Poll: General election voting round 4

[D.P.]

You've banged on about the first part before, but why is it relevant to a debate on school standards being affected by kids? The parents don't go to school. (And I'd question the quality of some European degrees, as someone who knows people who've studied in most countries on the continent, on a year abroad from the UK - some courses are a joke.)

With the second part - London schools perform better, but that doesn't mean migrants/children of migrants aren't negatively affecting the development of 'native' kids, unless you can evidence that claim? Immigrants/children of immigrants perform better as they're more hard working and so forth - why can't that explain the better performance of the schools? (So essentially the argument would be that the 'native' kids perform the same, or even worse, but the affect on the average of the hardworking 'immigrant' kids outweighs that and leads to an overall figure that looks very positive).



Overall. But not all of them. The position could arguably be further improved (a greater overall net contribution) if the net drains within that group were stopped from coming here.

Just for you
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/05/27/immigrant-and-native-children-dutch-schools/

after controlling for differences within schools, that the educational achievement of native children is almost completely unaffected by the presence of immigrant children.

 

[Gogl]

... and so rests the case for the prosecution. I would expect the defence to alter their plea to one of diminished responsibility. The case will now be adjourned until after the election.

I think the statue of limitations might apply, at least to that one posted above .

 

[Tunney]

Evidence shows that the coalition's strategy of austerity held back economic growth.

 

[D.P.]

Thanks for sharing. I find it very interesting when people change their mind, especially if "lifelong" as you say. Do you rent your home?

I'm a big fan of those policies too (but not as much as the Green's versions which are even stronger). In particular banning estate agents from charging tenants fees, should make the market work better.



All the forecasts and bookmakers agree you'll be disappointed. 1-4 is much more likely. Have you realised all your claims that you'll "rub it in D.P.s face" might look very silly if UKIP only end up with 1-4 seats?

I note may2015 have UKIP down to just 2 seats now, the lowest it has ever been at. All part of the continued gradual decline in UKIP support.

 

[scorza]

Yeah, but the bookmakers (the people who stand to lose lots of money if they're wrong) are only expecting them to get a handful. One is even giving 100 to one odds of them getting 17+ seats..

Ah well, why bother with voting at all - we can just let the bookmakers decide who wins the election.

 

[sityeuropa]

I note may2015 have UKIP down to just 2 seats now, the lowest it has ever been at. All part of the continued gradual decline in UKIP support.

No UKIP support is vast, it's just spread evenly across the country which doesn't work out very well in a FPTP system.

Doesn't seem fair that UKIP will get many more votes than Lib Dem but will be represented by only a handful of seats.

 

[sityeuropa]

Hey red Ed lovers, look at France. Socialism's not working out to good for them at the moment.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

I'm getting bored now

But no, you've never called anyone an idiot or moron....I guess memory is another trait we can add to your list of things you lack

Its taken me a while but I finally have robgmun on ignore. Boring is the right word and every post is the same rule breaking tripe the mods are seemingly happy to ignore. Your proof post alone is enough to warrant a ban:

FAQ

We also expect members to behave respectfully and not launch personal or abusive attacks on other members. Those who post for the sole purpose of causing trouble are not welcome here and will be dealt with accordingly.

 

[AGD]

No UKIP support is vast, it's just spread evenly across the country which doesn't work out very well in a FPTP system.

Doesn't seem fair that UKIP will get many more votes than Lib Dem but will be represented by only a handful of seats.

I really dislike UKIP, but it is a travesty that they may get 15% of the vote and only 1 seat out of 650. Our electoral system is completely broken but most people don't seem to realise it.

The big parties like FPTP because it benefits them massively.

 

[Zethor]

Hey red Ed lovers, look at France. Socialism's not working out to good for them at the moment.

France has other issues, such as a President who would rather run around after actresses on his scooter, instead of leading his country.

 

[Destination]

It's worse that the SNP are going to get 3.6% of the vote, but 47 seats! That's a third of what the Lib Dems will get in terms of votes, but double the number of seats.

What % of the vote in the constituencies they are standing will they achieve? They will get 47 seats which is a small split of the total 650 and quite close to the % that vote for them, giving a 51/49 fpp win system.

 

[aslco]

I really dislike UKIP, but it is a travesty that they may get 15% of the vote and only 1 seat out of 650. Our electoral system is completely broken but most people don't seem to realise it.

The big parties like FPTP because it benefits them massively.

This is the one reason i don't mind UKIP. They get the right to argue for something other than FPTP too

 

[Tephnos]

Hey red Ed lovers, look at France. Socialism's not working out to good for them at the moment.

Completely ignoring the Scandinavian countries where Socialism seems to be doing pretty fine for them and has for a long time? Nice cherry picking.

 

[Sankari]

The UK system needs a serious overhaul.

* scrap the House of Lords and replace it with a genuine house of review consisting of elected members (e.g. the Australian Senate)
* replace FPTP with PR

Completely ignoring the Scandinavian countries where Socialism seems to be doing pretty fine for them and has for a long time? Nice cherry picking.

Mmm... no. What's happening in Scandinavia is not Socialism. It's Nordic social democracy.

 

[D.P.]

Almost completely? So they are?



Before you said how immigrants result in better results (true, because of work ethic and so forth), but that doesn't mean it's wholly good if it's true they negatively impact 'natives'. You completely ignore that side of things, and just shout about the stats which support your position - try being balanced, perhaps?

---

I'm actually pro immigration, but your blinkered, ideologically affected narrative is ridiculous. You do more harm than good for the pro-immigration side of this debate, imo. You're as ideologically rabid as the worst UKIP people.

And that isn't a significant effect size! Read the sentence above your quote
We have found that the presence of immigrant students in the same learning environment has very limited and insignificant impacts on the Dutch students’ academic achievements.

"Insignificant impact", that is there is not statistically significant effect. Read that again and tell where the evidence that immigrants significantly negatively impact British born children. I'll wait patiently.

 

[[TW]Fox]

4% of people in the UK will vote Green, with that leading to one seat. 3.6% of people in the UK will vote SNP and they'll get forty-seven times that. Those kind of examples highlight the ridiculous side of FPTP*.

But does it?

Remember, we are voting for somebody to represent our local area in parliament. So, from these numbers we can see that, on average, hardly anyone wants the Green party to represent them in each area. Therefore nationally, you arrive with 4% - hardly anyone.

Lets look at SNP. In England, absolutely nobody wants an SNP MP to represent them, and after all they are not standing. But in various Scottish areas, a very large amount of the people in each area *do* want the SNP. So they'll win these seats - because the majority of the people in each seat want an SNP MP.

Binning FPTP and replacing it with PR makes perfect sense if you beleive we are voting for who we want to run the country. But that's the thing - that's NOT what we are voting for.

 

[D.P.]

No UKIP support is vast, it's just spread evenly across the country which doesn't work out very well in a FPTP system.

Doesn't seem fair that UKIP will get many more votes than Lib Dem but will be represented by only a handful of seats.

If vast is defined as 13%, and many more votes is defined as 4%.



There is a good reason that UKIP won't get many seats, unlike the lib dems, most people hate the UKIP and would never vote for them, and the UKIP have a complete void of likable candidates. Lib dems have the benefit that many supports of both labour and Tory will vote for a lib Dem candidate if they feel they are the best in their constituency. The lib dems focus their efforts on seats that they can win and have candidates that a broader spectrum of voters agree with, compare to UKIP that only appeals to the far right and anti-immigration electorate.

There is an easy way for UKIP to get more seats:
1) move to a more moderate position
2) drop the endless anti-immigration and anti-EU rhetoric
3) produce a sensible manifesto
4) remove all the racist and bigoted candidates that end up in the papers every week giving UKIP bad press.
5) change their voter base so they don't appeal to the 50% self-admitting racists
6) get candidates a majority of the people in the constituency like.

FPTP is working exactly as intends here. Candidates without broad local appeal don't get voted.

 

[D.P.]

You're claiming a positive impact though. When in reality the only positive is for immigrants themselves, whereas there might be a negative for 'natives'.

I claimed there is a positive impact on the average due to immigrants performing better than the average British population, and that there is no significant negative effect on the British children. That is shown to be true by numerous independent peer-reviewed studies.



I'm still waiting on you to show evidence that there is a negative effect.

 

[D.P.]

But does it?

Remember, we are voting for somebody to represent our local area in parliament. So, from these numbers we can see that, on average, hardly anyone wants the Green party to represent them in each area. Therefore nationally, you arrive with 4% - hardly anyone.

Lets look at SNP. In England, absolutely nobody wants an SNP MP to represent them, and after all they are not standing. But in various Scottish areas, a very large amount of the people in each area *do* want the SNP. So they'll win these seats - because the majority of the people in each seat want an SNP MP.

Binning FPTP and replacing it with PR makes perfect sense if you beleive we are voting for who we want to run the country. But that's the thing - that's NOT what we are voting for.

People seem very confused at this situation, as you say, FPTP is working exactly as intended. Whoever is the most popular in a constituency gets to represent their electorate in government.


Beside which PR would bring a whole boast of other problems. Look at the mess we have going into this election, that would be easy compared to a PR system. Going by current polls we would have 33% labour and Tories, 13% UKIP, 9% LD and 5% Greens. There would be no majority, no powerful go meant, just a load of tit-for-tat squabbling.

 

[D.P.]

So you accept there's no positive impact for the 'native' kids? Because saying 'immigration is good for immigrants' isn't a good line to use in support of immigration, fyi.

And now you've changed to no significant negative effect? Cool. Shift those goalposts. No one's denying that... but presenting the stats to make it seem like immigrants make the situation better is stupid - they raise the average because they do better, not because they have a positive impact on the people already there.

I never said there was a negative impact. I merely question your ridiculous stance whereby you'll manipulate any stats to try and support your ideologically motivated pro-immigration stance. It undermines any genuine debate and lowers you to the level of the most rabid UKIP bigots.

What the heck are you on about?i am really lost in your logic so I will repeat it what I said once more:


Immigrants have a significant positive effect on average educational performance without negatively effecting British children.


Anti-immigration posters are claiming without evidence that immigrants are negatively impacting the performance of schools in their area when there is absolute zero proof of that, in fact the average performance increases.

Come back when you understand that and have proof against it.