Thatcherism" is a distinct political ideology, not dissimilar to monetarism. So why doesn't John Major's government get the same treatment? I've only ever seen the term "Majorism" used once by the media, in 2011. However, as I shall now demonstrate, Majorism is clearly a distinct politico-economic ideology. Do I follow it? Not really, I'm more of a Thatcherite.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
ECONOMICS</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Whilst continuing some Thatcherite economic policies, such as privatisation (such as the 1993 privatisation of the rail network), Major had a economic ideology largely very different to Thatcher, contrary to popular belief.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1 - DEVALUATION</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MGuKJT15SV8/hqdefault.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MGuKJT15SV8/hqdefault.jpg" width="200" /></a>In the aftermath of "Black Wednesday" in 1992, the pound crashed against the Deutschmark, to which it was being pegged after Lawson and Howe bullied Thatcher into going into it in 1989. The Government were forced to take it out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), as it had dropped below its lower limit.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Such a "flash crash" would, surely, cause the pound to go back up soon-ish? No - and with Lamont out of the door, Major decides to adopt an economic policy that is more different than Thatcher's. The pound is kept at a deliberately 'weak' level. What does a weak pound cause? An emphasis - and increases the value of - exports, with the drawback that imports are more expensive. Hence, people stopped importing goods, start exporting them, and we end up with export-led growth. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>2 - SMALL GOVERNMENT</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/blog-uploads/2012/05/g-spending-percent-gpd-68-14.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/blog-uploads/2012/05/g-spending-percent-gpd-68-14.png" height="148" width="200" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another key factor of Majorism is to do with budget responsibility. Thatcher did not tend to operate a budget surplus - but after the introduction of Majorism in 1992, the budget deficit does not rise once. With New Labour pledging in 1997 (but not 2001) to stick to the Conservatives' spending plans in this department (and they do stick to their word until the second term), we can attribute the fiscal period of 1993 - 2001 as Majorist economic budget responsibility. The budget deficit does not rise once - by 1998, this even hits a surplus.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
By 2001, government spending as a percentage of GDP is at its lowest level since records began - and even the current Conservative government will not get this low (they were on course to, but minor changes to the economic forecast in the March 2015 budget means that they are no longer on course to "beat the record"). Thatcher didn't really decrease government spending as a percentage of GDP in this way. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>3 - UNEMPLOYMENT</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcDafLDllVvAx9Q5U1ddlrdZDUuBNuaCFNiN2pLTuKJecxZS-EIuQIxVLcgQkXVXZDb0t55G0VPtWqTta7IyB1dOlIOXakMlpB6I5koFUfGPmWUFjzDSRVrh7iusDH0996th7QLUIQxTlF/s1600/unemployment-percent-79-12.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="176" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcDafLDllVvAx9Q5U1ddlrdZDUuBNuaCFNiN2pLTuKJecxZS-EIuQIxVLcgQkXVXZDb0t55G0VPtWqTta7IyB1dOlIOXakMlpB6I5koFUfGPmWUFjzDSRVrh7iusDH0996th7QLUIQxTlF/s1600/unemployment-percent-79-12.png" width="200" /></a>Thatcher believed in the notion that controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. Whatever your views on this statement, during the Majorism period of 1993 - 2001, save for the introduction of the National Minimum Wage in 1998, unemployment falls at a steady and constant rate. After Chancellor Gordon Brown is no longer bound by the New Labour manifesto to stick to Majorism in 2001, unemployment flattens out. He does this by increasing job opportunities for those out of work - one of the founding principles of the "back to basics" campaign of 1992. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>4 - INTEREST RATES</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/uk-base-rates-inflation-89-111.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/uk-base-rates-inflation-89-111.png" height="141" width="200" /></a>This is difficult to attribute all the way through the 1993 - 2001 period, as the Bank of England became responsible for setting monetary policy in 1997. But even looking between 1993 and 1997, when monetary policy was still within the government's control, the government had more control of interest rates after "Black Wednesday" than it did between 1989 and 1992. Interest rates hit a 20-year low under Majorism, as unlike Thatcher, inflation was not seen as a huge problem. Indeed, from a historical perspective, according to the BBC's "Back In Time For Dinner", the sheer amount of products available in the early 1990s, with a tin of beans being able to be purchased for just 3p, for example, meant that controlling inflation harshly, as had been done right up until 1992, was no longer necessary. Despite this, inflation continued to fall.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Whilst being slightly speculatory, it can be argued that the Bank of England adopted Majorism until 2001, too: the range interest rates were in in this period were where they were between 1994 and 1997. Lo and behold: post-2001, they're dropped below their Majorite trough of 5%, and inflation starts rising.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
SOFT EUROSCEPTICISM</h4>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
With the thorny issue of the European Union ripping the Conservative Party to shreds in the late 1980s (taking Thatcher along with it) and early 1990s, John Major attempted to balance the extreme views on both sides of his party by adopting a policy of soft Euroscepticism.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1 - OPT-OUT ON THE SINGLE CURRENCY</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/symbols/images/flag_yellow_low.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/symbols/images/flag_yellow_low.jpg" height="133" width="200" /></a>John Major was caught between a rock and a hard place when it came to the thorny issue of the Euro; on the one hand, he had Ken Clarke et al - those who wish for full European integration, including the adoption of the single currency, and the Europhiles responsible for driving out Thatcher. On the other hand, he had John Redwood et al - the hard Eurosceptics who didn't want us to go into the single currency, or any single market at all. So when John Major went to Maastricht in 1992 to negotiate and sign the Treaty on the European Union, he declared the opt-out he'd secured on the Euro "game, set, and match for Britain".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>2 - VETO</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.flanderstoday.eu/sites/default/files/webimages/ft331-news_dehaene_c_wikimedia_commons_0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.flanderstoday.eu/sites/default/files/webimages/ft331-news_dehaene_c_wikimedia_commons_0.jpg" height="132" width="200" /></a>This turned out to be a case of "out of the frying pan, and into the fire", but at the time, he was praised by the Eurosceptics of his party for doing so. After the hated Jacques Delors (who Thatcher repeatedly mocked during her final years) was to be replaced as President of the European Commission, Major vetoed the appointment of Jean-Luc Dehaene, who wanted a European super-state. He was praised for this - but the "out of the frying pan, and into the fire" came when he found out they'd ended up with a clone of him instead, Jacques Santer.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>3 - BACK TO THE PARTY</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://keeptonyblairforpm.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/tblair-1996_desertislanddiscs_bbc.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="112" src="https://keeptonyblairforpm.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/tblair-1996_desertislanddiscs_bbc.jpg" width="200" /></a>Tony Blair was always very good at being able to turn a soundbite. In 1997, one memorable edition of Prime Minister's Questions featured the quotation of Blair calling Major "weak, weak, weak" on the issue of Europe. But if one watches the full eight minutes, Major easily wins on substance, and says that he will ask his PPCs what the position on the EU should be, unlike Tony Blair, who told his PPCs what to think regarding Europe. Before the "referendum craze" of New Labour, this was as close as it got to the people having a direct say.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
FOREIGN POLICY</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg/2000px-Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="100" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg/2000px-Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg.png" width="200" /></a>There's not really a sub-heading I can use here, as it's very easily summarised: not attempting to take sides in conflicts where Britain is not directly threatened. For example, John Major oversaw the war occurring after the break-up of Yugoslavia in 1991, culminating in the war in Bosnia & Herzegovina in 1993. Major and his cabinet did not wish to get actively involved in it.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
COMPARISONS WITH THE CAMERON GOVERNMENT</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1 - ECONOMICS</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02393/osborne_2393318b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02393/osborne_2393318b.jpg" height="124" width="200" /></a>Many people associate the current Conservative front bench with being Thatcherites - when Majorites is a better description of them economically:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- A weaker pound in order to promote export-led growth;</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- Driving down the deficit and getting into a budget surplus;</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- Driving down unemployment through the Work Programme;</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- Record low interest rates alongside low inflation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>2 - EUROPE</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article4555790.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Angela-Merkel-gesturing-as-she-meets-David-Cameron.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article4555790.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Angela-Merkel-gesturing-as-she-meets-David-Cameron.jpg" height="132" width="200" /></a>David Cameron is a pure Majorite when it comes to Europe:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- Secured an cut in the EU budget in 2012 in real terms;</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- Vetoed a treaty that was against the UK's national interest;</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
- Given a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>3 - FOREIGN POLICY</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Cameron's foreign policy is more interventionist than Major's, but less so than Blair's.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
_______________________________________________________________________</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is unambiguously clear to me that Majorism, as a distinct political ideology, exists. There are distinct policy ideas when it comes to Politics and Economics - although one does have to attribute that it is hard for him to make sweeping changes, considering he was continuing from a previous Conservative government.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I would argue that David Cameron's Conservative government is a Majorite government, not a Thatcherite one, as I have indicated above. (I may go into further detail on this in a later blog post, but I won't promise anything.)</div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0Harrow, Greater London, UK51.578185469900511 -0.3506638995361351.576951969900513 -0.35318539953613 51.579418969900509 -0.34814239953612997tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-8448057300313553262015-07-06T20:38:00.001+01:002015-07-06T20:38:37.100+01:00Cricket and Terrestrial Television<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's Monday 6 July 2015, and in two days' time, another Ashes series is about to begin. It will be another Ashes series - and another test series - that I am unable to see in full, as it is being broadcast live on Sky Sports. I am not the billpayer in my household and so getting this (legally, at least) is out of my hands. Thankfully, I've timed my holidays by renting out some lovely cottages 'up naaaarth' which do possess this facility.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM4ypaXTfSEVFT5b10MhHpvEjCW7k-HkO0lp3eIkkJVfnQZvoa2HQyWgNE80QTM4lWiUB_y4Rt8Oaw0dhFfxwHxCD7jc1r3wzjnN8MZLz7REvhcZBgCbVu52R3ibigPBIUypd6giRwLQ/s1600/Picture1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM4ypaXTfSEVFT5b10MhHpvEjCW7k-HkO0lp3eIkkJVfnQZvoa2HQyWgNE80QTM4lWiUB_y4Rt8Oaw0dhFfxwHxCD7jc1r3wzjnN8MZLz7REvhcZBgCbVu52R3ibigPBIUypd6giRwLQ/s320/Picture1.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The final ever ball of live cricket on terrestrial TV.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Not a single ball of live cricket has been broadcast on terrestrial television since 1 June 2014, when the Kolkata Knight Riders defeated the Kings XI Punjab by three wickets in the Indian Premier League final, live on ITV4. As someone who hates the IPL, with its "leg side wides" and the improper shots (show Don Bradman the 'back away and swing' and he'd go absolutely ape), does this really count in any case? The final ball was bowled by a player I've never heard of to a batsman I've never heard of, who hit it for four over backward point.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The final ball of live test cricket was a big anticlimax, and this one I remember distinctly. On Monday 12 September 2005, Steve Harmison bowled a ball in the dark to Justin Langer, which glanced off his pads, beat Geraint Jones, and went for four leg byes. Australia now needed 338 runs to win with 14.2 overs left in the game, and Justin Langer called Matthew Hayden, Rudi Koertzen, and Billy Bowden together, and they all agreed that the light was too bad. The match was drawn, and England regained the Ashes. Unsurprisingly, this has never found its way onto the internet.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The BBC hasn't broadcast a single ball in highlights form (excluding news reports) since the 2006-07 Ashes series, when England were trounced 5-0. The last ball in highlights form was Matthew Hayden hitting the winning runs at Sydney. Their last live ball was in 1998. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Is there actually an appetite for terrestrial broadcasters to broadcast cricket? The answer is a resounding no. According to a 2015 BBC report, Sky are shelling out £65m (per year, presumably) for the rights to every single ball - live - faced by the England cricket team. Consider the fact that Channel 4, between 2002 and 2005, shelled out £150m, it's very rare for rights costs to go down for any sport. Sky would only have been able to get a reduction if no one else was willing to pay for the rights. Certainly, the furore over the 2013-14 Ashes highlights definitely shows that no one wants to broadcast cricket on terrestrial television. If you're unaware what happened, the BBC and ITV both pulled out at the last minute, causing Sky to take it upon themselves and put highlights on Pick TV, their Free-To-Air channel. It was such a last minute decision that it even ended with "next on Sky Sports 2...", until David Gower provided some "top and tail" to the programmes after Adelaide. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The BBC are shelling out £60m for the flailing "Match Of The Day", £70m per year for Wimbledon, £15m for shared (and poor) F1 coverage (according to the F1 Broadcasting Blog), and suddenly, it all adds up. Put that money on the table to the ECB, and with the allure, and the inspiration, no doubt, that comes with terrestrial television, and the ECB may just go with the BBC. Consider that the BBC may be paying for the Radio rights as it is (although I doubt it), there's more money that could be saved if the BBC took a Radio + TV deal as one, rather than two deals. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxmypPD40KOBA0jzJOggSE3Q22dWFwjjunWopRlGqczqvT629HrDPtiYIeVoO2PsXgDCtGB5KH1JgQmZha7VN0C4Um9ZvxKAJVr4o6TEsINpXi3B8Og5D9UfXpq4TZjGNMjg8jwEcUyg/s1600/Picture2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxmypPD40KOBA0jzJOggSE3Q22dWFwjjunWopRlGqczqvT629HrDPtiYIeVoO2PsXgDCtGB5KH1JgQmZha7VN0C4Um9ZvxKAJVr4o6TEsINpXi3B8Og5D9UfXpq4TZjGNMjg8jwEcUyg/s320/Picture2.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">One of England's best batting performances ever, stuck<br />behind a £40 paywall.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I don't wish to take away anything from the excellent Sky coverage, which has broadcast every English overseas test live since 1990 (which I don't think had been done before), and continues to go from strength to strength. The trouble is that no one watches cricket any more. Even with pay-per-view TV, cricket is still higher in the ratings than it was for the 2001 Ashes series, live on Channel 4, but it is nowhere near the viewing figures for 2005 (Channel 4) or indeed, 2009 (Sky). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif1J10ToLkqKM7mvj-8AmVb30EmDjaXYdbWAVk7N3_-aaF4cs8KwzjU-lfdHP8voTG1DLNSboxb-yjtojg6ebEA3zh7DAuE6q_6fIHoRNiLWzoqRMfzlh19XYVF1bkf4xfzhaGX6yN9Q/s1600/08+FUL+GOAL+%2528Toure+OG%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif1J10ToLkqKM7mvj-8AmVb30EmDjaXYdbWAVk7N3_-aaF4cs8KwzjU-lfdHP8voTG1DLNSboxb-yjtojg6ebEA3zh7DAuE6q_6fIHoRNiLWzoqRMfzlh19XYVF1bkf4xfzhaGX6yN9Q/s320/08+FUL+GOAL+%2528Toure+OG%2529.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Even if it was highlights, everyone remembers Kolo<br />Touré's own goal against Fulham. But how many people<br />remember Channel 5's commentary of the 2009 Ashes?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But why do so many more people watch - and are interested in - football than they are cricket, when 10 years ago, the opposite was true? Neither have the main event broadcast live on terrestrial television (the Premier League vs English tests). So where does the blame lie for the failure of cricket in the last 10 years? The England team for not doing well enough? No, they were world #1 in 2011. What about the other side of the coin? What has football done right that cricket hasn't? The BBC haven't made a mess of their highlights show in the same way Channel 5 have. "Cricket on Five" is terrible and is ridiculously poor, and is basically the very worst of Channel 4's coverage over the years. Limiting itself to just Mark Nicholas, Geoffrey Boycott, Simon Hughes, Michael Vaughan since 2011, and occasionally a few others, it's nowhere near the better Match Of The Day. So what Channel 5 must do is have a complete rethink. For starters, don't put ODI highlights on at 1am... </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I've just written a lengthy piece and I haven't come to any conclusion. What can be done? The BBC don't want it and ITV gave it all up. It's quite cheap in relation to other sports. Sky is the only reasonable option. Sky really should put the Ashes live on Pick, but that ruins their business model. Until the BBC stump up the courage to dump some of its ENDLESS Wimbledon coverage, we're stuck without cricket for a long time.</div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-29227731650284722642015-06-26T22:42:00.003+01:002015-06-26T22:42:57.668+01:00My Countdown Experience<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHi2OJ1UkAAeAFm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: justify;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHi2OJ1UkAAeAFm.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Countdown. Thrills me to bits, with its hundreds of letters. Well, 26. There's a few VCRs of Countdown recordings I still have somewhere, and there's a photo album, featuring a photo of myself and the similarly-aged son of a friend of my father's (blimey, what a mouthful) watching a Richard Whiteley Countdown in 2004. I followed Countdown religiously when I was young. We'd done our own job of creating a homemade letters stack (easier said than done) and then I saved up and bought a proper board game from Hamley's in London. £20 was a lot in 2005 for a six-year-old!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When Richard Whiteley died I apparently balled my eyes out (I was only 6!!). Des Lynam took over, and apart from his monotonous voice, the only thing I remember about him was that he always seemed to be very quick to start the clock, too much so, he'd punched the button before he'd finished saying "start the clock!". This gave rise to a lasting memory of Carol Vorderman reading out viewers' criticisms ("Digital Des", "Lightning Lynam"). Series 54, Conor Travers' series, I was hooked (Conor Travers was just awesome) and the Championship of Champions in 2006 that followed was fantastic. Apparently I shed a tear or two when Conor was knocked out of that (sorry, Paul!). I didn't watch Series 55 through to the very end of Series 61 (and I don't remember why I gave it up).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In December 2009, I'm channel-hopping with a friend of friend when I see the clock and it all comes flooding back. It turns out to be the third half of the epic Innis Carson/Chris Davies semi final, and Innis pulls away with SOLENOID, before Chris aces a numbers game and unscrambles EPITUSSLE on 25 seconds. I was hooked again.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
During Series 62 in 2010, I combined the internet and Countdown - and that's when I discovered the various websites out there. In late 2010, I even tagged along to a meeting of contestants and fans to play Countdown. I finished stone dead last. I did this again the following year at the same location. I was getting CAT whilst they were getting CATACLYSM. At this stage, the wonderful Jeff Stelling left the show, to be replaced with Nick Hewer. I didn't take to Nick at first, but he grew on me by 2013. Just as well, as 2013 was the 30th Birthday Championship. The final was fantastic. The first "ambulance" in history, three nines in a row, and the joint highest ever score... from Conor Travers. December 2013 gave us the Series 69 finals, with Dylan Taylor taking on Callum Todd in the final, with Todd prevailing on a tie-break conundrum. That was very good.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I filled out the form as soon as I could. My 16th birthday meant I was now eligible to appear on Countdown (due to some annoying regulations). A life ambition for me, although perhaps not as good as some of the players in and around my ability. I send the form off in September 2014.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Fast forward to November and I get a phone audition. I spotted ESSENTIAL in one of the rounds and that pretty much cracked it. It takes the team four months to give me a date, and then I get 37 pages of notes in the post, looking for that date... there it is. Sunday 19 April 2015.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I don't remember much about the train journey up there except for me struggling with modern technology, trying to listen to Blackpool vs the mighty Fulham, then trying to watch qualifying for the Bahrain Grand Prix on 3G. There was a hotel laid on for us by Channel 4 and my father and I got there in time to watch Adam Federici make the costly error that dumped Reading out of the FA Cup. I can't remember the rest of Saturday very well.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The schedule for Sunday was an odd one. I was show one but that wasn't until 12:30 anyway. So a big breakfast (something I don't usually have) and I was up to the studios.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My first opponent was the carryover champion from Series 72, James Judge, having been stopped by the finals, and this was the very first programme of the new series. The wonderful Colin Murray was in Dictionary Corner, and he came in to make-up and spoke to us all before going down.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I remember make-up quite well. Once James, myself, and the players for shows two and three had turned up for the "morning" session, we were all taken upstairs by Lucy, whose job title I can't remember. A young man informed us that "Rachel's been shopping", and I saw Rachel eyeing up the brilliant (and the not-so-brilliant) dresses on the rack. Anyway, I ended up conversing for a while in make-up with Susie Dent. She's very different off-camera. It strikes me that she still looks nervous on camera 23 years after her debut, as she was very talkative backstage (and indeed, when the cameras weren't recording on the set).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So after being pampered (thinking "this won't stay on"), James and I finally got into the studio. We sat down, and in what proved to be a recurring theme, the floor manager tried (and failed) to mic me up. Finally, we got underway. I refused myself SOUPIER early on and although it made no difference at the time, by round four James had spotted FANCIEST to take the lead, before I struck back with MUTATED in round five. I then mistranscribed my solution to Round 6 (I wanted to say 100 + 50 + 9, but forgot the + 9), meaning I again trailed by 8. James got another eight onto his lead and I felt resigned, trailing by 16. I refused myself OUTRANGE in round eight as James also had seven. But in round nine I hit back with an exact solution. It was 49 - 43 going into the third half and I was the 43. Things got worse thereafter, when I had CAPITAS and PACIEST written down. I went for CAPITAS. PACIEST was in and CAPITAS wasn't. The gap was 13 with five to go. I then took six off that with TANNOY, before we both got sixes in rounds 12 and 13. 7 gap, 2 to go. I then managed to get one away on a 4 large so difficult Rachel couldn't get it... James was eight away. So it was 68 and 68 going into the conundrum. BOLDPAPER came up. The clock ran out and DROPPABLE was revealed. Difficult. Filming was stopped for a second conundrum, at which point I said to Colin that "we could be here all night!!" Conundrum #2. HONEYPLOX. Again, no answers. XYLOPHONE the solution. Susie then pointed out that OXYPHENOL was also a solution, so here we go again for conundrum #2 #2. GADWINNER. I immediately saw REWARDING, before spotting the extra N. I buzzed on 4 seconds to say "WANDERING" - and I made it. I still feel very sorry for James. He played very, very, well, and I was lucky to win in all honesty.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But for program two I was up against one of those people who was doing the game show circuit, Michael Stokes. He'd been on 15 to 1 in 2014 (as had James Judge in the William G Stewart era), so immediately I was nervous. Nick dubbed this "performers' edition", as I had sung Dead Or Alive whilst Michael had appeared on stage with Diana Ross. But I always think the key to this game is to get a lead early on. And I did so, memorably declaring GONADS in round one (prompting Nick to ask Susie if she had any GONADS in the corner). We tied rounds two and three and so I led 22 - 16 going into the break. Golden gonads was doing the trick for me. We tied round four, but a horrible set in round five allowed me to get FINER whilst Michael could only get RAIN. I then hit the numbers game on the head, giving me a 21-point advantage at what I consider to be the halfway stage (although it technically isn't). Round 7 was two 7s, before Michael played PLANING in round eight whilst I stuck with PLAIN (although Rachel misspelt this on the board as PLANE), but Michael had used a phantom N, so this gave me a bigger advantage. We then both got the third numbers, and then I made the biggest mistake of all: Michael declared four in round 10, I had a six and a seven. Feeling a little complacent with a 26-point lead, I went for the invalid COZIEST. We then tied the next two letters rounds before I pulled out another seven in the last letters game with IMPALED. I then hit the numbers game on the head, giving me a chance to get 100, something I've not done online often. I couldn't see the answer to LONGTULIP, mind you, and it finished 92 - 63.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My third opponent was one amazing woman who's lived a full-on life. There is so much she has done it would easily be a post in itself. Maxine Jones was, amazingly, 60. She looked very good for 60. In round one, I spotted OUTLINES to take an eight-point lead, before we both hit a seven in round two and got the numbers game in round three. 25 - 17. I pulled out another seven in round four, and although we couldn't get past five in round five, I hit the numbers in round six splendidly, to lead by 25 points. I then extended my lead further in round seven, but Maxine struck back with HAREMS in round eight. I then hit round nine on the nose and I had a 36-point lead going into part three. We tied rounds 10 and 11, before Maxine, trailing by 36 with four to go, gambled on SONDAGE, but this was disallowed, and I now had a 42-point lead with three to go. I then took my foot off the gas a little, and missed the darrenic seven in round 13, did something completely stupid in round 14 (if you're going to declare not written down, make sure you can remember your method), and missed MULTICONS (which Rachel got). Maxes in those three rounds would have given me 108, but as it was I only got 81. Maxine got 53, but I think she deserved more than that, the scoreline didn't fully tell the story.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The next two contestants arrived at the studios and I was immediately worried as one was a university student and one looked serious and focused. I fell behind to the University student, Abby Fawkes, early on, when she found CRAWLED in round two. I managed to get two away on the numbers game to draw level. But in round four I fell behind again when Abby declared POLITE and to add insult to injury, my five was disallowed. Meanwhile, DC suffered from PENILE dysfunction. My plight got worse in round seven when I had PAILED disallowed, giving me a 12-point deficit. I declared LAUNDER in round eight to get this back to five, before we both failed to get the target on round nine, and I pointed out to Rachel that Nick read out the same clue to Teaser #2 as Teaser #1. I wrote this piece before transmission, so I don't know how they rectified this. [Ed - it turns out they didn't] But in round 10 all thoughts of double teasers were behind me now, and I spotted RADIOS whilst STAIRS was disallowed as Abby had spotted a phantom S, giving me a one-point lead. I then hit the darrenic seven before round 12 produced one of the crappiest letters selections in the history of Countdown. Abby had a 3. I had a 4. DC had eight. No, literally, they had EIGHT for five. I was now 12 ahead but not 100% home and dry yet. I pulled out further in round 13, and with 19 points the gap Abby picked two large on the final numbers game. I got it and she didn't, giving me a 29-point cushion. On the conundrum I could hear Colin scribbling away frantically on my right, knowing that he'd probably got it. The scramble was BLEAKRAJI and I could see JAIL-, but I rather stupidly was looking at the -ER route so declared JAILBAKER on 26 seconds. Abby hit the buzzer on 29.75 and declared JAILBREAK. I was annoyed with myself (although I didn't say this on camera when asked!). The final score was 78 - 59.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Opponent five looked difficult. Olly Hall had a beard (which automatically makes men look 100% more serious). I fell 10 points behind early on when I missed an easy numbers game, but closed this down in round four - even though I refused myself DOSAGES, I declared a six when Olly declared five. SOAKED was my word. We then tied every round up until round eight, when I took the lead by virtue of having PUNNET versus the invalid PINCE. In round nine I got the numbers game with four away (and during the break, Rachel, Colin, and I were all trying to crack 807 without success). With my appalling conundrum record (17% at that point) then I knew 9 points wouldn't be enough of a lead, and so by spotting AIRPORT at the very last second in round 12, I pulled out to 16. I then achieved my second ambition on Countdown (to get a "very, very good" and a "he knows his Countdown words" from Susie) when I declared ATOMISER. During a filming break, Susie asked me about the invalid nine MORTALISE, as she thought it was in (but was promptly disappointed). I replied that I knew it wasn't in as I'd seen it come up before and be disallowed. Conundrum cock-up #2 followed, when I really should have got RESPONDED, but stuck the R and E in the wrong place and rang in with SPONDERED... Olly did something similar and rang in with DESPONDER, before an audience member (who ended up starting a fan club for me afterwards, even stalking me when I went for dinner) answered with RESPONDED. End of day one and I was the returning champion.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At the time, I was glad to get to the overnight halt. Poor Nick looked absolutely knackered at this point. But I just couldn't sleep during the night and I felt even more nervous when I returned. In a sense, you're most nervous for show one, but when you start picking wins up, you lose nerves. But when you start getting a lot of wins, you end up knowing there's a finals place at stake.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I went to the green room on day two to meet the next three contestants: a serious quizzer, an apterite, and one very shy man. Beat these three and I'll be an octochamp. Show six would be against an Irishman, Pat Lonegan, the "Brain Of Kildare", which sounded ominous.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, I was 110% sure that ELATIONS was in, so much so that I was fishing for it; missing OUTLINES (which I had played yesterday) completely. I immediately went seven behind, and in round two I struck back with the darrenic TADPOLE, before a stupidly easy numbers game gave Pat and I 17 each into the break. I refused myself INROAD in round four, keeping the game deadlocked, before falling behind when Pat had PALLID to my POLLS. Another easy numbers game, and I started to panic. But in round seven I thought I'd get the lead back when I spotted QUIETER... only for Pat to say "ESQUIRE" and keep his six-point lead. I then missed the niner TRAPEZIUM in round eight. Thankfully, so did Pat, and everyone in the studio in the next break had to inform Nick what one was, much to Rachel's dismay. Then I picked four large on the numbers, and was so engrossed in finding 832 via the 937.5 rule that I'd completely missed the easy way to 831. I was now 13 behind. We tied round 10 before I missed ANCHOR in round 11 and I was now 19 behind, probably chasing a lost cause. But spotting ATTAINS in round 12 got the gap back to 12... we tied round 13... come on... please deliver a hard one, CECIL... Oh. We got to 536 two different ways but that was that. I had my hopes up during the clock as Pat was still scribbling away, only for him to put his pen down on 20 seconds. I knew he'd got it. He then solved VENUSCOLD to win 76 - 98.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I stayed behind to watch Pat play the next show against apterite Rob Maxwell and take a few snaps with Rachel and Nick (but not Joe "Macclederry", as Nick would say). Then I had to run off to catch the train back to London, and all of a sudden my life was back to normal.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At the time of writing, I don't know if I'm going to be in the finals or not. It's very difficult to guess, certainly. Are 5 wins and 494 points going to be enough? I'm now hoping that we don't get lots of 6+ winners (although Jonathan Wynn and Thomas Carey, two apterites I know, might fancy their chances). I don't know how the rest of that day's filming went, so we'll see.</div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-12108105629693612162014-10-09T00:30:00.001+01:002014-10-09T00:30:25.190+01:002015 General Election - Who's Going To Win - And How Many Votes Will They Need?<div style="text-align: justify;">
Election 2015 is nearly upon us, which will mean hectic campaigning, and by 7 May, for me, shattered legs and knees from walking up hills and steps in Harrow West. But when the voting stops, the counting begins, and the results are declared, who's going to win?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
LABOUR - WHAT DO THEY NEED?</h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
According to the Electoral Calculus, the Conservatives' unpopularity can't get them to win. Yes, governments tend to become more popular as the election nears, but the predictions are firmly in the "red zone" of a Labour majority in 2013. With only the economy to boast about, the Electoral Calculus argues a lack of policy. Thinking about it in terms of data, between the last two years before the election (for example, 1981-1983, 2008-2010, 2013-2015), the government tends to rise by an average of 2.2% since 1981-3, whereas the opposition falls by a whopping 6.3% since 1981-3. The Liberal Democrats/Alliance have an average rise of 2.3%. Applying this to the 2013 values on the Electoral Calculus and you get the Conservatives on 32.5%, Labour on 31.9%, and the Liberal Democrats on 12.5%. Uniform swings produce the following: Labour short by 14 on the Electoral Calculus; Labour short by 18 on UK Polling Report; Labour short by 24 on the swingometer. With the Conservatives 0.6% ahead in the votes, this result would open up questions about the voting system.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
EC: LAB 312, CON 280, LD 30, OTH 28 - Labour short by 14</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
UKPR: LAB 308, CON 281, LD 31, OTH 29 - Labour short by 18</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
SWINGO: LAB 302, CON 261, LD 57, OTH 30 - Labour short by 24</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Using a poll released on the day I am writing this, which has Labour on 34%, the Conservatives on 33%, UKIP on 14%, and the Liberal Democrats on 7%, applying this uniformly gives the following: Labour majority of 6 on the Electoral Calculus; Labour short by 1 on UK Polling Report; Labour short by 20 on the swingometer. Adjusting the swingometer for the Liberal Democrat losses that the Electoral Calculus predicts, the swingometer argues that Labour would be short by 2. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>EC: LAB 328, CON 280, OTH 27, LD 15, UKIP 0 - Labour Majority of 6</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
UKPR: LAB 325, CON 281, OTH 27, LD 16 - Labour short by 1</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
SWINGO: LAB 306, CON 257, LD 57, OTH 30 - Labour short by 20</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
ADJUSTED SWINGO: LAB 324, CON 284, LD 15, OTH 30 - Labour short by 2</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
From this we can determine that Labour need about 35% (just to be sure) with a two point lead over the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats on about 7-9% to win the election. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
CONSERVATIVES - CAN DAVID CAMERON BE REELECTED?</h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Can the Conservatives win? According to Peter Kellner, President of YouGov, they can. All they need to do is to attract the Liberal Democrat voters, whose vote share is 8% in one poll at the moment. If that were to happen at the election in May, then 16% of the vote needs to be redistributed. An 8%/8% increase for Labour and the Conservatives will give the Conservatives will end up with an overall majority assuming that the Conservative, Labour, and UKIP voters vote the same way they did in 2010. The Electoral Calculus predicts a Conservative majority of 38; UK Polling Report predict a majority of 36; the basic swingometer that I composed predicts a hung Parliament, with the Conservatives short by 20. A swingometer only accounts for a two-party system, mind you, so this can be discounted. The reason is that both Labour and the Conservatives will pick up the seats they're fighting against with the Liberal Democrats, and the Conservatives have more potential in this area, winning the South West of England and picking up four extra seats in Scotland whilst holding the one they already have.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>EC: CON 344, LAB 277, OTH 25, LD 4, UKIP 0 - Conservative Majority of 38</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>UKPR: CON 343, LAB 277, OTH 25, LD 4 - Conservative Majority of 36</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
SWINGO: CON 306, LAB 258, LD 57, OTH 30 - Conservatives short by 20</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We therefore know that a seven point lead would win the Conservatives the election if they attract Liberal voters. We'll try looking at the height of the Conservatives' polling within the last month, which was a two-point lead with them on 36%. This has the Conservatives on 36%, Labour on 34%, UKIP on 13%, and the Liberal Democrats on 7%. Would a two-point lead be enough to win them the election? No. They wouldn't even be the largest party in a hung Parliament, according to both the Electoral Calculus and UK Polling Report: Labour short by 13 and 16 respectively. The swingometer paints a slightly better picture for the Conservatives with Labour short by 31 - which is one of the most equal states possible.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
EC: LAB 313, CON 299, OTH 27, LD 11, UKIP 0 - Labour short by 13</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
UKPR: LAB 310, CON 302, OTH 27, LD 10 - Labour short by 16</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
SWINGO: LAB 285, CON 278, LD 57, OTH 30 - Labour short by 31</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The problem with the predicted average change in the polls is that the 2013 averages are unfairly skewed by a huge double-figure lead Labour possessed throughout the first few months of 2013 (with voters still feeling the effects of Osborne's so-called "omnishambles" budget in 2012). The Conservatives' best poll in Q4 of 2013, therefore, had the Conservatives and Labour tied on 35%, with UKIP on 10% and the Lib Dems on 9%. UKIP are not included in the averages, so apply the averages to this (to no decimal places) and you end up with the Conservatives on 37%, Labour on 29%, and the Liberal Democrats on 11%. This would be enough for the Conservatives to win: Conservative majority of 22 on the Electoral Calculus, Conservative majority of 16 on UK Polling Report. The swingometer gives the Conservatives short by 17, but accounting for Liberal losses according to the Electoral Calculus gives an extra 11 seats to Labour and 25 extra seats to the Conservatives, more than enough, ending up with a majority of 18.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>EC: CON 336, LAB 266, OTH 29, LD 19 - Conservative Majority of 22</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>UKPR: CON 333, LAB 263, OTH 28, LD 25 - Conservative Majority of 16</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
SWINGO: CON 309, LAB 254, LD 57, OTH 30 - Conservatives short by 17</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>ADJUSTED SWINGO: CON 334, LAB 265, OTH 30, LD 21 - Conservative Majority of 18.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Conservatives therefore still would rely on the Lib Dem collapse more than anything else, as their lead of 7% at the last election is difficult to expand, otherwise we'd be getting into, as Jeremy Paxman once put it, "Michael Foot territory" - and this is where the swingometer comes in handy. If the Liberal Democrats do not collapse, we predict at <i>Benjamin's Blog</i> the Conservatives will need an 11% lead over Labour - a 2% swing. With the Conservatives on 39% and Labour on 28%, there's a clear winner, but what happens if both parties start dropping and the Liberal Democrats stay the same? Using UKPR, which is better for this sort of thing when looking at the Lib Dems, the Lib Dems would only need to garner 1% extra in order to force a hung Parliament if the Conservatives win by 11% (CON 38%, LAB 27%, LD 25%, OTH 11%).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Therefore, the very minimum the Conservatives need to win the election will depend on how well or badly the Liberal Democrats do. If the Lib Dem vote doesn't collapse, the Conservatives would need to get 39% to win with Labour on 28%. We estimate that if the Lib Dem vote does collapse to 7% then the Conservatives would only need a 5-6% lead over Labour with the Conservatives on around what they got last time - and could even afford to undercut it - 35% or thereabouts. As a graph, we can think about lead over Labour vs. Lib Dem rating. If the Lib Dems end up somewhere in the middle, say, on 14%, the Conservatives would need an 8% lead.<br />
<br />
<h2>
TO CONCLUDE AS A TABLE</h2>
<br />
In table form:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiIaMrNzWrWboeCxcojxB-6RIC-MIf6ir05EGUqZMJ5UGc46I7h1_mGpUW5BA5pXaVsWEpfaVyCvHZqTYuUPzTm_jUJYvrbRLR3R2Zr9XNSe47ihRrSzvYh176faZOZy_SLnMljEFDQQ/s1600/election.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiIaMrNzWrWboeCxcojxB-6RIC-MIf6ir05EGUqZMJ5UGc46I7h1_mGpUW5BA5pXaVsWEpfaVyCvHZqTYuUPzTm_jUJYvrbRLR3R2Zr9XNSe47ihRrSzvYh176faZOZy_SLnMljEFDQQ/s1600/election.jpg" height="202" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-23838023277970644282014-09-25T00:28:00.001+01:002014-09-25T00:48:45.003+01:00Labour and the economy<div style="text-align: justify;">
This week saw the Labour Party conference. A buzz of socialism gathered together in one big hall, used as an attempt to try to promote the Labour Party to voters. However, this week the public saw who the real Labour were.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On day one I received an email from the Conservative Party taken from a survey of those who had attended the Labour Party conference (conducted by Labour). In it, it contained the damning evidence of Labour PPCs up and down the country, almost UKIP-esque in how each candidate gets notoriety:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;">
85% of Labour PPCs said that the last Labour government didn't spend too much.</h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ridiculous. According to the Institute For Fiscal Studies, "spending on public services has increased by an average of 4.4% a year in real terms under Labour, significantly faster than the 0.7% a year average seen under the Conservatives from 1979 to 1997." As Labour poured so much money into public services in their first 10 years from 1997 to 2007, productivity fell. Worse still, the real terms value of the pound fell by even more than productivity in these 10 years. The warning signs were there and Labour had already spent too much. According to the Institute For Fiscal Studies, "if the Government had managed to maintain the “bang for each buck” at the level it inherited in 1997, it would have been able to deliver the quantity and quality of public services it delivered in 2007 for £42.5 billion less." £42,500,000,000 of your money. Unnecessarily spent.</div>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;">
<br /><b>10% of Labour PPCs said that the last Labour government should have spent more money.</b></h4>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm not having a laugh, I promise. On top of the £42.5bn wasted between 1997 and 2007, the deficit increased from the £29.2bn deficit it inherited to £36.4bn before the recession - another loss of £7.2bn - and when the recession hit, boy, did Labour mess this up. Since 1979, the biggest budget deficit was in 1993 where the government that year, as a consequence of Black Wednesday, ran a budget deficit of £50.9bn. In 2008 Darling smashed that with £69bn. In 2009 he went even better and smashed it up to an incredible £156.3bn. One hundred and fifty six billion and three hundred million pounds was the government black hole. That was bigger than Greece. And at the same time taxes were going up. This wasn't working for Labour. And yet over 60 PPCs say that wasn't enough. They wanted to clog up the toilet with the wasted money being flushed away.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;">
42% of Labour PPCs want to raise direct taxes to reduce the deficit.</h4>
<h4>
Only 18% think we should cut spending.</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Wow. Time to get this old poster out again:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article658391.ece/alternates/s615/labour-tax-bombshell-569867013.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article658391.ece/alternates/s615/labour-tax-bombshell-569867013.jpg" height="265" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
And that was in 1992. This time around it's even worse. Labour have an £36bn black hole to fill of unfunded spending commitments, and they want 29.8 million taxpayers to pay for it. That's an extra £1,208.05 per year. An extra £1,200, we'll call it, every year. That's 4.6% of the average national income. According to Guido Fawkes, this tax isn't steeper for the rich. It isn't even flat. It will hit the poorest hardest. Besides, even if you taxed the rich at 98%, as Labour once did, you wouldn't be able to fund it.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
So where will you find £1,200? You could cut back by £20 per week on food and groceries.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
OK, maybe not. Another way? You could give up the family holiday, that should save £1,200 in one go. That won't go down popularly either.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
So let's look at another way. You could sell your car - that's at least £1,200, surely? OK, maybe not. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
All right, you can keep your car, but you'd have to give up your evenings and go minicabbing. Well that's no fun, is it?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
You could try striking, but that never works, does it? Strikes go up under Labour, maybe that's why... </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
In that case, you'd just have to work overtime. A teacher would have to take classes for an extra few hours. A fireman would have to work a few extra shifts. A farmer would have to sweat in the field.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Judging by their tax bombshell, it's no wonder that</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h4 style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
ED MILIBAND DIDN'T MENTION THE ECONOMY ONCE IN HIS SPEECH.</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Also, not only did Blair and Brown's government make a mess of the economy, but <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAagz7FLHEM">Wilson and Callaghan made a mess of the economy too...</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I shall leave you with the following tweet:</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<div style="text-align: center;">
Ed Miliband couldn't run a bath, let alone the economy.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
— Rhys Benjamin (@TheotherRB) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheotherRB/status/514840300628750336">September 24, 2014</a></div>
</blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-18377458669877218882014-03-07T01:01:00.001+00:002014-03-07T01:01:14.680+00:00Is Eurovision the answer to the Russia/Ukraine crisis?<div style="text-align: justify;">
Over the last few days, Vladimir Putin has said a lot of things about the current situation there. But with World War <strike>Three</strike> Four seemingly on the horizon (well, surely World War Three was the Afghan War?), is there a solution from a place you wouldn't expect it?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the 1976 Olympics, US and USSR athletes were spotted talking to each other. It's little things like this. But my solution is what my major event was designed for.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPWha-cYUiRar1AYVF-NRKk0-iFUzIZgy9YU-zlCQEqAq8iwORWOyLsPtlGUTe88I_nGQWbBRYBw2wmZ1WALIPTdhwiObPAeql3tV59ZKIk0UlK1nb0HMcZM-FHUaV-Ec9PYw68HQcWw/s1600/1506884_614599755266119_1840167666_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPWha-cYUiRar1AYVF-NRKk0-iFUzIZgy9YU-zlCQEqAq8iwORWOyLsPtlGUTe88I_nGQWbBRYBw2wmZ1WALIPTdhwiObPAeql3tV59ZKIk0UlK1nb0HMcZM-FHUaV-Ec9PYw68HQcWw/s1600/1506884_614599755266119_1840167666_n.jpg" height="177" width="320" /></a>In 1956, the Eurovision Song Contest was set up to promote peace and unite a war-torn Europe. Surely the Eurovision Song Contest can return to its original values for a few weeks in April and May? It definitely can. This year, it's in the neutral country of Denmark. Because <a href="http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/eurovision-song-contest-2013-thoughts.html">they won last year, if you have read the link before.</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Where are we on this? Well, Ukraine have revealed its entry - <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRQjUY3cf48">have a listen here</a> - whilst Russia are revealing theirs in the middle of March. My country, the United Kingdom, has revealed its entry - Molly with "Children Of The Universe". </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Why mention the UK, though? Why didn't I mention something like "Heartbeat" from Ireland? Well, there's two very good reasons for that: the Irish song is rubbish, and the lyrics of the UK entry have a part in this.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Don't believe me? Well, read this extract from the UK entry:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Power to the people, oh, ee ee</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Power to the people, oh, oh-oh-oh </i></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
(And no, I'm not advertising a <a href="https://ee.co.uk/">certain mobile phone company</a>. Honest.)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Will Ukraine act on the UK's song? Well, if they speak English, they will. That's what they want, isn't it? Some socialist propaganda according to popular opinion? In reality, it's more Thatcherite propaganda: socialism is the devolution of powers from the individual and to the state. Power from the people, more like.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If the Ukrainian entrant - whose name I can't spell - gets stuck in with the social aspect of the contest - and possibly achieves a good result with "Tick Tock" (which is very good!) then maybe tensions will diffuse? What will the countries give each other, though? Let's bear in mind <b>it is a televote</b>. People have the choice. (OK, 50% of the scores do come from professionals, but it's still a televote mostly, as televote has precedence in a tie-break.)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg08ma7A1xrhcIQP1Rj4MBWz8YKDHWTQynJNVA8jrjc4COdx9er86hmOGaczB48sedwFvHxCMtl7b0ios2MJ_AaMrTmVEjzUl2VmxqWyTg_gzPimWrjXcFdhqkLo0_14ReuLGLUASaUig/s1600/Eurovision_Song_Contest_2014_logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg08ma7A1xrhcIQP1Rj4MBWz8YKDHWTQynJNVA8jrjc4COdx9er86hmOGaczB48sedwFvHxCMtl7b0ios2MJ_AaMrTmVEjzUl2VmxqWyTg_gzPimWrjXcFdhqkLo0_14ReuLGLUASaUig/s1600/Eurovision_Song_Contest_2014_logo.png" height="320" width="255" /></a>I don't think Ukraine will win the contest with "Tick Tock". Yes, it's solid, but not as good as the British and Romanian entries in my eyes. And Hungary have finally sent something decent, so should do well. So that may hinder things. But will homophobic Putin watch Eurovision, a telethon synonymous with the LGBT community? I hate to say it, but I think the answer will be no. The organisers of the contest in general, the EBU, and the organisers of this year's contest, DR, are using the slogan #JoinUs, which is a bit unwieldy. I hope Putin reads it - but how do you translate a hashtag into Russian? Anyone?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Of course, Ukraine could, at great expense (the fines are immense!) pull the plug on the contest altogether. The last time a country did that was Armenia in 2012, who were fined a lot of money. Circumstances aren't that bad - the contest was being held in Azerbaijan, which has been at war with Armenia since 1993 - and although both countries wanted Armenia there, Armenia pulled out after there was a shoot-out and a death in the conflict. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Since Ukraine joined the contest in 2004, Russia have given them points in the final every year, with the exception of 2006. Even so, they don't tend to give them lots of points - mostly 1 or 2. Even in 2013, when Ukraine came third, Russia only awarded one point to the Ukraine, when most countries awarded lots more. So the Russian people will probably give nul points to Ukraine. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But only time will tell if Eurovision solves this. </div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-63031023490721790162014-02-27T23:22:00.000+00:002014-02-27T23:22:04.225+00:00£166bn down the drain? No thanks, Ed...<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ed Balls has been trying to claim that Labour ‘will not duck the hard choices ahead’. They said they were serious about the economy. But now we know that isn't true.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Analysis by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that his plans would allow Labour to borrow and spend billions more.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />Official Treasury numbers have shown the full impact of Labour’s plans: a borrowing bombshell adding an additional £166bn to the country's debt in just one parliament, despite what Miliband and Balls will tell you.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Labour’s plan to borrow and spend more is the single biggest risk to our economic recovery. And it’s hardworking people who would pay the price, with higher taxes funding this latest Labour spending spree.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The choice at the next election is now clear: the Conservatives with our long-term economic plan that is building a stronger, more competitive economy, and securing a better future for Britain; the Same Old Labour Party, with no plan, no direction, and no ideas other than more spending, more borrowing and more taxes.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Are you sure you can trust Ed Balls with the economy? After all, Alistair Darling is better than him and look how that ended up. </div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3556622404387794263.post-16095231142163074802014-02-20T22:09:00.002+00:002014-02-20T22:09:30.529+00:00A Real Nightmare<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you haven't guessed by now, I am a student. Sadly, I can't change the time settings on this blog: I have no idea what the time is in PST - or whatever the time setting is. But nonetheless, it is my half term break. I use the phrase 'break' very loosely: this has been a break from hell. Ultimately, one can surely understand if I'm having a nightmare. But not one like this.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, this half term has been dreadful. As well as the now customary mountain of homework given to me, my father decided that now is the time to redecorate my room. Part of me is glad: I used to have a horrible greeny-yellow wallpaper. But that's OK: the paint just has to be finished now. A colour that Homebase call 'azure' (whatever that is), with 'silk emulsion'. I still have no idea. But that is fine - but this week has been dreadful for the following reasons.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On the evening of Monday 17 February, Microsoft released an update for Windows. The update must have a bug in it, for it broke ALL the computers I have.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Despite technological experts, one is in a state of disrepair. The other one is password-protected due to a fault (we didn't set it to be password-protected but the update has forced it to be so) - and we don't know the password.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Consequently, I'm currently speaking to you from a crummy 7'' tablet my mother owns, whilst listening to 'Diva' by Dana International and watching <i>Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? </i>on a television channel called Challenge - which is the best thing since sliced bread (it broadcasts game shows!). I haven't got a clue in which US state Saint Augustine is, so I, like this contestant, would gladly take one hundred and twenty five thousand pounds! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Anyway, I didn't come here to go on and on about US states and female authors and whether the correct term for someone against increasing the powers of the EU is a eurosceptic, a eurostar, a eurotrash, or a eurovision. Oh, no, no, no, no, no. And squeezing this between the mountain of homework given to me...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Anyway, this strange dream I had... where to begin?<br /><br />As my room is being redecorated, I'm sleeping with my brother (and all of you disgusting perverts can get that thought of your heads NOW), and I have a dream about the next general election.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
David Dimbleby introduces the election night, with very badly airbrushed pictures of Ed Miliband, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Nigel Farage standing side by side by side by side. Then he introduces Jeremy Vine swinging his swingometer. (I've just thought about using a pun on 'Vine' and 'swinging', but I'm not clever enough to think of one.) Then Andrew Neil and Andrew Marr get shoehorned in, Peter Kellener is added as an afterthought, the Formula One commentator Ben Edwards is also there. I don't know why, the BBC tend to do use gimmicks on election nights: in 2005, they had people spray-painting a map of the UK in the colours won by each constituency. Attempting not to go over the lines on Sunderland South and other extremely urban constituencies was a bit of a disaster. In 2010, they had Andrew Neil interviewing, of all people, Piers Morgan and Bruce Forsyth on a boat next to the London Eye,the latter seeming not to give two hoots about the election. So I have no idea what Ben Edwards is doing there. And then David Dimbleby introduces Emily Maitlis and Nick Robinson, attempting to hide the frustration of a night with Nick Robinson, which would drive anyone mad!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Anyhow, in my version of reality, I am sitting on my sofa with 15 cans of Red Bull and 29 cups of coffee ready to drink in emergency, bearing in mind I hate both of them. Dimbers gives us an exit poll at 22:00 which appears to have gone slightly wrong as it shows UKIP on 631 (+631), Labour on 0 (-258), the Conservatives on 0 (-306), the Liberal Democrats on 0 (-57), and the others on 19 (-10). Nick Robinson dismisses it as rubbish, Jeremy Vine runs out of swing, and Peter Kellener is stunned into silence.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Right then - according to Mr Dimbleby - Houghton and Sunderland South should be first to declare. As always, the swing here will be important, just as it will in the 631 constituencies where the main parties are standing (650 - Speaker's seat - Northern Ireland = 631). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At 22:41, Houghton and Sunderland South declares with a 7% swing to Labour. UKIP are nowhere. "Well," says Nick Robinson, "What an interesting result. Let's wait and see."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sunderland Central declares. 7% swing to Labour. UKIP nowhere. This pattern continues for the North East. Result after result goes to Labour. UKIP make gains in the Conservative heartlands. The Liberal Democrats are able to concentrate their votes and monopolise Cornwall and Devon. Making facial gestures at home very similar to those made by defeated Conservative candidates in 1997, I begin to look up one-way plane tickets to Sweden.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's now, on election night, 4am - and the one result I was desperate to see is coming through. Harrow West. After 17 recounts, this seat finally declares - and Gareth Thomas is ousted after 18 years. Hannah David, a very nice woman comes in. Hannah David wins by just two votes from Gaeth Thomas for the Conservatives. UKIP take third.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But I watch Ed Miliband stumble over his words in Downing Street, with the Ed Balls clown back there - and reading in the papers that he attempted to steal from Buckingham Palace, Ed Miliband walks in to Downing Street - and I wake up. My brother's just switched the lights on. He does this sort of thing. I promptly turn out the lights again. (The political know-alls who read this blog can probably see where this is going.)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Fortunately, you can stop it. By voting for David Cameron at the next general election, you can stop Ed Miliband from winning. A vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour. A vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote for Labour. But if Miliband wins, I WILL be getting on that plane to Sweden - and will the last person to leave please turnout the lights?</div>
Rhys Benjaminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07660068627415798730noreply@blogger.com2