Interesting Links for 09-05-2017

[andrewducker]

Progressive alliance: Greens, Labour and Liberal Democrats unite to take down Jeremy Hunt

(tags: politics uk GoodNews )

Green Party complain to BBC about disproportionate coverage of UKIP following local elections

(tags: politics uk bias bbc )

Full Scottish council election results published

(tags: scotland elections voting )

The Etiquette of the Victorian Ballroom: Twenty Tips for Single Gentlemen

(tags: advice uk ettiquette history )

"I Got Drunk With The Funeral Industry To Find Out What Happens When We Die"

(tags: death viaSwampers society )

A nice simple explanation of why the UK won't be able to escape European Law

(tags: law europe uk )

There is nothing cute about innumeracy

(tags: numbers society )

Yoga helps with depression - after a few months

(tags: depression yoga )

Anyone care to offer a counterpoint to this assessment of the SNP's competence?

(tags: snp scotland government )

Saudi king orders that women no longer need man’s permission to travel or study

Still a terrible place for women to live. But now slightly less terrible.
(tags: saudiarabia women GoodNews religion )

New studies suggest everything we thought we knew about salt could be completely wrong

(tags: food biology salt )

Is it me, or is the Conservative's approach to the energy cap actually pretty reasonable?

Deferring to Ofgem (the energy regulator) actually seems like the right approach to me. Am I missing something?
(tags: energy regulation Conservatives )

Comments

[danieldwilliam]

Just had a look at some of the data tables.


(Bastards only publish them in pdf. Pdf!)

SNP pretty much unchanged on 32.3% of the first preferennce.

Big move from Labour to Tories. Labour down from 31.4% to 20.2%. Tories up from 13.3% to 25.3%. Combined Labour & Tory 1st preference share is 45.5% up from 44.7% by 0.8%

Greens up from 2.3% to 4.1% - relatively big increase in vote share for them. With the increase in turnout they've doubled their actual first preference vote to 77k from 36k.

Lib Dems up a fraction.

So at first glance it looks like Labour to Tory swapping with slight reduction in Independents and Other Parties.


I have some 2017 local authority break downs but can't yet find the 2012 equilvalent.

[andrewducker]

Wikipedia isn't bad for the council election details from 2012.

Got a link to the PDF for the final results?

[danieldwilliam]

LInk to the pdf

http://www.electionsscotland.info/downloads/download/112/slge2017_summary_results_data

Wikipedia is good but I'm looking for council by council first preference tallies so I can see if the vote is shifting around differently in different areas.

I've so far got a % of first preferences which will allow me to back create the data when I have a bit of time.

[andrewducker]

The data must now be available, because (for instance) Fife Council now have their full breakdowns on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fife_Council_election,_2017#Burntisland.2C_Kinghorn_and_Western_Kirkcaldy

[danieldwilliam]

It is.

I've seen the 2016 data in excel. Hunting round for 2012 comparatives. I suspect that by the time I find them and have a chance to look at them we'll know the 2016 General Election result.

[andrewducker]

Wikipedia has the results from 2012. But spread over each of the council areas.

[danieldwilliam]

I'm not messing about with tables from wikipedia if I can help it. Give me Excel or give me a whole day of data entry!

[danieldwilliam]

The SNP's record on domestic issues is not great.

That does not necessarly mean that the reason for this is that they are too distracted by the independence referendum to do something about this.

And I think the suggestion that because they don't face electoral pressure they aren't incentivised to sort things out is simplistic to the point of fatuousness. Why would a government not want to do better even if it faced no electoral challenge? SNP ministers and their family use the schools and NHS too. It's more a question of what the defintition of "better" is and who decides that. The Tories, facing weak opposition in England will define "better" as more private sector involvement and less state funding. So the interesting questions is a) what is it about the SNP's electoral coalition that means that either they define "better" in a way most people disagree with or b) why are they not able to do "better" even when they agree with most Scots about what better is. (I have some thoughts on that.)

Nor does it mean that anyone else would be able to do better with the same resources.

[andrewducker]

I'd be interested in your thoughts on why.

And yeah, sceptical about other parties doing much better in the same constraints.

[danieldwilliam]

I think part of the problem is the fiscal arrangements. I don't think they give the Scottish state sufficient ability to raise the revenue that the Scottish people want to spend in common or, over the long term, to allow the Scottish state to shape the Scottish economy.

I think the SNP have for a long time practiced a Don't Rock the Boat approach to government. No drama, no controversy, a steady hand upon the tiller. As many sections of society are to think that they have nothing to fear and something to gain from independence. This rather hampers the SNP's ability to do things differently. (One might argue that this is because they are focused on independence, I think there is also an element that independence supporters are a broad church, most to the left or centre left but still many to the right. The SNP reflects this and so attempts to govern in a centrist and non-radical way.)

Tory imposed austerity.

I think the three factors together make it difficult for the SNP to agree on a common definition of "better" and to make that happen.

The Tories could get things done but they would be Tory Better. The system is set up so that it's easier for the Scottish Government to cut taxes and state involvement rather than the other way round.

[andrewducker]

Yeah, I think you're right that it's tricky for the SNP to go far from the political centre. At least, economically.

But they do need to look competent. So finding a way to run the schools better is probably an idea.

[danieldwilliam]

I very much agree. I think they are building a platform for independence around uncontroversial domestic policy with leftward rhetoric but pretty unradical action and this all wrapped up in governmenntal competitence. Some of the perception of competence coming from actual competence and some coming from successfully blaming Westminister for getting in the way. Generally speaking I think they've been a competent government, in that they have successfully got their legislation passed and not, so far, blundered in to too many catastrophes but education does seem to be a weak suite of their's at the moment.

Which I am sure they will want to sort out for several reasons.

[havocthecat]

FYI, the innumeracy article is behind a paywall.

[ironyoxide]

The list of confusing payment options may, accidentally or otherwise, be the joke.

[havocthecat]

I will be honest, I see a paywall and I generally just click away without reading the payment options. This time, I guess I missed out! :)

[theandrewhickey]

You didn't -- it is just the FT's standard paywall.
The FT does an annoying thing where their articles are paywalled *unless* you click on them directly from Twitter -- but not Tweetdeck -- or Facebook, with JavaScript enabled. So when articles are shared on those services, they look non-paywalled and anyone using those sites can see the article. But if the link's shared anywhere else, or if you click on a tweet from Tweetdeck rather than the standard Twitter website, or if you have NoScript on, it's paywalled :-/