It's actually really easy to win this war on drugs: just give them drugs until all Opioid users are dead.

/s

If you think that is bad, you should look at 2020 through today.

You can't get a premed degree, an engineering degree, or an MBA from a community college.

Online colleges are sketchy, still expensive, lacking in even more amenities, and suffer from low credibility..

Traveling abroad costs money, and the way most developed nations subsidize universities to keep costs down without flooding them with students is by increasing the required to get in and stay in school, so you're asking Americans to spend thousands of dollars to move abroad and apply to foreign universities and pass much more rigorous entrance and pacekeeping exams after going through the declining American school system. That's also hardly viable for most people.

Instead, we can just use the same solution most other nations have worked all of the kinks and bugs out of: Subsidize higher education with tax dollars, regulate the prices universities may charge, and increase academic rigor at universities to ensure that nobody without the will and the aptitude to succeed enrolls.

That last part serves the dual purpose of revitalizing community colleges and trade schools as more students accept that 4-year universities aren't aligned with their goals instead of going just because it's the thing to do.

2-year degrees and trade schools are often treated like consolation prizes in America. As if only those whose lives haven't panned out would ever end up there because everyone with their shit together gets a bachelor's degree.

We can change that by emphasizing with entry testing that 4-year degrees are highly specialized and intended for those interested in more academic or design-based work; and that those without those goals can and should instead pursue 2-year programs. By making 4-year degrees more selective we can also discourage employers from scorning a 2-year degree that meets every requirement for the job role.

Again: These problems have proven solutions that have been employed for decades all over the developed world. America need not reinvent the wheel.

You ignore 2008, the UK didn't really recover from it, but to attribute it to Torie alone is delusional, as Gordon Brown didn't help either.

I would support the statement that nobody would support Rishi, but not because of his "austerity policies."

The heroin line spikes right around the time I was in high school and that shit was everywhere. A lot of kids from my class have overdosed since then. Crazy how that shit gets into schools.

Interesting plot. The mainstream narrative would indicate this to be due to climate change. However, in the specific case of London, we must consider the significant reduction of co2 emissions during the last decades due to the coal usage ramp-down.

Tony Blair left power 15 years ago but still lives in your head rent-free. Besides, given the choice between having the UK at 2005 living standards or those of Tory 2023, you'd struggle to find anyone who would choose Richi's austerity model.

I'm glad we are wining the war in drugs.

Well yes you can only guess how much gets implemented. But who says that exactly one manifesto of a random party is the optimal thing to implement?

In the end there is no objective right or wrong voting system.

It feels like the points are behind bars. We need so save them

If you are a CDU or SDP voter in Germany (for example) you can only guess at how much manifesto you get implemented and what gets negotiated away in coalition. Some countries (hello Belgium), forming a government is a major issue.

It think the political culture of the voting public is far more important than the voting system. I think the increasing intransigence and unrealistic nonsense is more to do with where modern politics is in the US and UK than the voting system.

What I was trying to get at is that, at first glance it seems like a consistent normalized way to depict the comparison. Let's say you have a list of OD deaths(d) and a list of populations(p) over the years. You're using d/p for each year, right? but while d seems like an independent variable, the p also accounts for a corrected value due to natural deaths, gun violence, disease, other substance abuse etc., So if you had 2 subsequent years with the same number of people dying of Opioid overdose, but the population changed drastically with larger deaths or more births, the d/p changes. These 2 need not be balanced all the years and especially during the pandemic. Just using regular counts won't be affected by variability of population. if one year the (d,p) is (50,300) and next it is (45,200), has it increased or decreased per 10 people? Even though deaths decreased by 5, the deaths per 10 people are 1.6 and then 2.25, which means it increased a lot. So which way are you doing it and why not just show actual counts of it on the y scale instead? why would that give any wrong info?

I think the biggest problem with a first past the post system is that votes outside of the "swing constituencies" matter very little.

If you're a Conservative voter in Liverpool or a Labour supporter in rural southern England your vote is pretty much meaningless.

Really? Was Tony Blair just a fever dream?

I think he asks whether it'll be better to just give the number of deaths outright instead of based on 100k that would flactuate with time

You are right. I'm not 100% confident on this whether they adjust unweighted GPA to weighted for those years. I know there are some 4.0+ GPA(so weighted) schools for 1994, but whether or not the other datapoints are adjusted is definitely something to look at.

What would the most likely collation be? Trying to work out if Labour-Lib Dem would have a majority or if they would need the SNP as well, possibly other smaller parties?

Labour and the Conservative parties (as well as the Lib Dems) are defacto coalition blocs. They are parties that caucus under one umbrella, its even in their names, the Conservative and Unionist Party is at the almagamation of the old Scottish Unionist party and the English Conservative Party, the Lib Dems from the Liberal and Social Democratic parties while Labour still have numerous Labour Coop members who sit in parliament including former Prime Minister Brown who was not technically Labour.

Change the voting system and you will have 4 or 5 new parties.

Though you will have the same electorate.

How can the modern Conservative party go against 'all its values and ruins the country' if those values are determined by the Conservative party? Thirteen years of Tory mismanagement have brought the UK to its knees. Everybody is sick of their failures. Their Boomer base is dying out and everyone under 50 despises them. Our entire political system is seem as abject and corrupt. Embracing the German system might be a way of at least keeping the Union together

I'm not sure I'm following. The chart already depicts deaths per 100k people, so that variability in population does not affect the reading of the data.

Isn't it better to do a histogram or use the actual count for Y-axis, since population will keep varying and declining for various reasons. Would it be different from deaths per 100k metric?

Part of the problem is the voting system. Because it allows a party to have an absolute majority in parliament despite only having a simple majority in the popular vote. So despite the fact that they have less than 50% of the popular vote they (more or less) get to push 100% of their policy goals.

In a system of proportional representation a party with a simple majority would need to form coalitions and make compromises to that at least some policy goals of the coalition partner are on the agenda.

Source

Spreadsheet

Tool

[removed]

Do you mean Tories in general, so conservative? Or the modern party that goes against all its values and ruins the country and is more socialist than Labour?