Humanities desk
< June 23	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 24

New prime minister

When the Tories choose a new leader, will he have to be appointed prime minister by the queen, or does he automatically become prime minister since he was chosen without having to form a coalition? Loraof (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When chosen, the new party leader (as leader of the largest party) will see the queen and will be invited to form a government. In theory she could ignore the choice and ask someone else to form a government - but in practice that would lead to a constitutional crisis, and she won't do it. Wymspen (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When he forms a government, does he still have to be appointed prime minister by the queen? Loraof (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He, or she, cannot form a government unless invited to do so by the queen. Wymspen (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. My question is, once the queen has invited him to form a government, and he has done so, does he still have to present that proposed government to the queen so she can appoint him? Loraof (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Cabinet of the United Kingdom. All the cabinet ministers in the new government will be officially appointed by Her Majesty, but, if she were to veto such an appointment, it would create an even more drastic constitutional crisis than an arbitrary choice of Prime Minister would. And, to clarify, the new Prime Minister will be officially appointed before he (or she, conceivably) forms a government - he won't have to come up with a proposed list of cabinet members before he takes up the office. Tevildo (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In May 2010 it happened like this: "The Queen received the Right Honourable David Cameron this evening and requested him to form a new administration. The Right Honourable David Cameron accepted Her Majesty’s offer and Kissed Hands upon his appointment as Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury." [1] Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't another option for the queen be to dissolve parliament and call another general election. In ordinary circumstances I'd say she wouldn't do that, but these aren't ordinary circumstances by any means, and the government's mandate and legitimacy have been dealt a serious blow, given that their entire vision for the British economy was founded on the idea of remaining in the European Union --Andrew 23:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Our royal prerogative article tells us that 'A dissolution is allowable, or necessary, whenever the wishes of the legislature are, or may fairly be presumed to be, different from the wishes of the nation.' I can't think of a more fitting situation for her to use it, although given Elizabeth's desire to retain politically impartial, I doubt she will --Andrew 23:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen doesn't just decide unilaterally to call an election because she thinks it's a good thing to do. She is advised in such matters by her Prime Minister. She always accepts such advice. Ergo, it's essentially a matter for the PM to decide. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, as the quote indicates. If the composition of the current government contradicts the outcome of the referendum, which it does considering that the House of Commons is overwhelmingly pro-EU and the public have voted by over 1.5 million votes that they are not, then the quote is applicable and this is a situation where 'the wishes of the legislature are, or may fairly presumed to be, different from the wishes of the nation. This situation is unprecedented and if the current government does not pass the outcome of this referendum in Parliament into law, which given the pro-EU composition of the commons is not unlikely, there will be a constitutional crisis, and the Queen would have little choice but to intervene --Andrew 23:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Dissolution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The monarch's power to dissolve Parliament was removed by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Parliament can now only be dissolved early by a vote of no confidence or a vote by two-thirds of the Commons to call an early election. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this will mean that our article on royal prerogative will require an update — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrandrewnohome (talk • contribs) 01:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vote percentages

I've read that Scotland voted 62% Remain. Can someone provide a link that says the percentage votes in (a) Northern Ireland, (b) Wales, (c) England, and (d) London? Thanks. Loraof (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All on the BBC news website - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results Wymspen (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And in Wikipedia, Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016 Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two great links—thanks to you both! Loraof (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This one [2] is also BBC but a slightly different link, packed with even more data/maps. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian guard uniform

Are the uniform pictured here a common Prussian guard uniform from the 1830s? The first one was described as blue with the order of the Red Eagle from a recent biography of the King by P. Christiaan Klieger.

--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a struggle to find, but this is an officer of the 1. Garde-Regiment zu Fuß in 1830; it doesn't bear much resemblance to your images. I think that the first of your images might be a diplomatic uniform, but that's just a guess based on the amount of embroidered foliage. Alansplodge (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have further information from here that it was a uniform of the "1st Prussian guard regiment" and also that it was blue. Is the 1. Garde-Regiment zu Fuß the same thing as the "1st Prussian guard regiment"? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more Googling shows that the 1. Garde-Ulanen-Regiment (1st Guards Uhlans) - uhlans were a German type of lancer - wore this uniform of a blue jacket (kurtka) with a red plastron (a coloured panel covering the chest), which is what we may be seeing in your photographs. This is still a guess, but looks closer to me than the foot guards. Perhaps a German speaker might do better finding sources. Alansplodge (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a name for this style of art?

Is there a specific term for the art style used by cartoonist George du Maurier that uses only black or white (no shades of grey) and lots of close parallel lines?

60.211.209.37 (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hatching is the general term. Tevildo (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which was necessary if your work was going to be reproduced as an engraving. Alansplodge (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are elements to those works that definitely make use of chiaroscuro principles, though I wouldn't say they are altogether typical of the genre of image that term is often applied to, if that makes sense. Snow ^{let's rap} 14:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EU Referendum Outcome

The national newspapers here in the United Kingdom are telling us that young people voted decisively to remain and that those 45 and over voted decisively to leave the European Union. Consequently the younger generation are reported as blaming the older generation for the result. Given that the referendum was conducted as a secret ballot, how do we know which way anybody voted. If polling is the only indicator, it's been proven time and again to be a particularly sketchy one --Andrew 23:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations like Ipsos MORI just ask people how they are voting. They also note age. Simple as that.--Aspro (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the reporting by media outlets of such statistics is speculative and based on small samples of polling data? That seems very irresponsible, particularly as people are using it as evidence of some sweeping generational divide --Andrew 23:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's called exit polling. It's done all the time, and there are techniques the experts used for polls and surveys to ensure an unbiased sample. In this case, they're saying it's the old and ignorant who voted exit. Which makes sense. On the news tonight they had some not-young / not-old woman who voted exit and is now regretting it. Too stupid to be voting, but that didn't stop her. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} on "old and ignorant". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The actual term used was more like "less well educated". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling though has proven to be drastically unreliable, and there is no certain way of saying that the old/young rich/poor educated/ignorant voted any way over the other. Statistics on this shouldn't be published because, like the opinion polling companies, they have no credibility and serve to foster division which is the last thing the UK needs at the moment --Andrew 00:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it.

Meanwhile, y'all may find [3] interesting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think when polling companies make bold claims that divide the nation, even more, about who voted for what in a secret ballot, the onus is on them to prove that their polling data has any credibility, which it doesn't given that less than a third of the polls accurately saw it coming --Andrew 00:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wealthy of yesterday are wealthier today because they could afford to pay for pre-polling surveys and invest in futures contracts. Do you need any more evidence than that for accuracy? Do you think these companies do these surveys on a pro bono basis? No. This is how they earn their money by providing reliable statistics to those that pay them before the news press can get their hands on the actual post-data or reports of pre-miss-guidance. If their track record was not good enough, no one would pay them. They are very good, so thus, the rich of yesterday are richer today and the executives of the survey companies get paid obscenely high salaries, and the press reporting on just the 'free' miss-guidance feed to them, say the opinion polls got it wrong.--Aspro (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's certainly no evidence, none, that polling the UK is hard. And that was polling in elections, which follow a more regular pattern. Face it, anyone gambling on Thursday night on what would happen was gambling, pure and simple, no matter what private opinion poll they commissioned. Blythwood (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polsters commonly use big issues as a loss leader, making publicity that will attract paying customers who want to plan advert campaigns and the like. Of course, tha won't be so good wahen they get it wrong. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The percentage difference—51.9% to 48.1%—is pretty small. I doubt that it is realistic that anyone could predict an outcome based on such a small difference. Bus stop (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The decision for the UK to leave the European Union was overwhelmingly supported in parts of England with low income and education levels."[4] Bus stop (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is something Nate Silver mentioned on Twitter last night - that even if a lot, or even most, or even all of the polls near the end showed Remain with a lead, it was only a slender one and the next best thing to a toss-up - I've seen experts looking at the drop in the pound saying that in retrospect financial markets trusted the consensus way too much. Blythwood (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polls can most certainly be wrong, sometimes spectacularly. We all need to be critical readers of polls, and to look at the accuracy of the previous results of a polling organization. And when multiple polls are available, aggregations of polls tend to be more accurate than individual polls. That being said, and other things being equal, a poll reporting a 63% to 37% result is far more likely to be accurately predictive than a 51% to 49% poll. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exit polls have generally been extremely accurate, enough that if the official results mismatch the exit polls, it's frequently taken as a sign that something went wrong with the voting process or the vote counting. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were no (or at least no widespread or widely-reported) exit polls for the EU referendum. This (so I read) is because exit polls are typically used in general elections to assess swings between parties since the last election, which can give a prediction of the final result despite regional variations in voting patterns. As there was no previous data to measure swings against (comparing with the only similar vote probably wouldn't have helped) an exit poll would not give much useful information. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly this. In the absence of one, a good proxy nobody's talked about yet was comparing areas' votes against known demographic data - younger areas and areas where more people are university graduates (which would tend to contain younger people, since older people are less likely to have attended university) tended to vote more for remain. The measure of correlation shows % with a university degree is the best predictor of "remain" support. Blythwood (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Nigel Farage is on record as saying that if the split was only 48 - 52 there should be another referendum. 80.44.162.99 (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is very doubtful (although "you were lied to" could be a very powerful message), though another election is more likely. Most major political leaders from most parties (including the Remain supporters) have simply said that they accept the vote and plan to move on - see Liz Kendall, Chuka Umunna, Nick Hurd...and as Matthew Holehouse points out, the EU have simply said that the UK must leave as fast as possible. They're looking for a clear result and a clear plan, even if it's not the ideal one - no uncertainty like the Greece shambles where the government kept changing, calling a referendum, admitting it couldn't get a quorum to do anything concrete either way. Blythwood (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if you were the Independent story carefully, it suggests (or at least did when I read it a day and a half ago) there were almost definitely exit polls, just not public/media ones but instead funded by those hoping to make money i.e. they would never be widely-reported. Whether these are "wide-spread" is I'm sure likewise not public and would depened on your definition anyway. This actually gets back to something Blythwood said above about markets as also mentioned in this story [5]. However the Independent story does/did mention that we should have been cautious about reading too much into market movements. Besides the fact the factors which meant media organisations etc didn't think it worth carrying out exit polls would still apply, it's difficult to be sure how much of the market movements were due to traders influenced by the poll results they had available and how much were due to rumours etc (including of those poll results). In other words, we can't really be sure if the market movements are an indication the exit polls were wrong. And them being wrong wouldn't be surprising and even if they were wrong, it probably doesn't mean much. In particular, it isn't likely to be that helpful in predicting future similar referendums. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Blythwood saying “Face it, anyone gambling on Thursday night on what would happen was gambling, pure and simple,” It is very calculated. If one has assets of a few million, one only has to do a two-way bet to win. What one does is to buy a call option that the £ will rise and a put option that the £ will fall. If the resulting fall or rise is great (and in this case it was) the combined price of all the Call's and Put's come to less than the profit gained from executing one or other options. However, if the market doesn’t move enough to make a profit – neither option is executed and the cost is written off against tax -which the rich can claim because they have complex investment portfolios. The volatility seen just seen, was not down to investors moving their money around (they had already done it) but the floor-traders that set up the deals and were scrambling around to cover their exposer. The markets are now recovering thanks to the floor-traders getting cover from the pension funds of the ordinary John Doe -making him poorer. Do you think Warren Buffett got rich by working hard or by thinking smart? Or Sacco who made a billion in short selling sterling? Again a no loose calculated option – which is why some countries want clamp down on short-selling. This is more complex but it involves deals to sell sterling £ at certain prices. So when sterling fell, the money just rolled in to him. John Doe is at the disadvantage because all he knows is what he reads in the press and the press is always surfing on the back of the wave. When it come to financial information it is better to treat press statements as history i.e., yesterdays news.--Aspro (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of that is certainly true - it is obviously rational to gamble on something if you can afford it and it seems that the odds offered are way out from the underlying probabilities. Let's limit my statement above to the fact that polling in the UK has been unreliable regularly and the result on Thursday night was well within margins of error - if you commissioned a private opinion poll and trusted it as your reason to make a big investment decision two days ago, you were taking a very clear risk. (If anyone made a killing betting on Brexit, they have very wisely avoided making it publicly known.) Blythwood (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]