Basti Zieg

Without training in the subject area most academic articles are, at best, very difficult to understand and prone to cause major misunderstandings (even when they read thoroughly). Adding to this, I seriously doubt that journalists have the (paid) time to do the required reading.

I think the same point is for the debate on AI in Higher Education contexts. It's not that AI can't produce an okay essay for students who want a short cut - it can - it's that it seems that most people who use it that way genuinely don't know whether the piece of text is good or not.

👇 genuinely don’t understand why people are unable to comprehend “don’t get AI to do something for you if you can’t understand whether it has produced the wrong answer”.

It's a former criminology lecturer, which probably makes it 'newsworthy'.

I also wonder whether it comes to Labour strategists minds that liberal voters have alternatives available, particularly in a fragmented system. Lib Dems, Greens & SNP are the biggest contenders of picking up votes when Labour tries to chase Reform voters. Anyway, the thread 👇 is worth a read.

Lastly, there is a non-zero chance of Labour ending up being dependent on support by Liberal Democrats and SNP to form a stable government. In that moment, questions of chance for the electoral system and Scottish independence would be once again on the menu. 4/4

The second point is that SNP would profit massively from Labour losing and very fragmented results electoral results. That's not new for anyone familiar with Scottish politics but worthwhile mentioning, and it will certainly be a factor in the next election for the Scottish Parliament. /3

The big stories or take aways are, that FPTP is not designed to deal with such a fragmented electoral system. So the question of legitimacy comes to mind if we would get such fragmented results (or anything near it). Doesn't mean it will be changed to PR, but the issue becomes more pressing. /2

While it is obviously interesting to delve into seat-by-seat projections for a GE2029, it's probably a rather futile exercise. There is a lot what could come along, including a collapse of HE which could have nasty knock on effects in urban local economies. /1

To be fair, some of them are not the brightest of all bulbs. They should have known that even if they would entertain a coalition or confidence and supply deal with AfD, they would probably lose some for their own MPs + scare away quite a number of voters without being able to replace them.

Maybe, there is just not the a lot of money to hire them. Besides, the Higher Education cultures are very different to the USA, and there is a demand to be able to learn the languages. That's on top of existing competition from 'homegrown', European talent.

I guess you will need to consider the role of trade unions in the UK. They are not that relevant in the USA but they do play a quite important role here. That should function as another safeguard, apart from existing legislation.

It also assumes that there are no defections. Merz's brinkmanship might work on matters which are deemed inconsequential on the policy-side of things, but if it gets to a stage where clear collaboration is involved he would get problems with liberal conservatives voters & MPs. Very unlikely.

I suspect with those interventions pressure to follow Merz in his persuit will rather weaken. It's stupid anyway since he is effectively forced to coalise with SPD or Greens, and only the latter might be remotely willing to entertain this. Not sure how long Merz as a chancellor would survive.

Very little chance that this is necessary but really interesting in terms of Macron's pursuit of strategic autonomy for the EU in security matters.

Adding to this, it seems unlikely to me that the EU (or member states) would deregulate (more likely the opposite), even under pressure by a Trump government. There will be structural pressure by leading member states (e.g., Germany) to resist any lobbying or political efforts by Trump and allies.

To be honest, the odds seem off to me in general. But apart from that, it's not just that AfD is pinned to around 20%, they are also not seen as coalition worthy by the other parties (and their voters) at large. East Germany is an exception to this, although a relatively small one.

Very unlikely. The ceiling for this party is at about 20%, not even remotely enough. And nobody would want to coalise with them, neither voters nor MPs of other parties would entertain this (apart from very few outliers - at best).

I suspect the commentary just end up undermining the platform he can draw (some) political power from. Also, with this rate he will have alienated anyone in British (German or European) politics within weeks irrespective of their political leanings.

My suspicion is that it could lead to an interesting dynamic in Scotland. Part of the story on the weakness of the SNP is the relative strength of Labour, it's unlikely people will switch in considerable numbers to Tories.

That means, I don't think it would be likely that they win a majority on their own, or being able to get in a confidence and supply deal or coalition government getting them into power. That seems very unlikely for me, even with an exorbitant amount of money. 2/2

Maybe just as a reminder: Money does not win elections, and regardless of how much resources some campaigns receive their reach will remain limited (i.e. Reform UK and Farage would split a Conservative electorate into Reform and Lib Dem voters). I don't see Reform going beyond 30%. /1

I would also be careful when assuming that the strong membership support forces MPs into compliance. They might not defy you overtly, but there are plenty of opportunities to do so from the sidelines and covertly.

Adding to this, if the reason why you won is rooted in a strong support by the membership, there is not much of an incentive to compromise either. So you could end up with strong support by members but impotent within the parliamentary party and with little control in the next elections.

I think the risk is, particularly if the winning candidate is not supported by their parliamentary party, that you will have more incentives to get guerilla warfare (leaks, anonymous commentary, systematic defiance of whips) without that the leadership can do anything about it.

Yeah, the problem kicks in when departments have tons of students who were directed to study something they weren't particularly interested in (or had no idea what it actually entails). It's not necessarily a problem for the university as such but for those who are supposed to lecture them.

What should also be kept in mind is that universities might also like to direct the flow of students to specific subjects. So it's not about getting a certain number of students but ideally a certain number of students for specific pathways who also use university services (e.g. dorms).

It's possibly also important to add that students may end up with several offers from different Universities. adding to this, there are new foreign players on the market (e.g. from EU countries) and domestic capacities of good universities in China are also rising.

I would also not underestimate that political actors know that they lack - at large - consent to do something drastic, so if they wish to go ahead and it fails they are the ones who get blamed even by those who wanted that they act in that way. While at the same time, the reward is limited.

I suspect part of the answer might be that political stakes are higher which may create 'risk averse' behaviour. Doing nothing could be perceived as less painful than doing something very wrong in a unitarian state with FPTP and de facto unicameral parliament.