|
jabby posted:Are you suggesting that multiple people, unknown to each other, spontaneously used the phrase 'a bit charity-shop looking'? LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Feb 12, 2017 |
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
Pochoclo posted:The 90s? Ah, such sweet memories. My family plunging into abject poverty thanks to neo-liberalism, each night's dinner being either tea and crackers or potatoes in some form, yeah, those were fun times. Which South American (I think) country are you from again, if you don't mind me asking too much? I'm kinda curious and right-wing governments (and some left-wing ones too to be fair) did a number on uhh quite a lot of them. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Which South American (I think) country are you from again, if you don't mind me asking too much? I'm kinda curious and right-wing governments (and some left-wing ones too to be fair) did a number on uhh quite a lot of them. Argentina and to be fair every government in its history has been out to line their own pockets and gently caress the people, but the military dictatorships were especially vicious, and Menem's presidencies (1989-1999) basically finished destroying the country entirely through rampant neo-liberalism and privatisation of all national assets and basically destroying many many workers' rights. Of course, some rich assholes had a great time during that decade, so they can't understand why everyone else loving hates them when they say the 90s were a good time. Which I assume also happens a lot in the UK as I can't imagine the 90s were prosperous for everyone. Anyway, people praising either the 90s or, especially, neo-liberalism, triggers me I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
As a charity shop volunteer I'm now a bit worried about my apprearance What does it mean?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
If you're approaching 30 now you're an expert in britain's glorious past.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Those were all things form my childhood, but I'm from Ireland, jokes on them
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Cerv posted:As a charity shop volunteer I'm now a bit worried about my apprearance perhaps you're angela rayner in disguise
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Was there any time when there were four TV channels but no affordable home computers with the beep boop video games? ZX81 and the BBC's big 'get your kids a computer' was before Channel 4. And vandalism was when kids would shoot at street lamps with air rifles, throw stones through the windows of empty houses, and set the occasional shed on fire, to the dismay of a generation who were doing the same thing but with Yorkshire arrows and bottles filled with water and carbide. There was never a generation where none of the kids were shits. Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts96J7HhO28
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:'The honourable lady', unless she's a member of the privy council, in which case it's 'the right honourable lady.' Or in Theresa May's case, the far-right honourable lady.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Was there any time when there were four TV channels but no affordable home computers with the beep boop video games? ZX81 and the BBC's big 'get your kids a computer' was before Channel 4. code:
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
TinTower posted:
This would have been better in BASIC
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:No, I'm not suggesting that multiple people used that specific phrase. I was relaying what was stated in the article - that apparently most of the focus group participants expressed negative opinions about Rayner and her appearance/presentation. The fact that one participant chose to use more colourful language than the others when expressing that opinion is neither here nor there unless you're a journalist looking for a tasty quote to get dem clicks, in which case it's very important. Some opinions are actively harmful to society when you try to indulge them, and the obsession with politicians appearance is one of them. As I said you wouldn't advocate using a focus group to see what skin colour or gender is most acceptable to the public, so you probably shouldn't use them to focus on people's looks either. To reply to what you said earlier: LemonDrizzle posted:a problem with someone's presentation could be trivially fixable by telling them to get a haircut and buy some new clothes, something more fundamental that you'd just have to accept, or anywhere in between. Would 'trivially fixable' include stuff like wearing more makeup? High-heeled shoes? A push-up bra? Is there a line anywhere, particularly for female politicians, as to how pleasing they have to make their appearance to be considered leadership material? And as for 'something more fundamental' (I assume you mean actually being unattractive) do you really think it's going to be accepted once it's public knowledge that the public have decided you aren't pretty enough? Or will the MPs who might have nominated you for leader think about giving their support to someone else instead? Actively seeking out opinions on an MP's appearance is a toxic thing to do, and any attempt to 'fix' things would be equally toxic. If you wouldn't go into the street specifically asking people what they think of Angela Rayner's dress sense or body weight then letting them bring that stuff up in a focus group is no better. jabby fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:This would have been better in BASIC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts96J7HhO28
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:It's not unscientific in principle, like any polling you can choose an unrepresentative sample, and you do have to work harder to interpret the data, but qualitative polling is widely used in social sciences of all sorts. I don't know why you're posting about qualitative polling because we were talking about political focus groups.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Was there any time when there were four TV channels but no affordable home computers with the beep boop video games? ZX81 and the BBC's big 'get your kids a computer' was before Channel 4. The 90s had Saturday morning TV shows where you'd call in and play bad games by telling them to go LEFT and RIGHT instead of riding your bike to the woods without doing any vandalisms Also Patrick Moore's Bogus Journey
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:This would have been better in BASIC bbc model b basic code:
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:I don't know why you're posting about qualitative polling because we were talking about political focus groups. Focus groups is literally one of the few major forms of qualitative research. Or maybe you could read that BJD paper I linked, it's short and non-technical. Admittedly only the second half is about focus groups.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Focus groups is literally one of the few major forms of qualitative research. Or maybe you could read that BJD paper I linked, it's short and non-technical. Admittedly only the second half is about focus groups. You keep thinking I'm criticising the idea of a focus group as legitimate data collection tool in research as opposed to criticising the actual practice of political focus groups and the subsequent coverage they're given.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:This would have been better in BASIC 10 PRINT "THOSE WERE THE DAYS "; 20 GOTO 10. The semicolon is key here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
a man asking people with no spine to stand up lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Jose posted:a man asking people with no spine to stand up lol Ah yes. The problem with Labour "centrists" is that they haven't been challenging Corbyn's leadership.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:The 90s had Saturday morning TV shows where you'd call in and play bad games by telling them to go LEFT and RIGHT instead of riding your bike to the woods without doing any vandalisms Twitch Plays Pokemon was much worse before the internet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:You keep thinking I'm criticising the idea of a focus group as legitimate data collection tool in research as opposed to criticising the actual practice of political focus groups and the subsequent coverage they're given. In the absence of access to the actual research data we have no way of knowing if the results are reported dishonestly or not. It doesn't matter if we are talking about focus groups or structured interviews or whatever other survey method. e: There isn't anything magical about political focus groups. Or at least I can't find any reasonable academic article pointing them out as particularly problematic. And there is a huge amount of criticism of the way focus groups are used in Marketing research for example, so it's not like they would shy away. It just tends to be listed along with sociology and psychology as a discipline where they are commonly used. e2: One of several Google Scholar search strings I tried. e3: This is the closest thing I found, but it's not widely echoed or acknowledged at all (and focuses particularly on New Labour, funnily enough). It's listed as cited three times, once specifically by it's author, which given that political science is a fairly large field doesn't speak much in favour of it. Frankly it seems a bit like an anti-New-Labour political talking point. In particular, if you read it, she basically criticises every single political 'scientific' researcher (her use of commas) she cites. And the paper was published privately and anonymously at first. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Jose posted:a man asking people with no spine to stand up lol The BBC's coverage has been mildly irritating too. "Corbyn guessing game rises to new pitch", followed by an article relaying two interviews with Labour MPs where both emphatically say the leadership issue is sorted for this parliament. So, not rising to any pitch, really.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Registration for the NI election closes on Tuesday just to remind anyone Also the leader of the UUP said a thing today which is pretty bold https://twitter.com/bbcnewsline/status/830832069328662529 He stopped short from calling on UUP voters to transfer to the SDLP, a nationalist party, but signalling that he would rather vote for the SDLP to ensure a change in government than for other Unionist parties is a pretty brave move which puts his neck out a bit. Nesbitt is from the broadly "liberal unionist" wing of the party who has tried to meld a softening of language on social issues with appeasing the right-wing conservative factions of the party - he abstained on the last vote on same-sex marriage (the only member of his party to do so, only one UUP MLA voted in favour) after describing those who dogmatically oppose it as being on "the wrong side of history" and was one of only three UUP MLA's to support the legalization of abortion for cases where the foetus cannot survive outside the womb. At the same time though he did pull the party out of government in protest to a statements made by the chief constable linking members of the IRA to a murder a while back, though this was largely seen as a telegraphed move to shift the party into the newly created official opposition to position themselves more aggressively against the DUP to reverse a long running electoral decline and bolster the UUP's "tough on shinners" credentials. The last assembly elections for the UUP where a bit of a damp squib, most commentators expected the UUP to see greater vote swings based on their new strategy but they largely didn't materialize (possibly cause they didn't run enough candidates). Since the last assembly election the SDLP also entered opposition and Nesbitt has moved to form a kind of coalition in waiting with them, going as far as to invite the SDLP leader to the UUP's annual conference and declare that if you "Vote me, you get Colum [Eastwood, leader of the SDLP]". Even mildly encouraging transferring to a nationalist party is still a pretty bold step - Colum Eastwood was cagey when asked if he would reciprocate and evaded giving a definitive answer. It's possible this comment could backfire horribly on Nesbitt if it puts off traditional unionist voters drifting from the DUP or makes candidates "transfer toxic" for voters who may have gone DUP 1 but thrown a lower preference to the UUP out of general unionist solidarity. If the election doesn't go his way he may be on the chopping block.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Was there any time when there were four TV channels but no affordable home computers with the beep boop video games? ZX81 and the BBC's big 'get your kids a computer' was before Channel 4. The BBC Model B was pretty unaffordable for home use as the base unit plus required monitor would set you back close to £500. The ZX81 was much cheaper, but didn't have sound. However, the C64 and ZX Spectrum both launched before Channel 4 debuted in November 1982 and the Atari VCS had been out since 1978. So no, there was never a time when there were four channels and nobody had a home computer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
The kind of person who bitches about how everything was better in THEIR day usually became a boring piece of poo poo the second they dropped out the womb, so it isn't surprising that anything remotely cool passed them by. I mean, look at that choice of TV shows. Not a Power Rangers or Duck Tales in sight. For shame.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:In the absence of access to the actual research data we have no way of knowing if the results are reported dishonestly or not. It doesn't matter if we are talking about focus groups or structured interviews or whatever other survey method. I mean, the fact that the results are published on blogs and newspapers is probably a hint they're not actually trying to conduct research of any sort. I haven't seen the Royal Statistical Society investigate Twitter polling so I guess I'll consider that valid too until further notice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Jose posted:a man asking people with no spine to stand up lol D'Ancona is such an awful prick. Loves conflating love of the status quo for sensible grown up politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:I mean, the fact that the results are published on blogs and newspapers is probably a hint they're not actually trying to conduct research of any sort. This was a newspaper leak, and we have not seen anything to indicate that the study wasn't done impartially. If there even was one, as by the same logic they could have just made it all up to tarnish, uhh, Rayner was it? No need to run an actual study.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
jabby posted:https://twitter.com/owenjbennett/status/830860851108335619 Any fallout yet?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Any fallout yet? That's the magic of the thing, though - in this post-reason world you can just tweet "if elected, I will murder and eat the homeless" and sure, there will be major outrage from most people but somehow you'll still get voted in and still people will defend you. I'm pretty sure you could run on a platform that was literally "bring back the British Empire through slavery and brutal war" and you would get at least like 30% of Parliament, easy. Pochoclo fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
jabby posted:Some opinions are actively harmful to society when you try to indulge them, and the obsession with politicians appearance is one of them. As I said you wouldn't advocate using a focus group to see what skin colour or gender is most acceptable to the public, so you probably shouldn't use them to focus on people's looks either... Actively seeking out opinions on an MP's appearance is a toxic thing to do, and any attempt to 'fix' things would be equally toxic. If you wouldn't go into the street specifically asking people what they think of Angela Rayner's dress sense or body weight then letting them bring that stuff up in a focus group is no better. quote:Would 'trivially fixable' include stuff like wearing more makeup? High-heeled shoes? A push-up bra?... And as for 'something more fundamental' (I assume you mean actually being unattractive) do you really think it's going to be accepted once it's public knowledge that the public have decided you aren't pretty enough? LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The polling firm and the Labour leadership almost certainly did not use the exercise to focus on Rayner's looks or specifically ask the participants about her appearance/mannerisms/presentation because a key objective when conducting a focus group is to avoid imposing your own perceptions or biases on the proceedings insofar as you possibly can. The typical practice is to make your questions as open-ended as possible - they would almost certainly have just shown the participants some footage of Rayner and Long-Bailey speaking and then asked something like "what did you think of the speaker?" to ensure that the responses reflected the participants' own thinking rather than the pollster's. Asking people, especially women politicians, to change their appearance in order to better appeal to the electorate might be trivial to you, but that doesn't make it right to do so. Your argument seems to rest on the idea that while it isn't 'right, reasonable or fair' to judge someone on characteristics they can't change (including ethnicity and gender) political parties should still choose potential leaders/candidates based on those things because the electorate is going to judge them anyway. That's just not right, and it leads back to my basic point which is gently caress focus groups if they are telling you things that you can't (or shouldn't) do anything about. Try and think of it this way. Would you be comfortable with Labour commissioning a survey asking random pedestrians whether they preferred a leader to be black or white, and then using that information to help decide between potential candidates? Because that's basically what you're getting when people in focus groups make comments about appearance, and I don't see the moral difference between that information being sought out or randomly volunteered. Also it's pretty lovely to say you don't think anyone would find Angela Merkel or Theresa May attractive. They have husbands for a start. What you really mean is you don't find them attractive, which I really didn't need to know. But for some reason it's really common for people to pretend they are the ultimate arbiter of objective attractiveness when talking about female public figures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:D'Ancona is such an awful prick. Loves conflating love of the status quo for sensible grown up politics. D'Ancona is Tory-Boy in real life. If it doesn't appeal to the centre-right, it's a non-starter as far as he is concerned. In fairness, though, he thinks that any party that fails to suitably ply the middle-and-up classes with enough incentives is a failure. So he would actually consider voting Labour if Blair's reanimated corpse was floated as a candidate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
jabby posted:https://twitter.com/owenjbennett/status/830860851108335619 Attacking labour at this point is like kicking a blind man's cane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
kingturnip posted:D'Ancona is Tory-Boy in real life. This is a weird post to find out that he finally kicked it. I'd have thought this thread would have given a bit more fanfare.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:In the absence of access to the actual research data we have no way of knowing if the results are reported dishonestly or not. It doesn't matter if we are talking about focus groups or structured interviews or whatever other survey method. Heather Savigny is respected in the field particularly for her work on methodologies in politics, and she's not the only person who has critiqued focus groups from a methodological perspective. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations is also pretty highly ranked - private and anonymous prepublication is not uncommon as a way of getting some feedback first prior to journal submission too. When I get to a computer I'll dig up some other references on problems with focus groups (disclaimer: all approaches to quantifying social phenomena have their problems, their uses and their pitfalls).
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 09:38
|
|
|
jabby posted:Asking people, especially women politicians, to change their appearance in order to better appeal to the electorate might be trivial to you, but that doesn't make it right to do so. Your argument seems to rest on the idea that while it isn't 'right, reasonable or fair' to judge someone on characteristics they can't change (including ethnicity and gender) political parties should still choose potential leaders/candidates based on those things because the electorate is going to judge them anyway. That's just not right, and it leads back to my basic point which is gently caress focus groups if they are telling you things that you can't (or shouldn't) do anything about. Part of corbyns lack of appeal to the electorate is very much the fact that he is perceived as a scruffy old man, to the point where hameron laid down sweet pmq owns about it. E: research has shown that people are idiots and more easily associate positive virtues with attractive people Namtab fucked around with this message at 09:57 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 09:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
While Corbyn's Steptoe aesthetic undoubtedly contributes to his utter lack of appeal we shouldn't forget his other failings such as what he says, how he says it, who he is and where he's from. You could put the guy in a decent suit and make him have a shave, but you'd soon be reminded that you cannot polish a turd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 10:08
|
|
