|
But that change is precisely because there's lots of polling going on - which makes a rolling average even more useful than normal.
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
Flaps are you not gonna vote for big jezza?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
Bape Culture posted:Flaps are you not gonna vote for big jezza? I'm voting labour but despite Corbyn, not because of him. I'd be happy to expand upon my reasons why as long as you promise not to call me a rapist, threaten to contact my employer, or issue death threats against my children.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Bape Culture posted:Flaps are you not gonna vote for big jezza? Pissflaps will say no, he won't, because he doesn't live in Corbyn's constituency. edit: huh, that was less pedantic than expected.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I'm voting labour but despite Corbyn, not because of him. Same. But he seems like a nice fella to me. Just not very leadery. Please, go on.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:But that change is precisely because there's lots of polling going on - which makes a rolling average even more useful than normal. The poll numbers aren't changing because there's lots of polling. A rolling average is useful for showing/predicting trends over time. During periods of very rapid change it will not reflect that change immediately, making it a poor tool this close to an election. The average of all polls done this Sunday is likely to be more accurate than a rolling average that also takes into account last week.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Bape Culture posted:Same. But he seems like a nice fella to me. Just not very leadery. He may seem like a 'nice fella' but in my opinion he has presided over a dramatic downturn in labour's fortunes and the sooner he is replaced the better. This election will see labour drifting further and further away from a position of being able to form a government. I think labour will have enough losses this election without me needing to contribute by abstaining or voting against them, and whoever has the job of rebuilding the party will need the beat starting point possible. Also I don't want to lose my 100% Labour voting record - something few other contributors to this thread can boast of having.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
jabby posted:The poll numbers aren't changing because there's lots of polling. The rapid number of polls ensures that a rolling average of x number of polls also changes quickly, while smoothing out 'house style' variances. All polls are just a tool. Up to you how you use them.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:He may seem like a 'nice fella' but in my opinion he has presided over a dramatic downturn in labour's fortunes and the sooner he is replaced the better. This election will see labour drifting further and further away from a position of being able to form a government. I think I agree with that and it seems fair. I just wish labour didn't want to gently caress me so hard for corporation and income tax haha. But the tories are only interested in billionaires. It's all shite mate. Most of this country are just awful.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:The rapid number of polls ensures that a rolling average of x number of polls also changes quickly, while smoothing out 'house style' variances. The last six polls, and in fact any poll done since the 15th, has Labour between one and four points above this 'moving average'. It's doesn't change quickly.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
jabby posted:The last six polls, and in fact any poll done since the 15th, has Labour between one and four points above this 'moving average'. It changes quickly enough.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:I'm pretty sure your old racist auntie is doing a Mail vote But I'm votin Labour. Wait, am I a nazi like Aunty JJ? Blimey. Of course as usual UKMT being ever so helpful.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Also I don't want to lose my 100% Labour voting record - something few other contributors to this thread can boast of having. Why is this something worth boasting about?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
quote:An assembly is not what people have laid down their lives for over thirty years. We want peace, but the settlement must be just and the settlement must be for an agreed and united Ireland. John McDonnell, in January 1998, condemning Labour participation in the Tory plot known as the Good Friday Agreement. The thing is, he is entirely descriptively correct - shared sovereignty and the recognition of the validity of a British identity in Northern Ireland is not what Bobby Sands starved himself to death for. Seven months later the Omagh bombing happened and suddenly a lot of hasty revisionism went into place. ronya fucked around with this message at 16:59 on May 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
He just wants to be able to back up his idiotic, pedantic contrarianism with "as a lifelong Labour voter, I" cause he knows that sort of thing just pisses the thread right off. Put him on ignore and do not reply to him. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Re:Corbyn and Northern Ireland I think there is a general unwillingness to place his positions at the time in the context of other political tendencies, either through a distaste at revisiting the divisive arguments of the past or because of the dissonance between the fundmanetal constitutional underpinnings of the settlement and the radical position of the time So for sake of clarity Corbyn as part of the Bennite tendency, and loosely affiliated with the "Troops Out" movement, supported a unilateral termination of British sovereignty and withdrawal of troops which was reasoned would LEAD to a political settlement as the conflict was viewed as being purely one of decolonization - the "consent principle" that unification can only occur with the majority consent of the people of NI was rejected as the "unionist veto" and the underlying theoretical underpinning was that an end to British support for Northern Ireland as en entity would inevitably lead to reunification and end to partition. Slightly more moderate than the Troops Out tendency you had the "Time To Go" group, the most prominent voice being Clare Short (but you also had people like Peter Hain), who stressed that withdrawal and end of British sovereignty could only occur AFTER a political settlement to end partition had been secured which the British government was duty to bound to conclude with the Irish government to reverse the injustices of the Northern Irish state. Then even more towards the middle there was the "unity by consent" stream, which actually defined Labour policy re:Northern Ireland pre-Blair, engineered by long serving Labour head of NI policy Kevin McNamara that stressed that Labour should support Irish unification but reunification can only be achieved by the voluntary consent of the population of Northern Ireland, which Labour (and its allies) are duty bound to ACTIVELY work to secure - this model being closer to the SDLP view (a party it should be pointed out which was actively rejected by the more radical streams in Labour as being too reformist rather than republican). So Corbyn's position was definitely more radical than "supporting Irish unification" and the Bennites tabled bills to unilaterally terminate sovereignty well into the late 80's, rejected the Anglo-Irish agreement as it codified the principle of consent as prerequisite for unification and broadly tracked to the Republican theoretical line - the shift to support the principle of consent happened when Sinn Fein did the same, that is it was a REACTIVE acceptance of a new political consensus that emerged from the political settlement. This is all for complete clarity mind - I think a lot of people get a bit uncomfortable discussing the past positions of certain streams of Left wing thought regarding the consent principle as it seems to defy the contemporary interpretation of the principle of self determination which is broadly considered the cornerstone of the eventual settlement. kustomkarkommando fucked around with this message at 17:02 on May 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
the left had good reasons for being suspicious of the consent principle in the 1980s, being that the tricky topic of how a former colonial master should react to white apartheid governments declaring independence was still a live one. Bantustans and all that. in the atmosphere of the Cold War it was quite possible that an otherwise insensible chunk of territory might nonetheless be able to defend itself by wit of a few dozen MiGs or F-14s suddenly showing up in a mission of peace (pinky swear) ronya fucked around with this message at 17:13 on May 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JohnJCrace/status/866210615156756480 Uh.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
ronya posted:the left had good reasons for being suspicious of the consent principle in the 1980s, being that the tricky topic of how a former colonial master should react to white apartheid governments declaring independence was still a live one. Bantustans and all that. Oh the arguments about the consent principle definitely made sense (and it was an issue of argument in "centre ground" irish politics for much of the 70's) but its ultimate victory and the subsequent revisionist reassessment of Irish history within the country that drifted away from the decolonisation interpretation can make people who don't want to delve into the historical context of the arguments sweaty Edit: that is the argument that the troubles should be viewed as primarily a conflict of decolonisation is considered to be quite an old fashioned view by the body of Irish historians kustomkarkommando fucked around with this message at 17:15 on May 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
I've also emphasised before that one of the big factors between Sunningdale and GFA is that the British government had become a lot more tactically adept at confronting and outwitting strikers and urban riots during the intervening years, and conversely the crime moral panic and increasing public weariness had blunted public sensitivities to baton charges and water cannons
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Whitey Snipes posted:Why is this something worth boasting about? That's not quite what that phrase means.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
ronya posted:Seven months later the Omagh bombing happened and suddenly a lot of hasty revisionism went into place. quote:Telephoned warnings had been sent about 40 minutes beforehand, but were claimed to be inaccurate and police had inadvertently moved people towards the bomb.[10] quote:It has been alleged that the British, Irish and US intelligence agencies had information which could have prevented the bombing, most of which came from double agents inside the Real IRA.[15] This information was not given to the local police, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC).[15] In 2008 it was revealed that British intelligence agency GCHQ was monitoring conversations between the bombers as the bomb was being driven into Omagh.[16] Interesting stuff, this.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
For a bit of indistinguishable-from-satire political comment, Arlene Foster has weighed in on Jeremy Corbyn:Arlene Foster posted:It is hard to take seriously the democratic credentials of a man who was so close to the political representatives of the IRA at the height of the Troubles. The 'political representatives of the IRA' presumably being Sinn Fein, the party that she was in a power-sharing agreement with until recently.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
jabby posted:The 'political representatives of the IRA' presumably being Sinn Fein, the party that she was in a power-sharing agreement with until recently. Yeah but the DUP's thing was refusing to work with Sinn Fein until decommissioning happened This is their thing
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Just posting a link to the Guardian's The Secret Life columns as they're quite an interesting snapshot into various careers.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
by 1998 the audience that the PIRA thought it was reaching with the defense "actually , we telephoned a warning" had eroded - worth comparing with the public reaction to the docklands bombing two years earlier
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Just posting a link to the Guardian's The Secret Life columns as they're quite an interesting snapshot into various careers. A lesson in generating traffic/clicks: Secret life of an oncologist: 261 comments Secret life of a librarian: 188 comments Secret life of a landlord: 1387 comments
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Just posting a link to the Guardian's The Secret Life columns as they're quite an interesting snapshot into various careers. I doubt "Secret Life Of A Photocopier Engineer" would generate the clicks needed
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Tim Farron is the gift that keeps on giving: Lib Dem leader Tim Farron refuses to say whether abortion is 'wrong'
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Dabir posted:Put him on ignore and do not reply to him. Make this next month's thread title.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Dabir posted:He just wants to be able to back up his idiotic, pedantic contrarianism with "as a lifelong Labour voter, I" cause he knows that sort of thing just pisses the thread right off. Put him on ignore and do not reply to him. I'm not a contrarian. My views are far more mainstream than many expressed in this thread. You're right about me being a lifelong labour voter. Not sure why that would piss people off though.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Pissflaps is only 20 guys, he voted Red in 2015.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
TheRat posted:Tim Farron is the gift that keeps on giving: Lib Dem leader Tim Farron refuses to say whether abortion is 'wrong' Nick Clegg: "Ok Tim, things aren't great right now, but i'm sure you'll do great as leader of the party that prides itself on social liberalism and european values." Tim Farron: "I know! Let's talk about how i'm a bit of a Euroskeptic and refuse to answer direct questions about whether gay sex or abortion are sins!"
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
I don't think always having voted Labour is a good thing if Labour aren't offering policies you agree with. If flaps is voting Labour all the time because he always agrees with their policies then it's fine, it its because he just wants the red team to win regardless then it's less ok. One big problem with politics in general is people voting for their team rather than for what they believe in.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Christ tim what's wrong with just lying about stuff like that
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Christ tim what's wrong with just lying about stuff like that Well he probably thinks God might not look so kindly on that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Christ tim what's wrong with just lying about stuff like that Lying about your opposition to women's rights and gay equality would be morally reprehensible.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
If I were big Christian lad Tim I could think a couple of ways to get around stuff like that from just saying "no I don't think it's wrong *fingers crossed behind my back*" to "I believe it's the woman's choice" to "I don't personally like it but if you look at my record I've voted for progressive policies because I don't let my religion get in the way (i would have made the good votes)"
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Lying about your opposition to women's rights and gay equality would be morally reprehensible. Christ tim what's wrong with just having better opinions
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
Being big open Christian leader is kinda setting yourself up for questions like this which is why big tone mostly didn't mention it
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 18:40
|
|