Muslims fleeing ISIS in the millions because ISIS wants to kill them Some Westerners say: Let's repeat our behaviour to refugees in the Holocaust, because that was great
Who honestly thinks this is a great time to import more Muslim immigrants? Really? Why? Why the F should we do that?
It's not like the world is lacking in poor people who want to come to the west. There's 200m Hindu Indians and 200m poor Chinese for a start. And they don't hate us or want to kill us.
The problem with western politics is that the leaders are so pitiful and cowardly it takes an idiot or a mad billionaire to speak the plain truth.
I have a retired Ghurka friend, who cant understand why we let all these muslims in. He said that him and his friends had to fight tooth and nail to settle here and they are utterly loyal to HMQ, and love this country with as much heart as their own.
On topic: I'm a bit sceptical (but then, I'm a scientist so I'm sceptical by training).
My scepticism on this occasion is as follows. OK, we have a hypothesis: the problem was largely one of differential respondent behaviour by age. It's a good hypothesis, but it still needs to be tested. And surely the very first test you would apply is to look back at 2010 and 2005. What didn't this problem show up then?
That. But also the premise of all statistical inference is that you have a random sample from the relevant population (i.e. people eligible to vote). That is what lies behind "margin of error" calculations. YouGov's selected samples simply don't conform to that desideratum.
Indeed. Plus, once you apply any kind of "correction" (shy tory correction, adding on half of the don't knows or whatever), margin of error is a total fiction when applied to the headline numbers
Muslims fleeing ISIS in the millions because ISIS wants to kill them Some Westerners say: Let's repeat our behaviour to refugees in the Holocaust, because that was great
They are evil and your Cameron should not be palling around with them?
I would agree with this post. It must have been the same during the prohibition era in the US. Better to smuggle brandy than beer. But the point of my post was that if someone does something bad while under the influence. It is the individual that bears the responsibility. Booze or dope may have lowered the inhibitions, but it doesn't excuse their actions.
it would be interesting to know if things like domestic violence or street fights commonly associated with alcohol were reduced during the US prohibition era. I guess the data probably wasn't systematically collected in those days
Yes, that would be interesting. My guess is that they may well have been fueled up on some fairly nasty home brewed concoction of something.
I would agree with this post. It must have been the same during the prohibition era in the US. Better to smuggle brandy than beer. But the point of my post was that if someone does something bad while under the influence. It is the individual that bears the responsibility. Booze or dope may have lowered the inhibitions, but it doesn't excuse their actions.
it would be interesting to know if things like domestic violence or street fights commonly associated with alcohol were reduced during the US prohibition era. I guess the data probably wasn't systematically collected in those days
Sadly not. Crime soared - through the empowered gangsters and the thinning of police resources.
Muslims fleeing ISIS in the millions because ISIS wants to kill them Some Westerners say: Let's repeat our behaviour to refugees in the Holocaust, because that was great
According to that, Muslim countries are the world most racist and intolerant countries in the world, after caste-based India of course.
If you are ranking racist countries don't forget to look at China and Japan - they will give even the worst of the Arabs a run for the title.
According to that study, China and Japan are average, but S.Korea is unusually intolerant for east Asia.
China and Japan are average when it comes to attitudes to other races? Really? One has to wonder on what data the Washington Post people were basing their judgement, or at least what they were smoking - some of Mr Pubgoer's finest I should think.
On topic: I'm a bit sceptical (but then, I'm a scientist so I'm sceptical by training).
My scepticism on this occasion is as follows. OK, we have a hypothesis: the problem was largely one of differential respondent behaviour by age. It's a good hypothesis, but it still needs to be tested. And surely the very first test you would apply is to look back at 2010 and 2005. What didn't this problem show up then?
That. But also the premise of all statistical inference is that you have a random sample from the relevant population (i.e. people eligible to vote). That is what lies behind "margin of error" calculations. YouGov's selected samples simply don't conform to that desideratum.
Indeed. Plus, once you apply any kind of "correction" (shy tory correction, adding on half of the don't knows or whatever), margin of error is a total fiction when applied to the headline numbers
Even adjusting the sample to represent known population proportions introduces non-random biases. It reflects the statistically discredited idea of attaining a "representative" (as opposed to random) sample.
On topic: I'm a bit sceptical (but then, I'm a scientist so I'm sceptical by training).
My scepticism on this occasion is as follows. OK, we have a hypothesis: the problem was largely one of differential respondent behaviour by age. It's a good hypothesis, but it still needs to be tested. And surely the very first test you would apply is to look back at 2010 and 2005. What didn't this problem show up then?
Very very good points I am guessing: 2010 and 2005 (and 2001) were small change elections. To the extent that the electorate changed naturally through death/emigration it kind of replaced itself. Even the downfall of the hated enemy of the PB/Guido thoughtsphere, Gordo McBroon in the Labourbunker, led to a loss of just six per cent. While the Mature, Noble, Patriotic Statesman Clegg was so mature and noble in coalition that he lost fifteen per cent making him the greatest politician ever (for PB). Actually, that was the largest fall in percentage share suffered by a British political party since the war. So maybe past vote used to be a good anchor compensating for differential respondent behaviours, but now it ain't because fifteen per cent of people are willing to stop voting for one single political party and it's hard to say what they will do now.
The idea of Trump running for president ought to be a joke. Instead he's the only one standing up for freedom of speech on American campuses. Amazing own goal from the left.
The idea of Trump running for president ought to be a joke. Instead he's the only one standing up for freedom of speech on American campuses. Amazing own goal from the left.
Everything on PB is an own goal for the left, which is funny because they should have lost about 2296-0 by now instead of being odds-on to win in 2016
Tories, ie Cameron , claimed we would have a 200 Billion oil boom if we voted NO , what happened to that , did you miss that you halfwit.
Evening, Mr. G., I will take your word that is what Cameron said and if he did the point is surely that he is a grubby little spiv who will say anything to anyone to get his way. Though to be fair that is hardly news, some of us have been pointing out the fact for a very long time.
I seem to recall having a conversation with someone on here (@taffys?) about the relative size of YouGov's age cohorts prior to the election: they looked wrong. Though even upweighting them wouldn't have fully fixed the problem; as Anthony says a further issue was that the groups within the cohorts weren't representative enough either.
The whole industry getting the sampling wrong is profoundly embarrassing as a solution; far more so than "late swing" (by def undetectable) or "shy Tories" (tricky to model). I suppose therefore that we should give due credit to those firms who have identified it as the predominant factor.
The idea of Trump running for president ought to be a joke. Instead he's the only one standing up for freedom of speech on American campuses. Amazing own goal from the left.
You are missing the point:
PublicPolicyPolling @ppppolls 2h2 hours ago Trump supporters on our NC poll coming out tomorrow: 51% want to shut down mosques in the United States, only 16% opposed
PublicPolicyPolling @ppppolls 2h2 hours ago Trump supporters on our NC poll coming out tomorrow: only 24% think Islam should be legal in United States, 44% illegal
PublicPolicyPolling @ppppolls 2h2 hours ago So Trump really speaking to his base with this new pronouncement- many would go even further and completely eliminate Islam in US
PublicPolicyPolling @ppppolls 4h4 hours ago Donald Trump at a record high level of support in our new North Carolina poll coming out tomorrow
They are evil and your Cameron should not be palling around with them?
The George W. Bush school off politics, with the axis drawn in a slightly different direction. Very good
I'm sorry I think the Saudis and ISIS are evil, this makes me exactly like George W Bush, good point
I'm not going to defend the Saudis, far from it. But "not palling around with them" and dividing the middle east into "good guys" and "evil" is not going to solve anything either
In the months leading up to the general election, there were three Ashcroft constituency polls in Croydon Central. They put Labour +6% ahead, then Conservative +4% ahead, then Conservative +6% ahead.
I'm fairly sure that I was part of the sample for two of those polls. I was phoned up by whichever organisation it was; I am wondering: how did they get my phone number? How did I become part of their sample frame? This might give weight to the theory that they asked the people who were more active, more political, more contactable, whatever, rather than being a random selection of Croydon Central people.
It is a view shared by a pretty prominent UKIP politician too...
It's nonsense to blame puffing for making him do it. Declare an interest: I was a very heavy dope smoker for the best part of 20 years. To the best of my knowledge, I've never stabbed anyone.
The list of recent terrorist acts made by heavy cannabis smokers is quite an eye opener
I stopped puffing 2 years ago (and still have the odd one now), am well aware of how strong the current strains are.
I don't indulge in that 'Vice' but its your chose and I would not wish to stop you, or anybody having that freedom.
So Long as it is illegal, there is good incentive for the stronger variety's, classic market forces will encourage stronger variety's that are therefore also smaller and easier to hide, both when still a plant and when prepared for smocking. Indeed the rise of 'Skunk' was very much a case of market forces, trying to concentrate so much that it could be smuggled easily.
Where it has been legalised e.g. Colorado, the trend, anecdotally at least, seems to be that milder variety's are gaining in popularity.
When will the day come when my taxes are not wasted on putting people in prison for doing no different than the Brewers who make my bear that I so much enjoy and are grateful for!
I would agree with this post. It must have been the same during the prohibition era in the US. Better to smuggle brandy than beer. But the point of my post was that if someone does something bad while under the influence. It is the individual that bears the responsibility. Booze or dope may have lowered the inhibitions, but it doesn't excuse their actions.
I absolotly agree on you with that, to me that just seems so obvious that it doesn't need stating. Every individual is fully responsible for there action, and so far as is ever possible should get all of the benefits and bare all of the costs of whatever action they chose to do.
Freedom is only limited in that nobody has the right to use forces of whatever kind on anybody else, and if they do so then they are a real criminal and should face the full force of the Law.
If the Police were not wrapped up in preventing 'victimless crime' then they would have more time, and impotantly more help for ALL sections of the community in preventing real crime.
I do believe I called "Schizophrenic" on Saturday night
I will fess up, it was a slightly racist profiling technique, but big black man with machete to me says "Cannabis psychosis" rather than "World domination"
It is a view shared by a pretty prominent UKIP politician too...
It's nonsense to blame puffing for making him do it. Declare an interest: I was a very heavy dope smoker for the best part of 20 years. To the best of my knowledge, I've never stabbed anyone.
puff in the late 80s and early 90s was like shandy bass compared to the terps they smoke now
The list of recent terrorist acts made by heavy cannabis smokers is quite an eye opener
I stopped puffing 2 years ago (and still have the odd one now), am well aware of how strong the current strains are.
Shandy bass... A confession, thats probably my favourite alcoholic drink..
I do believe I called "Schizophrenic" on Saturday night
I will fess up, it was a slightly racist profiling technique, but big black man with machete to me says "Cannabis psychosis" rather than "World domination"
It is a view shared by a pretty prominent UKIP politician too...
It's nonsense to blame puffing for making him do it. Declare an interest: I was a very heavy dope smoker for the best part of 20 years. To the best of my knowledge, I've never stabbed anyone.
puff in the late 80s and early 90s was like shandy bass compared to the terps they smoke now
The list of recent terrorist acts made by heavy cannabis smokers is quite an eye opener
I stopped puffing 2 years ago (and still have the odd one now), am well aware of how strong the current strains are.
I don't indulge in that 'Vice' but its your chose and I would not wish to stop you, or anybody having that freedom.
So Long as it is illegal, there is good incentive for the stronger variety's, classic market forces will encourage stronger variety's that are therefore also smaller and easier to hide, both when still a plant and when prepared for smocking. Indeed the rise of 'Skunk' was very much a case of market forces, trying to concentrate so much that it could be smuggled easily.
Where it has been legalised e.g. Colorado, the trend, anecdotally at least, seems to be that milder variety's are gaining in popularity.
When will the day come when my taxes are not wasted on putting people in prison for doing no different than the Brewers who make my bear that I so much enjoy and are grateful for!
But the point of my post was that if someone does something bad while under the influence. It is the individual that bears the responsibility. Booze or dope may have lowered the inhibitions, but it doesn't excuse their actions.
Quite right, similar to almost any other factors that might make action more understandable but not mitigate the responsibility of the person taking the negative action - plenty of others indulge in the same or suffer the same, and don't take that action, it remains a choice.
The idea of Trump running for president ought to be a joke. Instead he's the only one standing up for freedom of speech on American campuses. Amazing own goal from the left.
But to be fair, he is also advocating denying people entry to the US based on their religion. Freedom of speech in location X is not much use if you are prevented from entering location X
In the months leading up to the general election, there were three Ashcroft constituency polls in Croydon Central. They put Labour +6% ahead, then Conservative +4% ahead, then Conservative +6% ahead.
I'm fairly sure that I was part of the sample for two of those polls. I was phoned up by whichever organisation it was; I am wondering: how did they get my phone number? How did I become part of their sample frame? This might give weight to the theory that they asked the people who were more active, more political, more contactable, whatever, rather than being a random selection of Croydon Central people.
The samples are inherently biased because the very fact that respondents agree (or not) to participate makes them self-selecting. An instance of this is the "shy Tory" idea. But you might just as well hypothesise about, let us say, a "gobby ScotNat" phenomenon being over-represented in the opinion polls. Etc etc
Tories, ie Cameron , claimed we would have a 200 Billion oil boom if we voted NO , what happened to that , did you miss that you halfwit.
Evening, Mr. G., I will take your word that is what Cameron said and if he did the point is surely that he is a grubby little spiv who will say anything to anyone to get his way. Though to be fair that is hardly news, some of us have been pointing out the fact for a very long time.
By all means the pair of you continue living in your dreamworld. You probably have little else. This is what Cameron said ''David Cameron will use his first ever cabinet meeting in Scotland to promise a revolution in North Sea oil and gas extraction worth up to £200bn over two decades – but that this will only be affordable if the union stays together. However, Cameron will try to undermine that claim by arguing that the "broad shoulders" of the UK government are needed to support North Sea oil and gas in the future. Under plans to boost the industry, Cameron will agree to adopt all the recommendations of an independent report by Sir Ian Wood, a retired oil billionaire, who believes the creation of a new regulator and more cooperation between companies could increase production by up to 4bn barrels.'' (Feb 14) At this time the SNP were projecting an oil price of upwards of $110. Where is it today? $41?
While he sees it as defending those who oppose war, rather than the unsavoury people at stop the war, which is not the same thing, I would think less of him if he stepped back from them. He helped found it, he chaired it, he cannot pretend his views are not the same as theirs or that he finds them distasteful, and he'd have no integrity if he tried.
Utterly shocking views on a whole range of matters expressed by some Muslims in Reggie Yates' newest documentary. Really worth watching.
Gay and under attack ?
Im watching it now, i assume it gets more shocking because at the moment, a young hip church pastor says that he welcomes all people to church but feels a marriage should be between a man and a woman. He is very clear that he has no animosity and wishes them well, but he feels a marriage is between a mother and a father.
After that the presenter bitches about not being accepted. You know, be gay, be happy about it but dont expect everyone else to join you. That isnt how the world works.
On topic: I'm a bit sceptical (but then, I'm a scientist so I'm sceptical by training).
My scepticism on this occasion is as follows. OK, we have a hypothesis: the problem was largely one of differential respondent behaviour by age. It's a good hypothesis, but it still needs to be tested. And surely the very first test you would apply is to look back at 2010 and 2005. What didn't this problem show up then?
That. But also the premise of all statistical inference is that you have a random sample from the relevant population (i.e. people eligible to vote). That is what lies behind "margin of error" calculations. YouGov's selected samples simply don't conform to that desideratum.
Amen. YouGov have a large panel of people: they ask them questions, look at the group of people who respond, fiddle around with that group until it matches the profile of the voting population, and publish the results. It's quick and cheap. But it's not a random sample from a proper sample frame, and if you get the "fiddle around" bit wrong, your answers will be wrong.
YouGov (and all panel pollsters) have a real problem in this regard: there's no guarantee a given method of "fiddling about" may have worked in the past, but that's no guarantee it'll work in the future.
Or as I semi-jokingly put it: YouGov have now worked out how to predict the last election.
Its a sad case, not least for the victims. But the hysteria of the ignorant response on here (like 'lets nuke the middle east [again!]) does the self serving self esteem of PB no credit. An attack by a terrorist slashing someones head off with a machete turns into a psycho with a 3inch knife. Headlines saying it was being treated as a terrorist incident were followed by an interview with a policeman on BBC saying they could not comment on the motive.
The case in Abingdon is even worse, A victim died. The attacker was pursued by the public and tasered by a policewoman. At least here PB reined in its hysteria. Perhaps as well since these sad people clearly need little encouragement to trigger their psychosis.
On topic: I'm a bit sceptical (but then, I'm a scientist so I'm sceptical by training).
My scepticism on this occasion is as follows. OK, we have a hypothesis: the problem was largely one of differential respondent behaviour by age. It's a good hypothesis, but it still needs to be tested. And surely the very first test you would apply is to look back at 2010 and 2005. What didn't this problem show up then?
If I recall NumberCruncherPolitics correctly, it did show up then: we just didn't pay attention.
As a couple of people have pointed out below, there's been a problem with panel polling for some time. They've been coping by weighting the responses, but that only works if you know what to weight it to, and you don't: you just use the method that worked best in the past and hope. And when it doesn't work...kerblooey!
"YouGov (and all panel pollsters) have a real problem in this regard: there's no guarantee a given method of "fiddling about" may have worked in the past, but that's no guarantee it'll work in the future."
should have read
"YouGov (and all panel pollsters) have a real problem in this regard: a given method of "fiddling about" may have worked in the past, but that's no guarantee it'll work in the future."
While he sees it as defending those who oppose war, rather than the unsavoury people at stop the war, which is not the same thing, I would think less of him if he stepped back from them. He helped found it, he chaired it, he cannot pretend his views are not the same as theirs or that he finds them distasteful, and he'd have no integrity if he tried.
The strongest reason for him to step down from it would be that his new role as Labour leader associates STW too closely with a certain (and currently dominant) political wing of the Labour party, rather than the broad coalition of (generally very left-wing) people that an anti-war coalition ought to be. Corbyn had a lot to do with STW at the senior levels... at the lower levels it was basically run by the full-on Trots (the SWP lot), as far as I understand the structure. Presumably still is, despite the SWP's recent nervous breakdown (don't think Left Unity, which was partly formed out of SWP malcontents, is particularly influential in STW, and while a lot of Greens are active in it, I don't think they have grabbed much control of the organisational structure).
I imagine the Greens, SWP, Respect, Left Unity and various other shades, as well as the politically non-aligned members, would prefer STW not to become viewed as a Corbynista side-project, regardless of how delighted they were to see the advent of the Corbynist Age in the Labour Party.
In the months leading up to the general election, there were three Ashcroft constituency polls in Croydon Central. They put Labour +6% ahead, then Conservative +4% ahead, then Conservative +6% ahead.
I'm fairly sure that I was part of the sample for two of those polls. I was phoned up by whichever organisation it was; I am wondering: how did they get my phone number? How did I become part of their sample frame? This might give weight to the theory that they asked the people who were more active, more political, more contactable, whatever, rather than being a random selection of Croydon Central people.
The samples are inherently biased because the very fact that respondents agree (or not) to participate makes them self-selecting. An instance of this is the "shy Tory" idea. But you might just as well hypothesise about, let us say, a "gobby ScotNat" phenomenon being over-represented in the opinion polls. Etc etc
A "genuine" polling company call is indistinguishable at first from a call from any of the apparently hundreds of "opinion pollers" which are thinly disguised marketing exercises. This, coupled with the daily calls from "Microsofts Technical Department" etc. leads many people to use one of the blocking mechanisms. In our case, if the number isn't recognisable, or is "withheld" or "unavailable" the phone doesn't get answered. Genuine callers ..... eg the local hospital ...... will leave a message.
In the previous thread, someone referred to "Hitler's soft Viennese accent" to which someone expressed surprise. There is a recording of Hitler talking privately (when he didn't know he was being recorded) rather than speaking in public, and his voice is noticeably softer than his public speech-ranting. I don't know about the Viennese accent though.
Comments
I am guessing:
2010 and 2005 (and 2001) were small change elections. To the extent that the electorate changed naturally through death/emigration it kind of replaced itself. Even the downfall of the hated enemy of the PB/Guido thoughtsphere, Gordo McBroon in the Labourbunker, led to a loss of just six per cent. While the Mature, Noble, Patriotic Statesman Clegg was so mature and noble in coalition that he lost fifteen per cent making him the greatest politician ever (for PB). Actually, that was the largest fall in percentage share suffered by a British political party since the war.
So maybe past vote used to be a good anchor compensating for differential respondent behaviours, but now it ain't because fifteen per cent of people are willing to stop voting for one single political party and it's hard to say what they will do now.
The whole industry getting the sampling wrong is profoundly embarrassing as a solution; far more so than "late swing" (by def undetectable) or "shy Tories" (tricky to model). I suppose therefore that we should give due credit to those firms who have identified it as the predominant factor.
PublicPolicyPolling @ppppolls 2h2 hours ago
Trump supporters on our NC poll coming out tomorrow: 51% want to shut down mosques in the United States, only 16% opposed
PublicPolicyPolling @ppppolls 2h2 hours ago
Trump supporters on our NC poll coming out tomorrow: only 24% think Islam should be legal in United States, 44% illegal
PublicPolicyPolling @ppppolls 2h2 hours ago
So Trump really speaking to his base with this new pronouncement- many would go even further and completely eliminate Islam in US
PublicPolicyPolling @ppppolls 4h4 hours ago
Donald Trump at a record high level of support in our new North Carolina poll coming out tomorrow
Goodnight.
Great justice system in Scotland.
I'm fairly sure that I was part of the sample for two of those polls. I was phoned up by whichever organisation it was; I am wondering: how did they get my phone number? How did I become part of their sample frame? This might give weight to the theory that they asked the people who were more active, more political, more contactable, whatever, rather than being a random selection of Croydon Central people.
Freedom is only limited in that nobody has the right to use forces of whatever kind on anybody else, and if they do so then they are a real criminal and should face the full force of the Law.
If the Police were not wrapped up in preventing 'victimless crime' then they would have more time, and impotantly more help for ALL sections of the community in preventing real crime.
Good night.
This is what Cameron said
''David Cameron will use his first ever cabinet meeting in Scotland to promise a revolution in North Sea oil and gas extraction worth up to £200bn over two decades – but that this will only be affordable if the union stays together.
However, Cameron will try to undermine that claim by arguing that the "broad shoulders" of the UK government are needed to support North Sea oil and gas in the future.
Under plans to boost the industry, Cameron will agree to adopt all the recommendations of an independent report by Sir Ian Wood, a retired oil billionaire, who believes the creation of a new regulator and more cooperation between companies could increase production by up to 4bn barrels.'' (Feb 14)
At this time the SNP were projecting an oil price of upwards of $110. Where is it today? $41?
After that the presenter bitches about not being accepted. You know, be gay, be happy about it but dont expect everyone else to join you. That isnt how the world works.
It must get much more shocking i guess...
YouGov (and all panel pollsters) have a real problem in this regard: there's no guarantee a given method of "fiddling about" may have worked in the past, but that's no guarantee it'll work in the future.
Or as I semi-jokingly put it: YouGov have now worked out how to predict the last election.
An attack by a terrorist slashing someones head off with a machete turns into a psycho with a 3inch knife.
Headlines saying it was being treated as a terrorist incident were followed by an interview with a policeman on BBC saying they could not comment on the motive.
The case in Abingdon is even worse, A victim died. The attacker was pursued by the public and tasered by a policewoman. At least here PB reined in its hysteria.
Perhaps as well since these sad people clearly need little encouragement to trigger their psychosis.
As a couple of people have pointed out below, there's been a problem with panel polling for some time. They've been coping by weighting the responses, but that only works if you know what to weight it to, and you don't: you just use the method that worked best in the past and hope. And when it doesn't work...kerblooey!
"YouGov (and all panel pollsters) have a real problem in this regard: there's no guarantee a given method of "fiddling about" may have worked in the past, but that's no guarantee it'll work in the future."
should have read
"YouGov (and all panel pollsters) have a real problem in this regard: a given method of "fiddling about" may have worked in the past, but that's no guarantee it'll work in the future."
I imagine the Greens, SWP, Respect, Left Unity and various other shades, as well as the politically non-aligned members, would prefer STW not to become viewed as a Corbynista side-project, regardless of how delighted they were to see the advent of the Corbynist Age in the Labour Party.
According to scotslass you are either, or all of:
A Tory CCHQ stooge (or stooges)
Single
In need of sleep
In need of L-Plates (because you point out the basic error in her posts)
Take your pick.......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClR9tcpKZec