|
VideoGames posted:I dismiss the polls easily for one reason: they were proven last time to be wrong. Sorry where did I put that. Oh right: 2014 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/scottish-independence-opinion-polls-referendum-vote quote:Scotland's answer was a resounding no – and whatever the pollsters and pundits said before the election, the result was not too close to call. The final gap of 10.6 points is a decisive result in a two-horse race, and in reality nearer to a landslide. 2015 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32751993 quote:On the day we awoke to a new majority Conservative government, the British Polling Council, supported by the Market Research Society, issued a statement. 2016 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/how-eu-referendum-pollsters-wrong-opinion-predict-close quote:It wasn’t just a bad night for Europhiles and David Cameron, but also for pollsters, who misread the mood of the electorate in the run-up to the vote. 2017 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40265714 quote:Once again the polls, taken as a whole, were not a good guide to the election result. But no I'm sure this time the polls are perfectly accurate and there's no systemic errors. No siree bob. Hell, I'm not even saying they have to be errors in favour of labour (although with turnout weighting they are the obvious 'winner'). Previously they've underestimated both Leave and Conservative victory. It's an industry that has been shown to be institutionally incompetent and somehow gets 'Ah, well, nevertheless' and massive signal boosting from a media with goldfish attention spans. ... The conservative manifesto is literally titled Get Brexit Done. Because of course it is. At least they're ripping off Skills Wallets as well as Labour policies I guess??? E: I can't be arsed to go look for a picture of taxidermied squirrels so you get this again instead 
RockyB fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Nov 24, 2019 |
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
Dabir posted:alright, look at their relative performances and reception on question time. does that look like a ten point Tory lead to you? i mean, point to all the places they're likely to host question time 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
 Lol that ratio is so 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
How did the polls look in the year 319, RockyB?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
Braggart posted:Nah, don't worry about it. I understand. Thanks 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
RockyB posted:Sorry where did I put that. Oh right: Did you mean to pick me to reply to? It feels like we are saying similar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
Total Meatlove posted:Was a few pages back but for all of those wedded to gas as the best form of cooking and heating you’re poo poo out of luck, it’s electric (and decentralised district heating where possible) all the way. It would be nice if there was a push from the culinary side of things to support electric-based cooking. Pretty much any cookbook is going to assume you're cooking with gas in how it structures technique and timing, and general cooking skill with regards to on the fly adjustment is based on gas too. I'm sure it's totally possible to convert techniques to how electric hobs work, but it is something that needs to be actually done. Until that happens, the pushback against electrical burners is gonna be hard to deflate- it's an easy sell to get people to accept something new when it doesn't make things worse for them, but when it's actively detrimental to the consumer, adoption is more of a struggle. TACD posted:Found out that a friend of mine is not even registered to vote, because “it’s not worth it” and “they’re all the same”, and I think that poo poo makes me even angrier that somebody who plans to vote Conservative. The sheer arrogant privilege of not being bothered enough about the huge numbers of homeless people you see every day or the enormous A&E wait times, to say nothing of even bigger (but not within direct experience) issues like hundreds of thousands of austerity deaths… gently caress, man, if that’s not even worth a ten minute walk to the polling place then your priorities are truly disgusting. While I don't think you're wrong about reality, I think you're taking a truly unfair view of people who can't be bothered to vote. It's not that they don't think these things matter, it's that they've seen New Labour in power followed by Conservaties in power, the LibDem collation, and all of them opposed by a soft right Labour who sort of was mumbling "well, look, it's not on to kill the poor people THAT fast". It's genuinely easy to be disheartened over the long term about whether one of the major parties being in or out of politics actually makes a difference. It's not that they can't be bothered voting against those things, it's that they truly believe that Corbyn is lying (not helped by all the newspapers screaming that he's lying) and that if Labour gets into power nothing major will change. Approaching people like that as simply not caring is wrong headed- for every person who genuinely sneeringly dismisses those problems, there's five who would bend over backwards to vote for Labour if you can get them to honestly believe that it will really, actually change things. RockyB posted:We know the solution to this, Universal Basic Services combined with Universal Basic Income. A full level playing field throughout life. Paid for by 100% inheritance tax Azza Bamboo posted:I think 100% inheritance tax will turn off a lot of people even if it's part of an objectively fairer system. We're not getting over the mentality of "mums stuff is my stuff when she dead". I unironically don't believe in 100% inheritance tax because I don't feel that it's effective to prevent what people actually don't like about inheritance. As long as gifting isn't also 100% taxed (which would cause even more of an uproar, and still wouldn't prevent selling things for vastly less than they're worth or nepotism for overpaid jobs or other dodges) it's not even preventing wealth transfer unless the older generation dies suddenly. Inheritance tax should use marginal tax brackets, including a tax free minimum, and liquid, financial, or business assets should be taxed more than things that could plausibly have sentimental value. So if someone inherits a some paintings, jewellery, and other heirlooms worth £1000, they don't have to sell off their mother's brooch that's been in the family for generations to stop the funeral putting them in debt, and if someone inherits an entire gallery's worth of valuable paintings they aren't taxed QUITE as severely for trying to keep them as someone would be for casually picking up half a million dollars in bank bonds or corporate shares. Wealth transfer between generations at point of inheritance is an easy thing to point at, but the reality is wealth inheritance starts way, way before the previous generation dies. We all remember Trump's "small loan of a million dollars", after all. The ideal for inheritance shouldn't be "the state owns your possessions when you die", it should be "the wealth of the rich shouldn't be hoarded for generations upon generations", and that's better accomplished by taxing the rich directly then waiting for them to die and trying to swoop in to grab what's left. That said, I think it's essentially impossible to argue against 100% as the highest bracket for inheritance tax. I can buy that someone might have over 10 million dollars of heirlooms, but if you're in that situation you can absolutely afford to shell out slightly less than 10 million dollars to the state to keep them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
Braggart posted:How did the polls look in the year 319, RockyB?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
RockyB posted:Sorry where did I put that. Oh right: there's a more systematic way to do this   from here. the error in the con-lab margin come the final poll is about ~4%. unfortunately that paper doesn't give what i really want which is polling error vs horizon, and they don't offer up the dataset either  . but if you reckon the con-lab margin changes by more than 4% over the years, then polls are pretty useful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
on the 50k new nurses: https://twitter.com/rowenamason/status/1198623421875269632
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
some pretty shocking attitudes in this thread. I just want to say I absolutely trust the polls. In fact, I hope there'll be more of them in future years. they've been helpful before and will be helpful in the future. they may be somewhat difficult to comprehend some of the time but the country is better for having them. they're honest and mean well. they have plenty of 18-35s. they have special shops that you can go to and buy tasty sausages and these little pretzel stick things. I hope they stick around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
Dabir posted:alright, look at their relative performances and reception on question time. does that look like a ten point Tory lead to you? The vast majority of the population are not politically engaged at all. Question time has a viewership of a few hundred thousand per week - then people have to make a conscious choice to apply to be a audience member. The question time audience - even if weighted to party allegiance like it was on Friday night - is not representative of the general population.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:the last three QTs have been peterborough, bolton and sheffield. This is just outright disingenuous. It's been stated (whether you believe it or not) that the audience was picked to roughly reflect the voting makeup of the country, not just randos off the street. Yet it was Boris getting the exasperated sighs. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50462371 quote:The audience will be selected by the Question Time production team to reflect how people in the country have voted. People apply online or by phone and will be asked about their past voting patterns and future voting intentions, whether they're members of political parties, and how they voted in the EU referendum. p.s. is it just me or does that third map look like the guardian cartoon version of Boris. E: I was quoting you to signal boost VideoGames, not attack.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
RockyB posted:p.s. is it just me or does that third map look like the guardian cartoon version of Boris.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
also loving  at Sky desperately pushing the narrative that this is "the Brexit election" despite all the people saying how actually Brexit isn't their top priority at all
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
https://theconservativemanifesto.co.uk/  
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:there's a more systematic way to do this I assume the flatter trend lines in older elections are down to less polling being done? Looking at the historical data you'd expect by this point, 18 days out, that the polls could have an error as large as 10-12 points. Which is to say that basically anything can still happen at this point - the polling doesn't look great for Labour right now, but it's hardly a lost fight. I'm inclined to side with people saying that the polls are a harmful distraction at this point for most people. I'm sure the party offices are following them closely and using them to adapt their tactics, but it's not really helpful if you're sitting at home hoping for a Labour victory, or out knocking on doors for that matter. e: It is an interesting conclusion from that paper that the accuracy of the Tory vote share prediction is generally better than for Labour. 2015 is a notable reversal of this, but it does look like the polls have generally had a harder time predicting the Labour vote share, whether that's an overestimate or underestimate. I'm not running the numbers, but at a glance it doesn't look like the size of the error is much correlated with the final result. big scary monsters fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Nov 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
Angepain posted:some pretty shocking attitudes in this thread. I just want to say I absolutely trust the polls. In fact, I hope there'll be more of them in future years. they've been helpful before and will be helpful in the future. they may be somewhat difficult to comprehend some of the time but the country is better for having them. they're honest and mean well. they have plenty of 18-35s. they have special shops that you can go to and buy tasty sausages and these little pretzel stick things. I hope they stick around. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
Braggart posted:I can't answer your whole post, but I can say this: the exact details of how nationalisation will be achieved are not set in stone by the manifesto. If big business tries some funny tricks – and they will because it's what they do – we can adapt. The shadow cabinet have shown that they can be quite cunning and practical. I don't deny that the shadow cabinet can be both cunning and practical. It's more that the policy isn't reflective of reality - if implemented as written, we'd have public ownership of about 50% of B2C energy supply and a larger proportion of B2B energy supply, based on a bunch of somewhat arbitrary criteria. We'd then have smaller private enterprise competing with the state for energy supply, which feels somewhat strange. A policy that was, instead, "we will take into public ownership the supply of electricity to residential properties" would be a hell of a simpler to implement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 17:17
|
|
I'm sorry Jeremy, you said that you would only nationalise the biggest six energy firms, so we've consolidated the industry into just five.
Oh excellent, that means we won't have to talk to as many people to get this done.
Wait what? You can't do that! That's not fair! 
|
Boris having a normal one at the manifesto launch https://twitter.com/waynesmith1971/status/1198615038363394048 Meanwhile... https://twitter.com/LauraPidcockMP/status/1198587406145994753 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCnEAH5wCzo
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
Braggart posted:How did the polls look in the year 319, RockyB? They predicted a conservative surge that turned out to be bullshit   Look at that, almost 10% more for conservatives than they actually got at some points. p.s. given 24 hour news cycles we're almost certainly at the 10% divergence point and not the 'final' 1.8% difference. Again, the problem is that polls are now turning into the story rather than reflecting the story.  .
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
Taciturn Tactician posted:While I don't think you're wrong about reality, I think you're taking a truly unfair view of people who can't be bothered to vote. It's not that they don't think these things matter, it's that they've seen New Labour in power followed by Conservaties in power, the LibDem collation, and all of them opposed by a soft right Labour who sort of was mumbling "well, look, it's not on to kill the poor people THAT fast". It's genuinely easy to be disheartened over the long term about whether one of the major parties being in or out of politics actually makes a difference. It's not that they can't be bothered voting against those things, it's that they truly believe that Corbyn is lying (not helped by all the newspapers screaming that he's lying) and that if Labour gets into power nothing major will change. Approaching people like that as simply not caring is wrong headed- for every person who genuinely sneeringly dismisses those problems, there's five who would bend over backwards to vote for Labour if you can get them to honestly believe that it will really, actually change things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
Angepain posted:some pretty shocking attitudes in this thread. I just want to say I absolutely trust the polls. In fact, I hope there'll be more of them in future years. they've been helpful before and will be helpful in the future. they may be somewhat difficult to comprehend some of the time but the country is better for having them. they're honest and mean well. they have plenty of 18-35s. they have special shops that you can go to and buy tasty sausages and these little pretzel stick things. I hope they stick around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
People who post about politics online tend to be very set in their views and unpersuadable, but a good number of people are not that engaged with politics and can be talked around at least to some degree surprisingly easily. For example you can easily debunk some things like the entirely made up £2400 per year stat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
Heathrow? Never heard of it mate, that was the decision of the last lot (the vote in which I totally avoided by jumping on a plane to Afghanistan)
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
Meanwhile... https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1198574204494503939 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
TACD posted:I guess the paradox of my broken brain is that while I absolutely believe a Labour government has the power to change things for the better, I also absolutely do not believe that I have the power to change anybody's mind about what a Labour government could do. Irony Be My Shield posted:People who post about politics online tend to be very set in their views and unpersuadable, but a good number of people are not that engaged with politics and can be talked around at least to some degree surprisingly easily. For example you can easily debunk some things like the entirely made up £2400 per year stat. Yeah, it's not broke brained to feel futility if you're extremely online and see chuds/tankies and stupid Twidiots everywhere you look, posting the most inane poo poo in the face of facts to the contrary. Most people though aren't extremely online, want life to be less poo poo and unfortunately their exposure to politics is the bullshit the media feeds them. People are much easier to appeal to on the doorstep than online. This is why Labour's ground game is so hugely important and the social media approach is good. They're not aiming at the Already Voting Labour or Never Voting Labour extreme twitter warriors, their sights are on the Facebook/Twitter readers and FW: FW: FW: FW: LOL THIS CAT meme posters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
Now I know this news will utterly shock and astound you, but the conservative manifesto contains no reference to transgender issues. It contains two references to the term "LGBT", once in their intention to have an international conference for marginalised groups in the developing world, and once in this glorious paragraph: quote:We will protect people from physical attack or harassment whether for their sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion or disability, and expand funding for and protect places of worship. We will vigorously combat harassment and violence against all religious groups, and against LGBT people. We will ensure that those who work in countering extremism are protected from threats and intimidation. We will ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries. These undermine community cohesion. Note who is strangely excluded from the first sentence! I'm sure this is just an accidental slip up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Interfering with BDS against apartheid lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
Angepain posted:Now I know this news will utterly shock and astound you, but the conservative manifesto contains no reference to transgender issues. That's actually kind of surprising in a good way, given the rumours that Boris was thinking about doing some anti-trans policies as part of a US style culture war campaign
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
CGI Stardust posted:the third map is either someone leaning forward on a space hopper or a person with a huge arse looking over their shoulder at you It's Mario, after five years of whatever Boris is on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
Oh poo poo oh poo poo oh poo poo labour is going to nationalise us. Quick, let's set up an overseas holding company! That's sure to protect our physical assets that we can't loving move out of the UK. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50536205 quote:Two top energy firms say they have moved ownership of their UK operations overseas to protect themselves from Labour's nationalisation plans.  E: Does someone have access to that full telegraph article? It cuts out at 'Hong Kong has a bilateral investment treaty with the UK' and I'm curious how they're spinning that as not invoking massive solidarity with the hong kong protest movement if they try to rules lawyer their way around nationalisation. RockyB fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Nov 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
RockyB posted:Oh poo poo oh poo poo oh poo poo labour is going to nationalise us. Quick, let's set up an overseas holding company! That's sure to protect our physical assets that we can't loving move out of the UK. If a large portion of those investors that might be 'protected' from this move are British citizens though, couldn't Labour just raise/create the taxes necessary to get those profits back from them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
Just found out that my energy company has run off to the Caymans with the electricity lines to my house and now my microwave has stopped spinning, THIS IS YOUR FAULT JEREMY!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
Pesky Splinter posted:https://twitter.com/joswinson/status/1197952220844711936 Love that it's a one-time offer when young people move house a whole bunch of times in their 20s
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
RDevz posted:I don't deny that the shadow cabinet can be both cunning and practical. It's more that the policy isn't reflective of reality - if implemented as written, we'd have public ownership of about 50% of B2C energy supply and a larger proportion of B2B energy supply, based on a bunch of somewhat arbitrary criteria. We'd then have smaller private enterprise competing with the state for energy supply, which feels somewhat strange. A policy that was, instead, "we will take into public ownership the supply of electricity to residential properties" would be a hell of a simpler to implement. It could be a boil-the-frog approach. Partial nationalisation of industry is easier to swallow than full nationalisation, and can be used as a stepping stone to leapfrog the other frog that is being slowly boiled*. Perhaps Labour feel that it is necessary to prove that a nationalised energy provider can compete with the private sector. The discourse in this country is very right wing. For what it's worth, the broadband pledge is explicit about competing with private providers rather than making them stop selling broadband. But how do you compete with a free product? Only a fraction of people will be willing to pay for something better. Can I interest you in some artisanal broadband? * I am mixing metaphors into the pot with my frog. Yum! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
marktheando posted:That's actually kind of surprising in a good way, given the rumours that Boris was thinking about doing some anti-trans policies as part of a US style culture war campaign This is true, actually. I can't even find any dog-whistles. I mean, still not great that the good outcome here is being largely ignored by pretty much everybody but this is hellworld, after all
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
Rarity posted:Love that it's a one-time offer when young people move house a whole bunch of times in their 20s right it assumes you'll get your deposit back and lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
Ah, this is what the Tories are really afraid of. Good stuff 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 18:11
|
|