Mr. Fire, it was the timing as much as anything that got me. People interested enough in politics to be watching election results (and locals, at that) around 2-3am are unlikely to be impressed by the sort of delinquent graphical tosh that would earn derision from the Lower Sixth.
Mr. D, aye. Replacing Dimbleby with Edwards and ignoring Neil (whilst consigning Raworth to a giant map gimmick, last time at least) is daft.
Didn't Dimbleby say 2015 was his last GE night? It certainly should have been, looked like he was struggling to stay awake at times.
I think Mr Jessop has this about right - people vote for a variety of reasons, but personal circumstances are a big factor.
If you're comfortably off, there is little downside to EU membership. If you're competing for jobs with the influx, you're not so keen. I'm in neither category, but I bear a grudge of forty years standing about being lied to.
Having spent the weekend back in Boston I saw both sides in action. The influx of Eastern Europeans has changed the town considerably with Polish and Lithuanian being spoken widely (and Russian too as a common language between the two). There's no risk of terrorism, but the drink driving rates seem to have gone up.
However, some of my relatives are currently seeking work and less understanding, although they do admit the visitors work hard and are less fussy than the native population.
Labour would once naturally be on their side. Not now; it is pro-EU because it is generally a London party of the Establishment, and a fan of diversity too.
I remain confident that remain will win. The Establishment has all the advantages and will have to perform very badly to cock this one up.
Mr. Fire, it was the timing as much as anything that got me. People interested enough in politics to be watching election results (and locals, at that) around 2-3am are unlikely to be impressed by the sort of delinquent graphical tosh that would earn derision from the Lower Sixth.
Mr. D, aye. Replacing Dimbleby with Edwards and ignoring Neil (whilst consigning Raworth to a giant map gimmick, last time at least) is daft.
I didn't think the map was that terrible actually. I thought it was a nice low-tech way of visualising the constituencies. Maybe the commentary surrounding it was a bit crap, but I was too distracted by the results to realise it at the time
Mr. Fire, it was the timing as much as anything that got me. People interested enough in politics to be watching election results (and locals, at that) around 2-3am are unlikely to be impressed by the sort of delinquent graphical tosh that would earn derision from the Lower Sixth.
Mr. D, aye. Replacing Dimbleby with Edwards and ignoring Neil (whilst consigning Raworth to a giant map gimmick, last time at least) is daft.
Didn't Dimbleby say 2015 was his last GE night? It certainly should have been, looked like he was struggling to stay awake at times.
I may be wrong but I think he is doing the referendum results? Do we have a timetable on estimated declaration times for that?
Thanks, I'm surprised that more is not made of who pays the piper tbh. Pre GE Ukip commissioned Survation who came up with the highest numbers for them.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
[snip]
That's complete bollocks. So much so that I believe that people have been banned in the past for saying similar.
Political polling makes up a small amount of the business that the companies do. Why would they trash their reputation by producing figures that are likely (in their opinion) to very publicly be proved false, for such little benefit?
Thanks for that, let's discuss.
First of all, not at any stage have I suggested pollsters make things up. However, as you very well know, the wording of a question can lead to very different outcomes.
Incidentally, it was unanimous on here post GE that polling companies reputations WERE trashed.
Now wind your neck in.
But the very fact that the reputations were trashed - leading, one presumes, to financial losses - is exactly the outcome that mitigates against polling companies knowingly producing anything other than what they believe to be an accurate poll.
Yes, of course wording affects outcomes, as does differing methodologies - and those that are keen to see a certain outcome may well be attracted to companies whose questions and methodologies produce results favourable to their cause. However, that doesn't mean a company will necessarily accept a commission that they suspect will produce a skewed result. If they fear that the reputational damage would be greater than the profit from the survey, why would they?
Wow, talk about tying yourself in knots.
Look, polling companies are not dishonest, but they are businesses, like any other they rely on customers, revenue. If I, as a Leaver, hypothetically, pay them to produce a poll its in their interest to keep me happy in the hope of repeat business. They will word the question and speak to a certain type of person in order to placate me. Do you think they say to me:
Don't bother mate, you're a loser.
You do understand that, don't you? I mean how do you think PR companies and advertising agencies work?
Polling is not PR. That's why there are two disciplines.
No, parties, companies and other commissioners of polls *do* want the true picture. Obviously, the only polls that they'll publish (or the only bits of them) are those they find favourable.
The most valuable thing in this world is intelligence and if you're paying for skewed polls to flatter you then you're lacking it.
I think Mr Jessop has this about right - people vote for a variety of reasons, but personal circumstances are a big factor.
If you're comfortably off, there is little downside to EU membership. If you're competing for jobs with the influx, you're not so keen. I'm in neither category, but I bear a grudge of forty years standing about being lied to.
Having spent the weekend back in Boston I saw both sides in action. The influx of Eastern Europeans has changed the town considerably with Polish and Lithuanian being spoken widely (and Russian too as a common language between the two). There's no risk of terrorism, but the drink driving rates seem to have gone up.
However, some of my relatives are currently seeking work and less understanding, although they do admit the visitors work hard and are less fussy than the native population.
Labour would once naturally be on their side. Not now; it is pro-EU because it is generally a London party of the Establishment, and a fan of diversity too.
I remain confident that remain will win. The Establishment has all the advantages and will have to perform very badly to cock this one up.
There are some deeply unpleasant people supporting leave, rational people will vote remain for this reason if nothing else.
Freggles, that's just stereotyping. While there are exceptions in either direction, those parts of the country that are most eurosceptic tend to be those that have the highest combined vote for the Conservatives and UKIP. Those that are the least eurosceptic tend to be those that have the lowest combined vote for them. There are, incidentally, parts of London where UKIP poll strongly.
That's complete bollocks. So much so that I believe that people have been banned in the past for saying similar.
Political polling makes up a small amount of the business that the companies do. Why would they trash their reputation by producing figures that are likely (in their opinion) to very publicly be proved false, for such little benefit?
Thanks for that, let's discuss.
First of all, not at any stage have I suggested pollsters make things up. However, as you very well know, the wording of a question can lead to very different outcomes.
Incidentally, it was unanimous on here post GE that polling companies reputations WERE trashed.
Now wind your neck in.
But the very fact that the reputations were trashed - leading, one presumes, to financial losses - is exactly the outcome that mitigates against polling companies knowingly producing anything other than what they believe to be an accurate poll.
Yes, of course wording affects outcomes, as does differing methodologies - and those that are keen to see a certain outcome may well be attracted to companies whose questions and methodologies produce results favourable to their cause. However, that doesn't mean a company will necessarily accept a commission that they suspect will produce a skewed result. If they fear that the reputational damage would be greater than the profit from the survey, why would they?
Wow, talk about tying yourself in knots.
Look, polling companies are not dishonest, but they are businesses, like any other they rely on customers, revenue. If I, as a Leaver, hypothetically, pay them to produce a poll its in their interest to keep me happy in the hope of repeat business. They will word the question and speak to a certain type of person in order to placate me. Do you think they say to me:
Don't bother mate, you're a loser.
You do understand that, don't you? I mean how do you think PR companies and advertising agencies work?
Polling is not PR. That's why there are two disciplines.
No, parties, companies and other commissioners of polls *do* want the true picture. Obviously, the only polls that they'll publish (or the only bits of them) are those they find favourable.
The most valuable thing in this world is intelligence and if you're paying for skewed polls to flatter you then you're lacking it.
I think Mr Jessop has this about right - people vote for a variety of reasons, but personal circumstances are a big factor.
If you're comfortably off, there is little downside to EU membership. If you're competing for jobs with the influx, you're not so keen. I'm in neither category, but I bear a grudge of forty years standing about being lied to.
Having spent the weekend back in Boston I saw both sides in action. The influx of Eastern Europeans has changed the town considerably with Polish and Lithuanian being spoken widely (and Russian too as a common language between the two). There's no risk of terrorism, but the drink driving rates seem to have gone up.
However, some of my relatives are currently seeking work and less understanding, although they do admit the visitors work hard and are less fussy than the native population.
Labour would once naturally be on their side. Not now; it is pro-EU because it is generally a London party of the Establishment, and a fan of diversity too.
I remain confident that remain will win. The Establishment has all the advantages and will have to perform very badly to cock this one up.
There are some deeply unpleasant people supporting leave, rational people will vote remain for this reason if nothing else.
There are some deeply unpleasant people backing Remain too.
Choosing which side to vote for based on dislike of some campaigners on one side or the other is neither rational nor intelligent.
Square Root, there are saints and villains on both sides of the argument. Rational people should be able to think for themselves.
Morris Dancer, agree about how awful election night programmes have become. I want news from the counts, and analysis of the numbers, not gimmicks and partisan talking heads.
"There are some deeply unpleasant people supporting leave."
And also in Remain, but demonising your opponents isn't usually a good look.
If you support a Political Union, then you should vote Remain, but so in the full knowledge of that fact.
But truth will be in short supply on both sides. I've no doubt we will be told that leave will result in outbreaks of bubonic plague and locust storms. Or is that Global Warming?
I think Mr Jessop has this about right - people vote for a variety of reasons, but personal circumstances are a big factor.
If you're comfortably off, there is little downside to EU membership. If you're competing for jobs with the influx, you're not so keen. I'm in neither category, but I bear a grudge of forty years standing about being lied to.
Having spent the weekend back in Boston I saw both sides in action. The influx of Eastern Europeans has changed the town considerably with Polish and Lithuanian being spoken widely (and Russian too as a common language between the two). There's no risk of terrorism, but the drink driving rates seem to have gone up.
However, some of my relatives are currently seeking work and less understanding, although they do admit the visitors work hard and are less fussy than the native population.
Labour would once naturally be on their side. Not now; it is pro-EU because it is generally a London party of the Establishment, and a fan of diversity too.
I remain confident that remain will win. The Establishment has all the advantages and will have to perform very badly to cock this one up.
There are some deeply unpleasant people supporting leave, rational people will vote remain for this reason if nothing else.
There are some deeply unpleasant people backing Remain too.
Choosing which side to vote for based on dislike of some campaigners on one side or the other is neither rational nor intelligent.
Its completely rational. And like it or not its how GE elections are decided, It was Dave and colleagues versus Ed and a bunch of defecit deniers It was no contest.
The leave side seems pretty vitriolic and plain nasty about the EU. It will be their undoing.
Square Root, there are saints and villains on both sides of the argument. Rational people should be able to think for themselves.
Morris Dancer, agree about how awful election night programmes have become. I want news from the counts, and analysis of the numbers, not gimmicks and partisan talking heads.
I found Sky News' GE2015 coverage to be head and shoulders above the BBC. The latter preferred to host worthless pundit droning, whereas Sky always cut to actual results and was competent enough to put them on the screen as announced.
People watching political programmes at midnight don't need to be patronised.
I think Mr Jessop has this about right - people vote for a variety of reasons, but personal circumstances are a big factor.
If you're comfortably off, there is little downside to EU membership. If you're competing for jobs with the influx, you're not so keen. I'm in neither category, but I bear a grudge of forty years standing about being lied to.
Having spent the weekend back in Boston I saw both sides in action. The influx of Eastern Europeans has changed the town considerably with Polish and Lithuanian being spoken widely (and Russian too as a common language between the two). There's no risk of terrorism, but the drink driving rates seem to have gone up.
However, some of my relatives are currently seeking work and less understanding, although they do admit the visitors work hard and are less fussy than the native population.
Labour would once naturally be on their side. Not now; it is pro-EU because it is generally a London party of the Establishment, and a fan of diversity too.
I remain confident that remain will win. The Establishment has all the advantages and will have to perform very badly to cock this one up.
There are some deeply unpleasant people supporting leave, rational people will vote remain for this reason if nothing else.
There are some deeply unpleasant people backing Remain too.
Choosing which side to vote for based on dislike of some campaigners on one side or the other is neither rational nor intelligent.
Its completely rational. And like it or not its how GE elections are decided, It was Dave and colleagues versus Ed and a bunch of defecit deniers It was no contest.
False analogy, as the Leave campaign are not an alternative government. If they win, the current government carries on and decides what to do next.
I almost posted a link to the South Park clip compilation of DERKA DERP DERR but satire aside they're right. Jobs have been shipped out, remaining jobs have seen huge competition drive down wages and conditions.
The cost of living in cities like London is genuinely absurd - but there is a reason that wages can rise so little and cost of living to rise so much, and thats the imported labour pool that's willing to live 6 to a room so beloved of the Daily Wail.
But - and its a very big But - the effect of reducing the labour pool by leaving the EU should be to force up wages. I get the impression that the Business-type Brexiters have the opposite in mind, seeing the EU as blocking their plans via red tape. A lot of C2DEs may be in for a nasty shock if they get their way.
That's the thing, even if we can stem migration into the country, for a lot of things the jobs will just be exported, and that will happen regardless of the EU
Look, polling companies are not dishonest, but they are businesses, like any other they rely on customers, revenue. If I, as a Leaver, hypothetically, pay them to produce a poll its in their interest to keep me happy in the hope of repeat business. They will word the question and speak to a certain type of person in order to placate me.
I may be able to help with this rather heated debate: I've been personally involved through my NGO in commissioning polls, and know a bit about it from my political background as well.
Polling companies are keen on business, but they also need to think about their reputation, as "X is a shill for their customers" is a killer reputation to have. Consequently, if you commission a poll, you have to negotiate with them to get questions and samples that everyone feels comfortable with.
Say, for example, you're a pro-Heathrow campaign. If you propose to YouGov that you do a poll asking "Bearing in mind the substantial boost to the economy that expanding Heathrow will have, do you favour or oppose it?" you have zero chance of acceptance. They will counter by suggesting some sort of balance, e.g. "Some people say that expansion will help the economy. Others say that it will damage the local environment. Do you favour or oppose it?" You can wrestle over the precise wording - they want your business, but they need it to be defensible.
If your client wants to prove something about a subgroup and it's clear what that group is, they might be up for that. For instance, there was a recent poll of over-60s in Scotland which showed the Tories doing well. Professionals know that the Tories do well in any poll of over-60s, but there wasn't any attempt to deceive in this - the poll was what it said on the tin.
In generic polls on the referendum, there is a small prize for having a startling finding (it will be widely reported) but a big prize in being right - that will generate more repeat business than anything. Angus Reid used if I recall correctly to show coloosal Tory leads before 2010 because they used Canadian methodology which turned out not to work in Britain. It took a long time and big changes in methodology before they were taken seriously again. I don't think any pollsters are really trying to distort the findings, but they're struggling, as we all are, with the turnout conundrum.
A ComRes survey finds only 23 per cent of respondents across the UK back the Named Person scheme, with similar support in Scotland.
Fewer than one in four people support the SNP’s plan to appoint every Scottish child a state guardian and nearly two-thirds believe it is an “unacceptable intrusion” into family life, according to a new opinion poll.
Ha Ha Ha , have they not got enough problems down south without poking their big noses where they are not wanted. In the real world the only people against it in Scotland are the Tories and the headbangers.
OK, I'm sure there are people down south who have seen their communities entirely changed by immigration. I get that. But in most cases isn't that in large part non-EU immigration anyway? Up here in the North East I can predict who is going to be 'Leave' not because they are affected in any way, but just because they have said vaguely racist stuff in the past or bought the myths about Christmas being banned in schools - the 'this country's going to the dogs' crowd. Where I live you rarely see a foreigner, and particularly not Europeans. And yet, I expect the North East will have a pretty big Leave vote.
It's like how London, capital of immigration, is a UKIP-free zone while places like Hartlepool and the east coast are uber-UKIP.
You do not have to live in something to want to avoid it. It is NIMBY-ism.
Many people on the periphery of places like London will have either left the area or travel to work in it. They see, and speak of, cultural erosion.
I am sure people in the North East heard the news from Rotherham (Middlesbrough had the same issue) and see that people from Bradford are travelling to Glasgow and London with the express intention of killing people.
That generates NIMBYism.
Those same people will also have been hearing about similar French and Belgian lunatics on the BBC news for days.
Salah Abdesalam is a European terrorist. He's Belgian. His ethnicity is an irrelevance.
Old fashioned, easily divisible lines around race no longer apply.
Three Quidder.. It will be equivalentt to a new Govt if leave wins and certainly Dave will go, it might even precipitate a GE, who knows, but it will be cataclysmic and the Govt of whatever making will be stuffed in trying to sort it out
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
Mainly because;
1) It's not true - their 'worth' lies in 'accuracy' - not 'keeping clients happy' 2) It's libellous - if by 'the right results' you mean 'the results the client wants' - but I'm sure you didn't mean that.....
Old Toom Tabard accusing people of libel yet again , what a one trick pony you Tory Pom Pom cheerleaders are, just outright lying toerags. Ask HQ for another set of threats , your old list is threadbare.
Three Quidder.. It will be equivalentt to a new Govt if leave wins and certainly Dave will go, it might even precipitate a GE, who knows, but it will be cataclysmic and the Govt of whatever making will be stuffed in trying to sort it out
cataclysmic
so cabinet will be PM Death, CofE Pestilence, FCO War, Home Office Famine
don't you think youre maybe additcted to hyperbole ?
I think that we're all predisposed to believe that what is in our interest is also in the national interest.
A very correct statement.
It's also why politicians and partisans can compromise from their professed ideologies time and again, to the point they may not seem, in reality, to be following it anymore, because they justify it as even if they have deviated from what they said was best, them being in charge is still always better than the other lot, no matter what. Are there many non corbynites who think even the Tories would be preferable even when their views would seem to indicate they should? It doesn't seem like it, nor for Tories . who disliked Hague etc. The party interest is presumed to be in the national interest, eventually, even if it doesn't seem like it.
But as Seanf says, were predisposed to think like that. It's worse among partisans, but the rest of us are not immune.
Three Quidder.. It will be equivalentt to a new Govt if leave wins and certainly Dave will go, it might even precipitate a GE, who knows, but it will be cataclysmic and the Govt of whatever making will be stuffed in trying to sort it out
But in whatever circumstances the Leave campaign won't form a government, so your analogy fails.
Three Quidder.. It will be equivalentt to a new Govt if leave wins and certainly Dave will go, it might even precipitate a GE, who knows, but it will be cataclysmic and the Govt of whatever making will be stuffed in trying to sort it out
cataclysmic
so cabinet will be PM Death, CofE Pestilence, FCO War, Home Office Famine
don't you think youre maybe additcted to hyperbole ?
I think that we're all predisposed to believe that what is in our interest is also in the national interest.
A very correct statement.
It's also why politicians and partisans can compromise from their professed ideologies time and again, to the point they may not seem, in reality, to be following it anymore, because they justify it as even if they have deviated from what they said was best, them being in charge is still always better than the other lot, no matter what. Are there many non corbynites who think even the Tories would be preferable even when their views would seem to indicate they should? It doesn't seem like it, nor for Tories . who disliked Hague etc. The party interest is presumed to be in the national interest, eventually, even if it doesn't seem like it.
But as Seanf says, were predisposed to think like that. It's worse among partisans, but the rest of us are not immune.
I think that we're all predisposed to believe that what is in our interest is also in the national interest.
A very correct statement.
It's also why politicians and partisans can compromise from their professed ideologies time and again, to the point they may not seem, in reality, to be following it anymore, because they justify it as even if they have deviated from what they said was best, them being in charge is still always better than the other lot, no matter what. Are there many non corbynites who think even the Tories would be preferable even when their views would seem to indicate they should? It doesn't seem like it, nor for Tories . who disliked Hague etc. The party interest is presumed to be in the national interest, eventually, even if it doesn't seem like it.
But as Seanf says, were predisposed to think like that. It's worse among partisans, but the rest of us are not immune.
Especially those filthy neutrals....
Sorry, couldn't resist
No, it's a fair cop - who can say what turns a man neutral? That's untrustworthy to say the least
Kle, thanks. I don't expect to be adversely affected economically by either Brexit or remain. But, if I thought that Brexit would adversely affect me, I'm sure I'd assume it would harm the entire country.
I think Mr Jessop has this about right - people vote for a variety of reasons, but personal circumstances are a big factor.
If you're comfortably off, there is little downside to EU membership. If you're competing for jobs with the influx, you're not so keen. I'm in neither category, but I bear a grudge of forty years standing about being lied to.
Having spent the weekend back in Boston I saw both sides in action. The influx of Eastern Europeans has changed the town considerably with Polish and Lithuanian being spoken widely (and Russian too as a common language between the two). There's no risk of terrorism, but the drink driving rates seem to have gone up.
However, some of my relatives are currently seeking work and less understanding, although they do admit the visitors work hard and are less fussy than the native population.
Labour would once naturally be on their side. Not now; it is pro-EU because it is generally a London party of the Establishment, and a fan of diversity too.
I remain confident that remain will win. The Establishment has all the advantages and will have to perform very badly to cock this one up.
There are some deeply unpleasant people supporting leave, rational people will vote remain for this reason if nothing else.
There are some deeply unpleasant people backing Remain too.
Choosing which side to vote for based on dislike of some campaigners on one side or the other is neither rational nor intelligent.
Its completely rational. And like it or not its how GE elections are decided, It was Dave and colleagues versus Ed and a bunch of defecit deniers It was no contest.
The leave side seems pretty vitriolic and plain nasty about the EU. It will be their undoing.
Just wondering why you are happy, ney..... deliriously happy to be governed by faceless bureaucrats outside the country over which we have little influence and certainly can't remove democratically?
We always loose sight of the fact that when last asked this was originally an extension of Benelux, "a common market" for buying and selling. How we ever morphed to allowing such an institution to dictate how we live and act within our own borders is neither rational or sane. It never has been and if remain wins will not be for the future.
I have little doubt remain will carry the day but it won't lance the boil.
A ComRes survey finds only 23 per cent of respondents across the UK back the Named Person scheme, with similar support in Scotland.
Fewer than one in four people support the SNP’s plan to appoint every Scottish child a state guardian and nearly two-thirds believe it is an “unacceptable intrusion” into family life, according to a new opinion poll.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
Mainly because;
1) It's not true - their 'worth' lies in 'accuracy' - not 'keeping clients happy' 2) It's libellous - if by 'the right results' you mean 'the results the client wants' - but I'm sure you didn't mean that.....
Old Toom Tabard accusing people of libel yet again , what a one trick pony you Tory Pom Pom cheerleaders are, just outright lying toerags. Ask HQ for another set of threats , your old list is threadbare.
Says the blowhard who had to apologize for libeling Prof Curtice......stick to your turnips
OK, I'm sure there are people down south who have seen their communities entirely changed by immigration. I get that. But in most cases isn't that in large part non-EU immigration anyway? Up here in the North East I can predict who is going to be 'Leave' not because they are affected in any way, but just because they have said vaguely racist stuff in the past or bought the myths about Christmas being banned in schools - the 'this country's going to the dogs' crowd. Where I live you rarely see a foreigner, and particularly not Europeans. And yet, I expect the North East will have a pretty big Leave vote.
It's like how London, capital of immigration, is a UKIP-free zone while places like Hartlepool and the east coast are uber-UKIP.
You do not have to live in something to want to avoid it. It is NIMBY-ism.
Many people on the periphery of places like London will have either left the area or travel to work in it. They see, and speak of, cultural erosion.
I am sure people in the North East heard the news from Rotherham (Middlesbrough had the same issue) and see that people from Bradford are travelling to Glasgow and London with the express intention of killing people.
That generates NIMBYism.
Those same people will also have been hearing about similar French and Belgian lunatics on the BBC news for days.
Salah Abdesalam is a European terrorist. He's Belgian. His ethnicity is an irrelevance.
Old fashioned, easily divisible lines around race no longer apply.
The problem is that you're describing the negatives without the positives. Those whose only view of a minority is the approximately 0.001% who you just described are going to have such negative views.
While those who know in real life and are friends and neighbours with good people are not going to be so ignorant as to ascribe such an extreme to everyone.
Wouldn't it be better to have the graph shown by NUMBERS of people in each class.
But that would reduce the effectiveness of the graph towards swaying the REMAIN crowd.
You would think the graph was promoted by the Lib Dems.
Well, the numbers are these (see my post downthread):
AB: 27% C1: 29% C2: 21% DE: 23%
So the group leaning most to Leave is somewhat smaller than the others, and if Mike had weighted his graph accordingly it would have swayed it towards Remain. In the light of that, perhaps you owe Mike an apology?
You'd be on stronger grounds if you argued that the figures should combine demographic voting certainty with stated certainty to vote one way or the other. But there's a risk of double counting there because people who say they are keen to vote may be from a demographic group which tends to vote more anyway. It's not easy. The general rule is that we're all a bit dubious about polls that say things we don't like...
A ComRes survey finds only 23 per cent of respondents across the UK back the Named Person scheme, with similar support in Scotland.
Fewer than one in four people support the SNP’s plan to appoint every Scottish child a state guardian and nearly two-thirds believe it is an “unacceptable intrusion” into family life, according to a new opinion poll.
Ha Ha Ha , have they not got enough problems down south without poking their big noses where they are not wanted. In the real world the only people against it in Scotland are the Tories and the headbangers.
Malc, it's a barmy idea, though. State guardian for every child in Scotland? Is Scottish parenting really so bad that they need to have the state overseeing every minute aspect of it?
Wouldn't it be better to have the graph shown by NUMBERS of people in each class.
But that would reduce the effectiveness of the graph towards swaying the REMAIN crowd.
You would think the graph was promoted by the Lib Dems.
Well, the numbers are these (see my post downthread):
AB: 27% C1: 29% C2: 21% DE: 23%
So the group leaning most to Leave is somewhat smaller than the others, and if Mike had weighted his graph accordingly it would have swayed it towards Remain. In the light of that, perhaps you owe Mike an apology?
You'd be on stronger grounds if you argued that the figures should combine demographic voting certainty with stated certainty to vote one way or the other. But there's a risk of double counting there because people who say they are keen to vote may be from a demographic group which tends to vote more anyway. It's not easy. The general rule is that we're all a bit dubious about polls that say things we don't like...
Stats like that show that we are increasingly a white collar society, rather than a blue collar one. I am sure that the breakdown at the 66 election was quite different.
A ComRes survey finds only 23 per cent of respondents across the UK back the Named Person scheme, with similar support in Scotland.
Fewer than one in four people support the SNP’s plan to appoint every Scottish child a state guardian and nearly two-thirds believe it is an “unacceptable intrusion” into family life, according to a new opinion poll.
Wouldn't it be better to have the graph shown by NUMBERS of people in each class.
But that would reduce the effectiveness of the graph towards swaying the REMAIN crowd.
You would think the graph was promoted by the Lib Dems.
Well, the numbers are these (see my post downthread):
AB: 27% C1: 29% C2: 21% DE: 23%
So the group leaning most to Leave is somewhat smaller than the others, and if Mike had weighted his graph accordingly it would have swayed it towards Remain. In the light of that, perhaps you owe Mike an apology?
He doesn't necessarily owe Mike an apology, and I'll tell you why. The other day somebody pointed out that percentage-wise Clinton's vote is disproportionately female compared to Saunders, and concluded that she had a problem with male voters. This is problematic because the reverse may have been true depending on the absolute numbers (NOT the percentages!) as follows:
CASE 1 * Clinton gender breakdown: 65%/35% (130,000/70,000) * Sanders gender breakdown: 50%/50% (50,000/50,000)
CASE 2 * Clinton gender breakdown: 65%/35% (65,000/35,000) * Sanders gender breakdown: 50%/50% (100,000/100,000)
In case 1 Clinton is more popular than Bernie among males and females alike. In case 2 the reverse is true.
I'll coin the phrase "the tyranny of percentages" to describe this phenomenon, tho' there's probably a better one elsewhere. Presenting percentages is insufficient and one should also present the absolute numbers if available.
A ComRes survey finds only 23 per cent of respondents across the UK back the Named Person scheme, with similar support in Scotland.
Fewer than one in four people support the SNP’s plan to appoint every Scottish child a state guardian and nearly two-thirds believe it is an “unacceptable intrusion” into family life, according to a new opinion poll.
Ha Ha Ha , have they not got enough problems down south without poking their big noses where they are not wanted. In the real world the only people against it in Scotland are the Tories and the headbangers.
Malc, it's a barmy idea, though. State guardian for every child in Scotland? Is Scottish parenting really so bad that they need to have the state overseeing every minute aspect of it?
To be fair, they might grow up to be unionists, or, far worse, Tories.
Paul Hutcheon This looks bad. FOI watchdog says it will shelve 'critical' decisions of @thesnp Gov until after Holyrood election https://t.co/NsA6wa7V5U
A ComRes survey finds only 23 per cent of respondents across the UK back the Named Person scheme, with similar support in Scotland.
Fewer than one in four people support the SNP’s plan to appoint every Scottish child a state guardian and nearly two-thirds believe it is an “unacceptable intrusion” into family life, according to a new opinion poll.
Ha Ha Ha , have they not got enough problems down south without poking their big noses where they are not wanted. In the real world the only people against it in Scotland are the Tories and the headbangers.
Malc, it's a barmy idea, though. State guardian for every child in Scotland? Is Scottish parenting really so bad that they need to have the state overseeing every minute aspect of it?
Apparently so according to that Scottish parent Malc. If you don't have a named person for your child it's because you abuse them. So prior to this, logically, all Scots are either abused or abusers, makes you proud.
A ComRes survey finds only 23 per cent of respondents across the UK back the Named Person scheme, with similar support in Scotland.
Fewer than one in four people support the SNP’s plan to appoint every Scottish child a state guardian and nearly two-thirds believe it is an “unacceptable intrusion” into family life, according to a new opinion poll.
Ha Ha Ha , have they not got enough problems down south without poking their big noses where they are not wanted. In the real world the only people against it in Scotland are the Tories and the headbangers.
Malc, it's a barmy idea, though. State guardian for every child in Scotland? Is Scottish parenting really so bad that they need to have the state overseeing every minute aspect of it?
TFS , Having no young children I have not looked at in detail. I thought it was just a person that a child could go to for help if they felt threatened etc and were being failed by government agencies. It does not mean there will be an army of snoopers involved in their lives etc, supposedly just a single point of contact to try and get round previous issues where they were overlooked by multiple government organisations an only came to light in tragic circumstances. That sounds like a reasonable idea to me and supposedly it has been trialled for a long period and works very well. If it is hated by the Tories that has got to mean it is good for ordinary people. If on the other hand it is just state meddling etc then I agree with you , but as every child welfare organisation supports it there must be some good to it.
Except that wasn't his intention, even if he presented as such later. The Labour amendment to the government's motion was to delay action, not prevent it, IIRC.
I ask this time and again but rarely the answer is forthcoming:
Who paid Comres to produce this poll?
ITV? At least that's what ComRes/ITV implies.
Polling companies are businesses, they're paid by customers to produce the right results, it seems plenty on here ignore or disregard that.
Mainly because;
1) It's not true - their 'worth' lies in 'accuracy' - not 'keeping clients happy' 2) It's libellous - if by 'the right results' you mean 'the results the client wants' - but I'm sure you didn't mean that.....
Old Toom Tabard accusing people of libel yet again , what a one trick pony you Tory Pom Pom cheerleaders are, just outright lying toerags. Ask HQ for another set of threats , your old list is threadbare.
Says the blowhard who had to apologize for libeling Prof Curtice......stick to your turnips
More lies from a halfwit, given I don't know Curtice and have never had any interaction with him , where do you get with lying yet again. Go stir your cauldron and calm down a bit.
A ComRes survey finds only 23 per cent of respondents across the UK back the Named Person scheme, with similar support in Scotland.
Fewer than one in four people support the SNP’s plan to appoint every Scottish child a state guardian and nearly two-thirds believe it is an “unacceptable intrusion” into family life, according to a new opinion poll.
Ha Ha Ha , have they not got enough problems down south without poking their big noses where they are not wanted. In the real world the only people against it in Scotland are the Tories and the headbangers.
Malc, it's a barmy idea, though. State guardian for every child in Scotland? Is Scottish parenting really so bad that they need to have the state overseeing every minute aspect of it?
TFS , Having no young children I have not looked at in detail. I thought it was just a person that a child could go to for help if they felt threatened etc and were being failed by government agencies. It does not mean there will be an army of snoopers involved in their lives etc, supposedly just a single point of contact to try and get round previous issues where they were overlooked by multiple government organisations an only came to light in tragic circumstances. That sounds like a reasonable idea to me and supposedly it has been trialled for a long period and works very well. If it is hated by the Tories that has got to mean it is good for ordinary people. If on the other hand it is just state meddling etc then I agree with you , but as every child welfare organisation supports it there must be some good to it.
Interesting that Salmond and Sturgeon are both childless.
A ComRes survey finds only 23 per cent of respondents across the UK back the Named Person scheme, with similar support in Scotland.
Fewer than one in four people support the SNP’s plan to appoint every Scottish child a state guardian and nearly two-thirds believe it is an “unacceptable intrusion” into family life, according to a new opinion poll.
Ha Ha Ha , have they not got enough problems down south without poking their big noses where they are not wanted. In the real world the only people against it in Scotland are the Tories and the headbangers.
Malc, it's a barmy idea, though. State guardian for every child in Scotland? Is Scottish parenting really so bad that they need to have the state overseeing every minute aspect of it?
To be fair, they might grow up to be unionists, or, far worse, Tories.
Rob, We have more than enough of those kinds of nutters already , just look at the Chuckle Brothers on here, if anything would cure you of unionism and especially being a Tory it is the thought that you could be thought of as being like one of those two halfwits.
as every child welfare organisation supports it there must be some good to it.
Unless, of course, the said organisations are providing the Named People.
Does not sound sinister to me.
Most children and young people get all the help and support they need from their parent(s), wider family and community, but sometimes they may need a bit of extra support.
Children and young people from birth to 18, or beyond if still in school, have access to a Named Person to help support their wellbeing as part of the Getting it right for every child (GIRFEC) approach.
A Named Person is a central point of contact if a child, young person or their parent(s) want information or advice, or if they want to talk about any worries and seek support. They can also, when appropriate, reach out to different services who can help.
Public services in many areas of Scotland already offer this service, which is planned to be available nationally from 31 August 2016. Who will be a Named Person?
A Named Person will normally be the health visitor for a pre-school child and a promoted teacher - such as a headteacher, or guidance teacher or other promoted member of staff - for a school age child.
The Named Person duties are integrated into their current role and strengthen the support they currently provide, formalising their role as a central contact for children, parents and other people working with them.
A ComRes survey finds only 23 per cent of respondents across the UK back the Named Person scheme, with similar support in Scotland.
Fewer than one in four people support the SNP’s plan to appoint every Scottish child a state guardian and nearly two-thirds believe it is an “unacceptable intrusion” into family life, according to a new opinion poll.
Ha Ha Ha , have they not got enough problems down south without poking their big noses where they are not wanted. In the real world the only people against it in Scotland are the Tories and the headbangers.
Malc, it's a barmy idea, though. State guardian for every child in Scotland? Is Scottish parenting really so bad that they need to have the state overseeing every minute aspect of it?
To be fair, they might grow up to be unionists, or, far worse, Tories.
Rob, We have more than enough of those kinds of nutters already , just look at the Chuckle Brothers on here, if anything would cure you of unionism and especially being a Tory it is the thought that you could be thought of as being like one of those two halfwits.
Oh dear, you've embarrassed yourself again. Still a witty reference to vegetables and nobody will notice.
A decent post from you at last, NOT. You Tories really are dummies, The Daily Heil that well known organ of truth. You could not make it up , Chuckle on.
He doesn't necessarily owe Mike an apology, and I'll tell you why. The other day somebody pointed out that percentage-wise Clinton's vote is disproportionately female compared to Saunders, and concluded that she had a problem with male voters. This is problematic because the reverse may have been true depending on the absolute numbers (NOT the percentages!) as follows:
CASE 1 * Clinton gender breakdown: 65%/35% (130,000/70,000) * Sanders gender breakdown: 50%/50% (50,000/50,000)
(snip for length)
I'll coin the phrase "the tyranny of percentages" to describe this phenomenon, tho' there's probably a better one elsewhere. Presenting percentages is insufficient and one should also present the absolute numbers if available.
No, your example is showing something else. It is misleading to say that X has a problem with group Y merely bewcause X gets more support from other groups, if the reality is that X gets more in all groups, as in your Case 1. But that would only be relevant if Mike's graph had shown the shares of Leave support in the 4 groups vs the shares of Remain support.
weejonnie was clearly implying that he thought that C2 was a larger group so that displaying the shares by group was understating Leave's strength and showing actual numbers would be less favourable to Remain. In fact, as he probably didn't know, C2 is the smallest group, so showing actual numbers would be MORE favourable to Remain.
OK, I'm sure there are people down south who have seen their communities entirely changed by immigration. I get that. But in most cases isn't that in large part non-EU immigration anyway? Up here in the North East I can predict who is going to be 'Leave' not because they are affected in any way, but just because they have said vaguely racist stuff in the past or bought the myths about Christmas being banned in schools - the 'this country's going to the dogs' crowd. Where I live you rarely see a foreigner, and particularly not Europeans. And yet, I expect the North East will have a pretty big Leave vote.
It's like how London, capital of immigration, is a UKIP-free zone while places like Hartlepool and the east coast are uber-UKIP.
You do not have to live in something to want to avoid it. It is NIMBY-ism.
Many people on the periphery of places like London will have either left the area or travel to work in it. They see, and speak of, cultural erosion.
I am sure people in the North East heard the news from Rotherham (Middlesbrough had the same issue) and see that people from Bradford are travelling to Glasgow and London with the express intention of killing people.
That generates NIMBYism.
Those same people will also have been hearing about similar French and Belgian lunatics on the BBC news for days.
Salah Abdesalam is a European terrorist. He's Belgian. His ethnicity is an irrelevance.
Old fashioned, easily divisible lines around race no longer apply.
The problem is that you're describing the negatives without the positives. Those whose only view of a minority is the approximately 0.001% who you just described are going to have such negative views.
While those who know in real life and are friends and neighbours with good people are not going to be so ignorant as to ascribe such an extreme to everyone.
.001 % - the same 1 in a 1000 as Innocent Abroad. If you think that the negatives from our muslim population - bombs, FGM, Full-Hijabs, Honor-Killings, Rape-Gangs, is only generated by 1 in a 1000, you're posting from Cloud Cuckoo Land.
I think that we're all predisposed to believe that what is in our interest is also in the national interest.
I think it goes even deeper than that.
As part of my job, I spend a lot of time in Calgary, Houston and Dallas. It's fair to say that (practically) no-one in these places believes in global warming.
When I spend time in places which are endowed with abundant quantities of sunlight, and little oil or gas, I sometimes find an almost fervent belief in AGW.
Both groups are prisoners of circumstance: those whose wellbeing depends on oil and gas will look for reasons to disbelieve global warming; those who have an economic interest in moving away from fossil fuels will seek out contrary evidence.
The same is, of course, true of the EU referendum. Those social groups who have benefited most from the free movement of labour - such as those with languages who have taken advantage of it to do summer jobs in Italy, or those who employ multinational workforces - will look for reasons why EU membership is beneficial. Likewise, those in professions where wage rates have been depressed by EU immigration will seek out reasons why it is bad.
And this is why so much of the EU analysis on here is tosh. Because it is people seeking out reasons to justify existing positions.
By contrast, no-one has any meaningful economic interest in the results of the US elections, and therefore the quality of the debate and the analysis is much, much higher.
Who said I support it , I am not just a brainwashed halfwit like you that hates anything the Scottish government does. Also as said many times, though understand why a moron like you could still not understand, I am not in the SNP in any way shape or form and never have been. Try to show me what is wrong with this policy and explain why it is bad for children in danger. Retweeting something by Rodent or similar is not acceptable. Try thinking for once.
A ComRes survey finds only 23 per cent of respondents across the UK back the Named Person scheme, with similar support in Scotland.
Fewer than one in four people support the SNP’s plan to appoint every Scottish child a state guardian and nearly two-thirds believe it is an “unacceptable intrusion” into family life, according to a new opinion poll.
Ha Ha Ha , have they not got enough problems down south without poking their big noses where they are not wanted. In the real world the only people against it in Scotland are the Tories and the headbangers.
Malc, it's a barmy idea, though. State guardian for every child in Scotland? Is Scottish parenting really so bad that they need to have the state overseeing every minute aspect of it?
To be fair, they might grow up to be unionists, or, far worse, Tories.
Rob, We have more than enough of those kinds of nutters already , just look at the Chuckle Brothers on here, if anything would cure you of unionism and especially being a Tory it is the thought that you could be thought of as being like one of those two halfwits.
Oh dear, you've embarrassed yourself again. Still a witty reference to vegetables and nobody will notice.
Oh Dear , CHQ have called in the big gun cockroaches to support the Chucklers
He doesn't necessarily owe Mike an apology, and I'll tell you why. The other day somebody pointed out that percentage-wise Clinton's vote is disproportionately female compared to Saunders, and concluded that she had a problem with male voters. This is problematic because the reverse may have been true depending on the absolute numbers (NOT the percentages!) as follows:
CASE 1 * Clinton gender breakdown: 65%/35% (130,000/70,000) * Sanders gender breakdown: 50%/50% (50,000/50,000)
(snip for length)
I'll coin the phrase "the tyranny of percentages" to describe this phenomenon, tho' there's probably a better one elsewhere. Presenting percentages is insufficient and one should also present the absolute numbers if available.
No, your example is showing something else. It is misleading to say that X has a problem with group Y merely bewcause X gets more support from other groups, if the reality is that X gets more in all groups, as in your Case 1. But that would only be relevant if Mike's graph had shown the shares of Leave support in the 4 groups vs the shares of Remain support.
weejonnie was clearly implying that he thought that C2 was a larger group so that displaying the shares by group was understating Leave's strength and showing actual numbers would be less favourable to Remain. In fact, as he probably didn't know, C2 is the smallest group, so showing actual numbers would be MORE favourable to Remain.
But the point remains the same: showing the absolute numbers as well as the percentages is preferable
If you can't see what's wrong with that, there is no hope.
Where does the mandatory part come in. Nothing is done unless a child asks for help. If a child needs help then anybody should be happy that they get it, or are you suggesting we should follow England, where the Tories policies have given us Rotherham, Bristol , etc. Is that more to your liking.
Malc, it's a barmy idea, though. State guardian for every child in Scotland? Is Scottish parenting really so bad that they need to have the state overseeing every minute aspect of it?
What is this 'state guardian' of which you speak? Ah, it's the preferred term of Tories, the Christian Institute, the Mail, the Telegraph and, to coin a phrase, assorted headbangers.
The Christian Institute, the funder of the Comres NP poll, has among other things campaigned for Clause 28 and against gay adoption, civil partnerships, gay marriage, abortion & sex education in schools. Don't know about you but I'm happy to bung them into the headbangers column.
He doesn't necessarily owe Mike an apology, and I'll tell you why. The other day somebody pointed out that percentage-wise Clinton's vote is disproportionately female compared to Saunders, and concluded that she had a problem with male voters. This is problematic because the reverse may have been true depending on the absolute numbers (NOT the percentages!) as follows:
CASE 1 * Clinton gender breakdown: 65%/35% (130,000/70,000) * Sanders gender breakdown: 50%/50% (50,000/50,000)
(snip for length)
I'll coin the phrase "the tyranny of percentages" to describe this phenomenon, tho' there's probably a better one elsewhere. Presenting percentages is insufficient and one should also present the absolute numbers if available.
No, your example is showing something else. It is misleading to say that X has a problem with group Y merely bewcause X gets more support from other groups, if the reality is that X gets more in all groups, as in your Case 1. But that would only be relevant if Mike's graph had shown the shares of Leave support in the 4 groups vs the shares of Remain support.
weejonnie was clearly implying that he thought that C2 was a larger group so that displaying the shares by group was understating Leave's strength and showing actual numbers would be less favourable to Remain. In fact, as he probably didn't know, C2 is the smallest group, so showing actual numbers would be MORE favourable to Remain.
But the point remains the same: showing the absolute numbers as well as the percentages is preferable
Yes. But nevertheless, as C2 was the smallest group, the chart as published was 'flattering to Leave'.
Who said I support it , I am not just a brainwashed halfwit like you that hates anything the Scottish government does. Also as said many times, though understand why a moron like you could still not understand, I am not in the SNP in any way shape or form and never have been. Try to show me what is wrong with this policy and explain why it is bad for children in danger. Retweeting something by Rodent or similar is not acceptable. Try thinking for once.
You can pretty much bet your mortgage that the people howling at the moon at the Named Person policy would be the same loons raging and ranting about some poor kid being 'let down by the system' when they get murdered by their mum's junky boyfriend.
A more sinister development is the SNP plan for a named person or 'state guardian' for every child. This will grant the state unprecedented powers over families. Proponents of the law advocate that it provides a point of contact for families. But the status quo already has various routes for families needing support. The real change is the Scottish Government having arbitrary and intrusive powers into every family in Scotland. Former chairman of Scotland’s Children Panel Advisory Group Joe Knight described it as "an erosion of parental rights and responsibilities."
The disturbing point is not just that every child will have a named person intervening in their lives, but the SNP presumption that every child needs such a person. On this issue as on many others of personal responsibility, the SNP government is convinced it knows best.
Malc, it's a barmy idea, though. State guardian for every child in Scotland? Is Scottish parenting really so bad that they need to have the state overseeing every minute aspect of it?
What is this 'state guardian' of which you speak? Ah, it's the preferred term of Tories, the Christian Institute, the Mail, the Telegraph and, to coin a phrase, assorted headbangers.
The Christian Institute, the funder of the Comres NP poll, has among other things campaigned for Clause 28 and against gay adoption, civil partnerships, gay marriage, abortion & sex education in schools. Don't know about you but I'm happy to bung them into the headbangers column.
TUD, As I said right wing nutters and Tories, and usual bag of lies. Creepy will not be back with any answer or explanation as it will blow holes in his pathetic posts. It is merely a person that a child can ask for help from , if and when they feel it is needed.
A more sinister development is the SNP plan for a named person or 'state guardian' for every child. This will grant the state unprecedented powers over families. Proponents of the law advocate that it provides a point of contact for families. But the status quo already has various routes for families needing support. The real change is the Scottish Government having arbitrary and intrusive powers into every family in Scotland. Former chairman of Scotland’s Children Panel Advisory Group Joe Knight described it as "an erosion of parental rights and responsibilities."
The disturbing point is not just that every child will have a named person intervening in their lives, but the SNP presumption that every child needs such a person. On this issue as on many others of personal responsibility, the SNP government is convinced it knows best.
So you do support it, not being a Tory, or a headbanger...
Or you don't support it...
Which lie do you want to stick to?
You halfwit , as I said it does not affect me but it sounds reasonable, if only they had had something like this for Rotherham , Bristol , etc , we would have saved thousands of children from abuse. You Tories are real charmers, you would rather concentrate on taking benefits from the disabled.
If you can't see what's wrong with that, there is no hope.
Where does the mandatory part come in. Nothing is done unless a child asks for help. If a child needs help then anybody should be happy that they get it, or are you suggesting we should follow England, where the Tories policies have given us Rotherham, Bristol , etc. Is that more to your liking.
How is Rotherham and Bristol related to Tory policies?
Let's be honest, C2s are the ones reading the Daily Mail or Daily Express and over the years building up a subconscious cache of EU myths about bendy banana bans, EU banning Christmas to not offend Muslims, and all that tripe.
Whether they are in actual real life affected negatively by EU membership is another story. By globalisation, perhaps, but probably not by EU membership.
In my experience the Mail is the paper of the Bs and C1s and the Express of retired Bs and C1s.
Comments
If you're comfortably off, there is little downside to EU membership. If you're competing for jobs with the influx, you're not so keen. I'm in neither category, but I bear a grudge of forty years standing about being lied to.
Having spent the weekend back in Boston I saw both sides in action. The influx of Eastern Europeans has changed the town considerably with Polish and Lithuanian being spoken widely (and Russian too as a common language between the two). There's no risk of terrorism, but the drink driving rates seem to have gone up.
However, some of my relatives are currently seeking work and less understanding, although they do admit the visitors work hard and are less fussy than the native population.
Labour would once naturally be on their side. Not now; it is pro-EU because it is generally a London party of the Establishment, and a fan of diversity too.
I remain confident that remain will win. The Establishment has all the advantages and will have to perform very badly to cock this one up.
No, parties, companies and other commissioners of polls *do* want the true picture. Obviously, the only polls that they'll publish (or the only bits of them) are those they find favourable.
The most valuable thing in this world is intelligence and if you're paying for skewed polls to flatter you then you're lacking it.
Mr. Fire, I believe that's correct. So in 2020 we'll have Edwards. I'm sure he'll stay awake easily. The audience may be another matter...
Edit: just looked up the results.. all those Scottish Tory seats, I think I need to lie down.
They're definitely not what we'd call polling.
Choosing which side to vote for based on dislike of some campaigners on one side or the other is neither rational nor intelligent.
Morris Dancer, agree about how awful election night programmes have become. I want news from the counts, and analysis of the numbers, not gimmicks and partisan talking heads.
"There are some deeply unpleasant people supporting leave."
And also in Remain, but demonising your opponents isn't usually a good look.
If you support a Political Union, then you should vote Remain, but so in the full knowledge of that fact.
But truth will be in short supply on both sides. I've no doubt we will be told that leave will result in outbreaks of bubonic plague and locust storms. Or is that Global Warming?
The leave side seems pretty vitriolic and plain nasty about the EU. It will be their undoing.
People watching political programmes at midnight don't need to be patronised.
#BREAKING: #Israel tells its citizens to leave #Turkey 'as soon as possible', increases threat level to 'concrete threat'
Polling companies are keen on business, but they also need to think about their reputation, as "X is a shill for their customers" is a killer reputation to have. Consequently, if you commission a poll, you have to negotiate with them to get questions and samples that everyone feels comfortable with.
Say, for example, you're a pro-Heathrow campaign. If you propose to YouGov that you do a poll asking "Bearing in mind the substantial boost to the economy that expanding Heathrow will have, do you favour or oppose it?" you have zero chance of acceptance. They will counter by suggesting some sort of balance, e.g. "Some people say that expansion will help the economy. Others say that it will damage the local environment. Do you favour or oppose it?" You can wrestle over the precise wording - they want your business, but they need it to be defensible.
If your client wants to prove something about a subgroup and it's clear what that group is, they might be up for that. For instance, there was a recent poll of over-60s in Scotland which showed the Tories doing well. Professionals know that the Tories do well in any poll of over-60s, but there wasn't any attempt to deceive in this - the poll was what it said on the tin.
In generic polls on the referendum, there is a small prize for having a startling finding (it will be widely reported) but a big prize in being right - that will generate more repeat business than anything. Angus Reid used if I recall correctly to show coloosal Tory leads before 2010 because they used Canadian methodology which turned out not to work in Britain. It took a long time and big changes in methodology before they were taken seriously again. I don't think any pollsters are really trying to distort the findings, but they're struggling, as we all are, with the turnout conundrum.
Ha Ha Ha , have they not got enough problems down south without poking their big noses where they are not wanted. In the real world the only people against it in Scotland are the Tories and the headbangers.
But that would reduce the effectiveness of the graph towards swaying the REMAIN crowd.
You would think the graph was promoted by the Lib Dems.
Many people on the periphery of places like London will have either left the area or travel to work in it. They see, and speak of, cultural erosion.
I am sure people in the North East heard the news from Rotherham (Middlesbrough had the same issue) and see that people from Bradford are travelling to Glasgow and London with the express intention of killing people.
That generates NIMBYism.
Those same people will also have been hearing about similar French and Belgian lunatics on the BBC news for days.
Salah Abdesalam is a European terrorist. He's Belgian. His ethnicity is an irrelevance.
Old fashioned, easily divisible lines around race no longer apply.
so cabinet will be PM Death, CofE Pestilence, FCO War, Home Office Famine
don't you think youre maybe additcted to hyperbole ?
still new CofE would be an improvement of Osborne
It's also why politicians and partisans can compromise from their professed ideologies time and again, to the point they may not seem, in reality, to be following it anymore, because they justify it as even if they have deviated from what they said was best, them being in charge is still always better than the other lot, no matter what. Are there many non corbynites who think even the Tories would be preferable even when their views would seem to indicate they should? It doesn't seem like it, nor for Tories . who disliked Hague etc. The party interest is presumed to be in the national interest, eventually, even if it doesn't seem like it.
But as Seanf says, were predisposed to think like that. It's worse among partisans, but the rest of us are not immune.
Sorry, couldn't resist
We always loose sight of the fact that when last asked this was originally an extension of Benelux, "a common market" for buying and selling. How we ever morphed to allowing such an institution to dictate how we live and act within our own borders is neither rational or sane. It never has been and if remain wins will not be for the future.
I have little doubt remain will carry the day but it won't lance the boil.
So of the 58% of Scots opposed what proportion are Tory and what proportion headbangers?
Here is the Zoomer line...
@dair_allan: @juliertid @Singapom @heyyouayeyou only people objecting to NP want to abuse their kids. All No voters who already harmed their kids future.
While those who know in real life and are friends and neighbours with good people are not going to be so ignorant as to ascribe such an extreme to everyone.
What if radical Islamic terrorism is a mental illness, and we treated it as such?
http://blog.dilbert.com/?utm_source=dilbert.com&utm_medium=site&utm_campaign=brand-engagement&utm_content=navigation
Another SNP MP faces calls for investigation into business dealings after her firm got £90,000 of taxpayers’ cash from Holyrood colleague
AB: 27%
C1: 29%
C2: 21%
DE: 23%
So the group leaning most to Leave is somewhat smaller than the others, and if Mike had weighted his graph accordingly it would have swayed it towards Remain. In the light of that, perhaps you owe Mike an apology?
You'd be on stronger grounds if you argued that the figures should combine demographic voting certainty with stated certainty to vote one way or the other. But there's a risk of double counting there because people who say they are keen to vote may be from a demographic group which tends to vote more anyway. It's not easy. The general rule is that we're all a bit dubious about polls that say things we don't like...
Malc, it's a barmy idea, though. State guardian for every child in Scotland? Is Scottish parenting really so bad that they need to have the state overseeing every minute aspect of it?
Given Tories are rarer than hens teeth , there must be even more headbangers out there than I thought.
CASE 1
* Clinton gender breakdown: 65%/35% (130,000/70,000)
* Sanders gender breakdown: 50%/50% (50,000/50,000)
CASE 2
* Clinton gender breakdown: 65%/35% (65,000/35,000)
* Sanders gender breakdown: 50%/50% (100,000/100,000)
In case 1 Clinton is more popular than Bernie among males and females alike. In case 2 the reverse is true.
I'll coin the phrase "the tyranny of percentages" to describe this phenomenon, tho' there's probably a better one elsewhere. Presenting percentages is insufficient and one should also present the absolute numbers if available.
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html
Maybe Ed Miliband was right to keep us out.
This looks bad. FOI watchdog says it will shelve 'critical' decisions of @thesnp Gov until after Holyrood election https://t.co/NsA6wa7V5U
Apparently so according to that Scottish parent Malc. If you don't have a named person for your child it's because you abuse them. So prior to this, logically, all Scots are either abused or abusers, makes you proud.
38000 votes and still lose.
TFS , Having no young children I have not looked at in detail. I thought it was just a person that a child could go to for help if they felt threatened etc and were being failed by government agencies. It does not mean there will be an army of snoopers involved in their lives etc, supposedly just a single point of contact to try and get round previous issues where they were overlooked by multiple government organisations an only came to light in tragic circumstances.
That sounds like a reasonable idea to me and supposedly it has been trialled for a long period and works very well. If it is hated by the Tories that has got to mean it is good for ordinary people.
If on the other hand it is just state meddling etc then I agree with you , but as every child welfare organisation supports it there must be some good to it.
Game Of Life, 1980s Horribly-Out-Of-Date-Middle-Class-Salaries Edition. https://t.co/uMUUfedojW
The crowds will be gathering outside Sir Iain's house which is just down the road from here.
That sounds like a reasonable idea to me and supposedly it has been trialled for a long period and works very well. If it is hated by the Tories that has got to mean it is good for ordinary people.
If on the other hand it is just state meddling etc then I agree with you , but as every child welfare organisation supports it there must be some good to it.
Interesting that Salmond and Sturgeon are both childless.
SNP, not a cult of brainwashed idiots...
Most children and young people get all the help and support they need from their parent(s), wider family and community, but sometimes they may need a bit of extra support.
Children and young people from birth to 18, or beyond if still in school, have access to a Named Person to help support their wellbeing as part of the Getting it right for every child (GIRFEC) approach.
A Named Person is a central point of contact if a child, young person or their parent(s) want information or advice, or if they want to talk about any worries and seek support. They can also, when appropriate, reach out to different services who can help.
Public services in many areas of Scotland already offer this service, which is planned to be available nationally from 31 August 2016.
Who will be a Named Person?
A Named Person will normally be the health visitor for a pre-school child and a promoted teacher - such as a headteacher, or guidance teacher or other promoted member of staff - for a school age child.
The Named Person duties are integrated into their current role and strengthen the support they currently provide, formalising their role as a central contact for children, parents and other people working with them.
weejonnie was clearly implying that he thought that C2 was a larger group so that displaying the shares by group was understating Leave's strength and showing actual numbers would be less favourable to Remain. In fact, as he probably didn't know, C2 is the smallest group, so showing actual numbers would be MORE favourable to Remain.
As part of my job, I spend a lot of time in Calgary, Houston and Dallas. It's fair to say that (practically) no-one in these places believes in global warming.
When I spend time in places which are endowed with abundant quantities of sunlight, and little oil or gas, I sometimes find an almost fervent belief in AGW.
Both groups are prisoners of circumstance: those whose wellbeing depends on oil and gas will look for reasons to disbelieve global warming; those who have an economic interest in moving away from fossil fuels will seek out contrary evidence.
The same is, of course, true of the EU referendum. Those social groups who have benefited most from the free movement of labour - such as those with languages who have taken advantage of it to do summer jobs in Italy, or those who employ multinational workforces - will look for reasons why EU membership is beneficial. Likewise, those in professions where wage rates have been depressed by EU immigration will seek out reasons why it is bad.
And this is why so much of the EU analysis on here is tosh. Because it is people seeking out reasons to justify existing positions.
By contrast, no-one has any meaningful economic interest in the results of the US elections, and therefore the quality of the debate and the analysis is much, much higher.
Also as said many times, though understand why a moron like you could still not understand, I am not in the SNP in any way shape or form and never have been.
Try to show me what is wrong with this policy and explain why it is bad for children in danger. Retweeting something by Rodent or similar is not acceptable. Try thinking for once.
If you can't see what's wrong with that, there is no hope.
Are you a Tory, or a headbanger then?
There is no opt-out.
Ah, it's the preferred term of Tories, the Christian Institute, the Mail, the Telegraph and, to coin a phrase, assorted headbangers.
The Christian Institute, the funder of the Comres NP poll, has among other things campaigned for Clause 28 and against gay adoption, civil partnerships, gay marriage, abortion & sex education in schools. Don't know about you but I'm happy to bung them into the headbangers column.
PS: I see you are not rushing to explain anything about the policy you hate so much.
So you do support it, not being a Tory, or a headbanger...
Or you don't support it...
Which lie do you want to stick to?
'SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!'
Except when it shouldn't.
Might make for an interesting alternate history?
Your usual post , the opinions of some other nutter rather than your own.
C2s read the Sun or in the North the Mirror.
So you support the policy now?
Make your mind up Malk