Your views may - on occasion - be met with hostility and derision, but they are widely held views among a younger demographic and they are a harbinger for future shifts in public opinion.
Hmmm...That's not usually the way it pans out. People become more conservative (small c) as they age and have a bigger stake in society. Political views are not fixed in stone at 17 forever to be stuck. Immigrants who've been here a while often oppose immigration for example. The young cohort who vote Labour (if they vote) today will vote Labour in massively smaller numbers in 40 years' time. We have an ageing popualtoin. This favours the Tories politically.
There seems to be some doubt as to just how much of a stake in society today's young will have in 40 years' time.
The question is whether it might be necessary (though I do accept your tactical thinking of President Frying-Pan having run with Vice-President Fire).
I was speculating whether Senators and Congressmen might ultimately stay their hand if they have a slightly nutty but erratic and potentially fairly ineffectual President Trump, who would be replaced by a focused, coherent, politically adept, and supposedly dangerously clever hard-right alternative in Pence (who would then probably bring in Cruz as his hatchet man).
I'd agree with you if Trump does just prove to be "slightly nutty but erratic and ... fairly ineffectual". The problem is if he seems to be completely losing touch with reality and proportion and showing severe signs of paranoia. He's already starting some way down that road.
And I think you're mistaking strategy/tactics for insanity. We heard acres of the same during the primaries - it was successful. He's totally unconventional because he isn't a politician and is nobodies poodle. Using the usual yardsicks failed in predicting his success - everytime - I really don't understand why so few PBers get it after all the evidence that what he does, works.
Saying completely ridiculous things then backing off a bit may work in business, I'm not sure it will work internationally with say Kim Jon - Un
What twaddle - since when was being ridiculous in business a winner? And then you jump to the North Korea Godwin argument?
Is it not the case that Trump's method is to say extreme things as a tactic and then to back off a bit?
I don't care if it worked to get him elected. The guy is clearly unfit for high office.
What's truly worrying is that is a rare politician who isn't sent at least slightly bonkers by the demands of the highest positions e.g. sitting in the bunker thinking everyone is out to get them etc. Nixon, Wilson, Brown, Thatcher etc etc.
Trump is way ahead of the curve before he is even in the office.
This is a good point, but the conclusion might be diametrically wrong.
- Trump thinking everyone is out to get him is not irrational but correct - even to the extent of serious people convincing themselves that a pack of lies has, just has, to be true.
- If Trump has been this way throughout his whole life maybe he's already well adjusted to existing in a state of controlled paranoia and is less likely to be sent even more bonkers.
Plenty of pro-nuke Lib Dems about. Big policy discussion about it on the LD Facebook forum. My view is that Britain doesn't have the political capital to reduce our capability in a multi-lateral fashion right now, though that would be my preferred goal personally (To reduce)
The question is whether it might be necessary (though I do accept your tactical thinking of President Frying-Pan having run with Vice-President Fire).
I was speculating whether Senators and Congressmen might ultimately stay their hand if they have a slightly nutty but erratic and potentially fairly ineffectual President Trump, who would be replaced by a focused, coherent, politically adept, and supposedly dangerously clever hard-right alternative in Pence (who would then probably bring in Cruz as his hatchet man).
I'd agree with you if Trump does just prove to be "slightly nutty but erratic and ... fairly ineffectual". The problem is if he seems to be completely losing touch with reality and proportion and showing severe signs of paranoia. He's already starting some way down that road.
And I think you're mistaking strategy/tactics for insanity. We heard acres of the same during the primaries - it was successful. He's totally unconventional because he isn't a politician and is nobodies poodle. Using the usual yardsicks failed in predicting his success - everytime - I really don't understand why so few PBers get it after all the evidence that what he does, works.
Saying completely ridiculous things then backing off a bit may work in business, I'm not sure it will work internationally with say Kim Jon - Un
What twaddle - since when was being ridiculous in business a winner? And then you jump to the North Korea Godwin argument?
Is it not the case that Trump's method is to say extreme things as a tactic and then to back off a bit?
Any 'negotiator' does that - always ask for a lot more than you want and then let yourself be 'beaten down' to what you do actually want.
The negotiator's tactic in a nutshell: "If he says '10' then he wants '8' and would be happy with '6' - so it's worth '4' and you therefore offer '2'".
@Pulpstar & @Morris_Dancer It's been claimed on this site a number of times that the views here are representative of the wider public.
This is the wider public that just voted for Brexit despite respectable opinion polls saying they wouldn't, dont let your academic/online centred view on life blind you to the views of the population at large.
Most of the opinion polls reported the public voting LEAVE. There was literally a thread on it on this site.
[snip]
Not in the week before polling day, they didn't, which is surely relevant.
Pollsters can't realistically say "yes, we got the figures wrong on the day but look: those we published four weeks ago were right", not least because we have no idea if they were 'right' - polls are supposed to be snapshots and the only way we can validate them is against elections conducted at the same time.
As an aside, it's also inconsistent of those who claim that the Brexit polls were right because of the polls published a month before the vote, to then say that the POTUS polls were also right because those published within a day or two of the vote had Hillary a couple of points up and to ignore those from October that gave her much bigger leads.
The polls converged on the final week, but that doesn't make all polls wrong. Also there were polls showing LEAVE ahead within a few weeks of the public vote, not a month before it.
The POTUS polls were different. Hillary had larger leads closer to election day than REMAIN ever did. Even the exit polls were wrong in that case.
None of the three (out of 13) polls published after Jo Cox's death - i.e. the final 9 days of the campaign - had Leave the 4% ahead that they managed. The closest was a 2% lead that TNS gave them. By contrast, the *average* of the 9 Remain leads (there was one tied poll), was 4.5%.
Yes, there were bigger Leave leads earlier in the campaign but that, really, is beside the point. The relevant moment is as near to when the votes are cast as possible.
Miss Plato, Rudd's an idiot and her speech was stupid. But I also agree with you that the police are meddling and it's absurd to consider her speech a hate incident.
Hopefully (ha) this'll lead politicians to realise that continually tightening the acceptable bounds of free speech affects everyone.
On banning/censorship: Nero was bizarrely comfortable with being lampooned, mocked and satirised.
So Ladbrokes are gambling on Le Pen losing? And I thought gambling was a mug's game!
When will they lay off their exposure? Or will they be biting their nails on the night?
As for Hypermind, "It is the first practical and commercial application of the spectacular results obtained by the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity’s Aggregative Contingent Estimation (ACE) program". IARPA's ACE is some crazy-arsed programme of the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It looks like a new manifestation of the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness office, which had the nutty idea of setting up a market in "terrorism futures".
How many elections or referendums have they predicted right in the past two years?
Re: Trump. Personally, I think it's only a question of time until he has a major falling out with the Repubican controlled Congress, following which very little will get done as both sides hurl missiles at each other.
It's possible we'll get resignations from even his own White House team as well.
None of the three (out of 13) polls published after Jo Cox's death - i.e. the final 9 days of the campaign - had Leave the 4% ahead that they managed. The closest was a 2% lead that TNS gave them. By contrast, the *average* of the 9 Remain leads (there was one tied poll), was 4.5%.
Yes, there were bigger Leave leads earlier in the campaign but that, really, is beside the point. The relevant moment is as near to when the votes are cast as possible.
I didn't say that Leave lead in the final week though: I explicitly said that the polls converged in the final week. Earlier in the campaign was actually the period where Remain had much larger leads (as far as I can recall). As the campaign went on, (with the exception of the final week) we saw more, and more Leave leads. Also poll convergence doesn't mean all polls are wrong. It means that pollsters have adjusted their methodology in an attempt to get a result which they believe will be correct during the final week of polling. We saw this type of thing in the final week the 2015 GE where Survation had a perfectly good poll which they decided not to release because they thought it was 'wrong'.
Unless they capture the entire Remain vote and the Leave vote splits fairly neatly between the others (which won't happen), no chance. It's a seat where the LDs could be happy with high single figures.
The question is whether it might be necessary (though I do accept your tactical thinking of President Frying-Pan having run with Vice-President Fire).
I was speculating whether Senators and Congressmen might ultimately stay their hand if they have a slightly nutty but erratic and potentially fairly ineffectual President Trump, who would be replaced by a focused, coherent, politically adept, and supposedly dangerously clever hard-right alternative in Pence (who would then probably bring in Cruz as his hatchet man).
I'd agree with you if Trump does just prove to be "slightly nutty but erratic and ... fairly ineffectual". The problem is if he seems to be completely losing touch with reality and proportion and showing severe signs of paranoia. He's already starting some way down that road.
I think it is Buzzfeed and CNN that lost touch with Reality yesterday anyway. 45 minutes to piss on the president-elect.
I've not seen many running to defend CNN or Buzzfeed - it's a hot mess neither should've touched.
Too many people in the media run with stories because they hope that they are true and want to believe them or hope that merely with running with stories portraying someone as being a pervert will help their cause: 'McAlpine' anyone?
@Pulpstar & @Morris_Dancer It's been claimed on this site a number of times that the views here are representative of the wider public.
This is the wider public that just voted for Brexit despite respectable opinion polls saying they wouldn't, dont let your academic/online centred view on life blind you to the views of the population at large.
Most of the opinion polls reported the public voting LEAVE. There was literally a thread on it on this site.
[snip]
Not in the week before polling day, they didn't, which is surely relevant.
Pollsters can't realistically say "yes, we got the figures wrong on the day but look: those we published four weeks ago were right", not least because we have no idea if they were 'right' - polls are supposed to be snapshots and the only way we can validate them is against elections conducted at the same time.
As an aside, it's also inconsistent of those who claim that the Brexit polls were right because of the polls published a month before the vote, to then say that the POTUS polls were also right because those published within a day or two of the vote had Hillary a couple of points up and to ignore those from October that gave her much bigger leads.
The polls converged on the final week, but that doesn't make all polls wrong. Also there were polls showing LEAVE ahead within a few weeks of the public vote, not a month before it.
The POTUS polls were different. Hillary had larger leads closer to election day than REMAIN ever did. Even the exit polls were wrong in that case.
None of the three (out of 13) polls published after Jo Cox's death - i.e. the final 9 days of the campaign - had Leave the 4% ahead that they managed. The closest was a 2% lead that TNS gave them. By contrast, the *average* of the 9 Remain leads (there was one tied poll), was 4.5%.
Yes, there were bigger Leave leads earlier in the campaign but that, really, is beside the point. The relevant moment is as near to when the votes are cast as possible.
I've always been concerned by this. Polls have a natural margin of error (and 1 in 20 should even if perfect be outside the margin of error).
If a polling company does 20 polls, 19 are accurate but the 20th is the final one and is outside margin of error (or even in margin of error but at the extreme end of it) then have they "failed"?
Re: Trump. Personally, I think it's only a question of time until he has a major falling out with the Repubican controlled Congress, following which very little will get done as both sides hurl missiles at each other.
It's possible we'll get resignations from even his own White House team as well.
There will definitely be resignations from the top team imho. The CEO of Exxon is going to take Trump's nonsense for more than a few months? Give me a break.
@Pulpstar & @Morris_Dancer It's been claimed on this site a number of times that the views here are representative of the wider public.
This is the wider public that just voted for Brexit despite respectable opinion polls saying they wouldn't, dont let your academic/online centred view on life blind you to the views of the population at large.
Most of the opinion polls reported the public voting LEAVE. There was literally a thread on it on this site.
[snip]
Not in the week before polling day, they didn't, which is surely relevant.
Pollsters can't realistically say "yes, we got the figures wrong on the day but look: those we published four weeks ago were right", not least because we have no idea if they were 'right' - polls are supposed to be snapshots and the only way we can validate them is against elections conducted at the same time.
As an aside, it's also inconsistent of those who claim that the Brexit polls were right because of the polls published a month before the vote, to then say that the POTUS polls were also right because those published within a day or two of the vote had Hillary a couple of points up and to ignore those from October that gave her much bigger leads.
The polls converged on the final week, but that doesn't make all polls wrong. Also there were polls showing LEAVE ahead within a few weeks of the public vote, not a month before it.
The POTUS polls were different. Hillary had larger leads closer to election day than REMAIN ever did. Even the exit polls were wrong in that case.
None of the three (out of 13) polls published after Jo Cox's death - i.e. the final 9 days of the campaign - had Leave the 4% ahead that they managed. The closest was a 2% lead that TNS gave them. By contrast, the *average* of the 9 Remain leads (there was one tied poll), was 4.5%.
Yes, there were bigger Leave leads earlier in the campaign but that, really, is beside the point. The relevant moment is as near to when the votes are cast as possible.
But in the week previous to Jo Cox's death the polling was almost exactly reversed in Leave's favour, wasn't it?
Difficult to prove conclusively, but I'm pretty sure her murder had a significant shy Leave effect.
The question is whether it might be necessary (though I do accept your tactical thinking of President Frying-Pan having run with Vice-President Fire).
I was speculating whether Senators and Congressmen might ultimately stay their hand if they have a slightly nutty but erratic and potentially fairly ineffectual President Trump, who would be replaced by a focused, coherent, politically adept, and supposedly dangerously clever hard-right alternative in Pence (who would then probably bring in Cruz as his hatchet man).
I'd agree with you if Trump does just prove to be "slightly nutty but erratic and ... fairly ineffectual". The problem is if he seems to be completely losing touch with reality and proportion and showing severe signs of paranoia. He's already starting some way down that road.
I think it is Buzzfeed and CNN that lost touch with Reality yesterday anyway. 45 minutes to piss on the president-elect.
I've not seen many running to defend CNN or Buzzfeed - it's a hot mess neither should've touched.
I think Buzzfeed's position is more defensible than CNN's to be honest. Once the story reached the level that CNN pushed it to, their argument that the wider public had a right to see what everyone else had seen stands up quite well.
Danny Shaw West Midlands Police confirm Amber Rudd's speech to Conservative Party conference in Birmingham treated as a "hate incident"...
yes - it's the new left-wing meme in stifling free speech once people saw through the 'Waycist' scam.
(And on this blog and others, the new definition of insane seems to come from the argument.
I am sane. I hold some beliefs Therefore these beliefs are sane. xxx has different beliefs Since these beliefs aren't mine then they aren't sane. Therefore they are insane Therefore the holder of these beliefs cannot be sane. Therefore xxx is insane.
(I think there is a logical flaw in each of the conclusions stated) )
Re: Trump. Personally, I think it's only a question of time until he has a major falling out with the Repubican controlled Congress, following which very little will get done as both sides hurl missiles at each other.
It's possible we'll get resignations from even his own White House team as well.
I think it'll be an Unenumerated powers/separation of powers that causes it.
If there was a market on the Trump White House breaking the record for relying on Executive Privilege I'd be on it.
@Pulpstar & @Morris_Dancer It's been claimed on this site a number of times that the views here are representative of the wider public.
This is the wider public that just voted for Brexit despite respectable opinion polls saying they wouldn't, dont let your academic/online centred view on life blind you to the views of the population at large.
Most of the opinion polls reported the public voting LEAVE. There was literally a thread on it on this site.
[snip]
Not in the week before polling day, they didn't, which is surely relevant.
Pollsters can't realistically say "yes, we got the figures wrong on the day but look: those we published four weeks ago were right", not least because we have no idea if they were 'right' - polls are supposed to be snapshots and the only way we can validate them is against elections conducted at the same time.
As an aside, it's also inconsistent of those who claim that the Brexit polls were right because of the polls published a month before the vote, to then say that the POTUS polls were also right because those published within a day or two of the vote had Hillary a couple of points up and to ignore those from October that gave her much bigger leads.
The polls converged on the final week, but that doesn't make all polls wrong. Also there were polls showing LEAVE ahead within a few weeks of the public vote, not a month before it.
The POTUS polls were different. Hillary had larger leads closer to election day than REMAIN ever did. Even the exit polls were wrong in that case.
None of the three (out of 13) polls published after Jo Cox's death - i.e. the final 9 days of the campaign - had Leave the 4% ahead that they managed. The closest was a 2% lead that TNS gave them. By contrast, the *average* of the 9 Remain leads (there was one tied poll), was 4.5%.
Yes, there were bigger Leave leads earlier in the campaign but that, really, is beside the point. The relevant moment is as near to when the votes are cast as possible.
But in the week previous to Jo Cox's death the polling was almost exactly reversed in Leave's favour, wasn't it?
Difficult to prove conclusively, but I'm pretty sure her murder had a significant shy Leave effect.
In retrospect, that may well be true - though it doesn't change the fact that the later polls were wrong. At the time, it was impossible to know whether it was a Shy Leave effect or a genuine shift in opinion.
Most of the opinion polls reported the public voting LEAVE. There was literally a thread on it on this site.
[snip]
Not in the week before polling day, they didn't, which is surely relevant.
Pollsters can't realistically say "yes, we got the figures wrong on the day but look: those we published four weeks ago were right", not least because we have no idea if they were 'right' - polls are supposed to be snapshots and the only way we can validate them is against elections conducted at the same time.
As an aside, it's also inconsistent of those who claim that the Brexit polls were right because of the polls published a month before the vote, to then say that the POTUS polls were also right because those published within a day or two of the vote had Hillary a couple of points up and to ignore those from October that gave her much bigger leads.
The polls converged on the final week, but that doesn't make all polls wrong. Also there were polls showing LEAVE ahead within a few weeks of the public vote, not a month before it.
The POTUS polls were different. Hillary had larger leads closer to election day than REMAIN ever did. Even the exit polls were wrong in that case.
None of the three (out of 13) polls published after Jo Cox's death - i.e. the final 9 days of the campaign - had Leave the 4% ahead that they managed. The closest was a 2% lead that TNS gave them. By contrast, the *average* of the 9 Remain leads (there was one tied poll), was 4.5%.
Yes, there were bigger Leave leads earlier in the campaign but that, really, is beside the point. The relevant moment is as near to when the votes are cast as possible.
I've always been concerned by this. Polls have a natural margin of error (and 1 in 20 should even if perfect be outside the margin of error).
If a polling company does 20 polls, 19 are accurate but the 20th is the final one and is outside margin of error (or even in margin of error but at the extreme end of it) then have they "failed"?
They all moved to Remain in the last week though - some combination of swingback, shy Leave after Jo Cox, and methodological changes. The final polls did point to a Remain win, though I certainly accept that any polling failure was far smaller than that at GE2015.
@Patrick The difference between my generation and the previous one is that the dream of ownership and a middle-class life seems out of reach. In order to be a small c conservative, you have to have a stake in society - own a home, a car, start a family etc. If all those things become very difficult to achieve then there's a disillusioned generation whose politics may not go the way as the last generation. Also despite the trend of people getting more conservative as they get older, changes, as Anorak has noted have happened.
All this left-right business is bollards anyway. There are plenty of people on the so called left who are socially conservative (old labour) and plenty on the right who are social liberal (Hannan, yes really!). There are people on the left and right who are stupid about money, and on the left and right who want the books to balance. The are leftie authoritarians (Brown) and right wing authoritarians (May). There are both left and right wing internationalists and isolationists. The one remaining dividing line that makes any sense, which is why it is currently so prominent is identity.
Without getting into it too deeply, my problem with alot of what is currently seen as left wing thinking is that is emphasises rights at the expense of obligations, and the concentration on the individual at the expense of their community, and I use the word community as opposed to "state" deliberately. What matters to me is the common good of the community and strength of its institutions, possibly a rather asian view, but that should not be a surprise give how my life has gone
@Pulpstar & @Morris_Dancer It's been claimed on this site a number of times that the views here are representative of the wider public.
This is the wider public that just voted for Brexit despite respectable opinion polls saying they wouldn't, dont let your academic/online centred view on life blind you to the views of the population at large.
Most of the opinion polls reported the public voting LEAVE. There was
[snip]
Not in the week before polling day, they didn't, which is surely relevant.
Pollsters can't realistically say "yes, we got the figures wrong on the day but look: those we published four weeks ago were right", not least because we have no idea if they were 'right' - polls are supposed to be snapshots and the only way we can validate them is against elections conducted at the same time.
As an aside, it's also inconsistent of those who claim that the Brexit polls were right because of the polls published a month before the vote, to then say that the POTUS polls were also right because those published within a day or two of the vote had Hillary a couple of points up and to ignore those from October that gave her much bigger leads.
The polls converged on the final week, but that doesn't make all polls wrong. Also there were polls showing LEAVE ahead within a few weeks of the public vote, not a month before it.
The POTUS polls were different. Hillary had larger leads closer to election day than REMAIN ever did. Even the exit polls were wrong in that case.
None of the three (out of 13) polls published after Jo Cox's death - i.e. the final 9 days of the campaign - had Leave the 4% ahead that they managed. The closest was a 2% lead that TNS gave them. By contrast, the *average* of the 9 Remain leads (there was one tied poll), was 4.5%.
Yes, there were bigger Leave leads earlier in the campaign but that, really, is beside the point. The relevant moment is as near to when the votes are cast as possible.
But in the week previous to Jo Cox's death the polling was almost exactly reversed in Leave's favour, wasn't it?
Difficult to prove conclusively, but I'm pretty sure her murder had a significant shy Leave effect.
In retrospect, that may well be true - though it doesn't change the fact that the later polls were wrong. At the time, it was impossible to know whether it was a Shy Leave effect or a genuine shift in opinion.
I suspect Jo Cox's death had a very marginal impact on the result.
The question is whether it might be necessary (though I do accept your tactical thinking of President Frying-Pan having run with Vice-President Fire).
I was speculating whether Senators and Congressmen might ultimately stay their hand if they have a slightly nutty but erratic and potentially fairly ineffectual President Trump, who would be replaced by a focused, coherent, politically adept, and supposedly dangerously clever hard-right alternative in Pence (who would then probably bring in Cruz as his hatchet man).
I'd agree with you if Trump does just prove to be "slightly nutty but erratic and ... fairly ineffectual". The problem is if he seems to be completely losing touch with reality and proportion and showing severe signs of paranoia. He's already starting some way down that road.
I think it is Buzzfeed and CNN that lost touch with Reality yesterday anyway. 45 minutes to piss on the president-elect.
I've not seen many running to defend CNN or Buzzfeed - it's a hot mess neither should've touched.
Too many people in the media run with stories because they hope that they are true and want to believe them or hope that merely with running with stories portraying someone as being a pervert will help their cause: 'McAlpine' anyone?
#FakeNews got 10 mentions in Trump's press conference - all of it fired at the MSM. It really was a stupid and arrogant war to wage - it's boomeranged all over them.
Re: Trump. Personally, I think it's only a question of time until he has a major falling out with the Repubican controlled Congress, following which very little will get done as both sides hurl missiles at each other.
It's possible we'll get resignations from even his own White House team as well.
I think it'll be an Unenumerated powers/separation of powers that causes it.
If there was a market on the Trump White House breaking the record for relying on Executive Privilege I'd be on it.
The dynamic between the Executive and Congress is going to be fascinating to watch. Trump will start by throwing a bunch of red meat on Obamacare and the Supreme Court, while he gets on with his own agenda. Once the President's honeymoon is over though, he's going to find it all much more difficult than he expected.
Re: Trump. Personally, I think it's only a question of time until he has a major falling out with the Repubican controlled Congress, following which very little will get done as both sides hurl missiles at each other.
It's possible we'll get resignations from even his own White House team as well.
I think it'll be an Unenumerated powers/separation of powers that causes it.
If there was a market on the Trump White House breaking the record for relying on Executive Privilege I'd be on it.
This is the wider public that just voted for Brexit despite respectable opinion polls saying they wouldn't, dont let your academic/online centred view on life blind you to the views of the population at large.
Most of the opinion polls reported the public voting LEAVE. There was literally a thread on it on this site.
[snip]
Not in the week before polling day, they didn't, which is surely relevant.
Pollsters can't realistically say "yes, we got the figures wrong on the day but look: those we published four weeks ago were right", not least because we have no idea if they were 'right' - polls are supposed to be snapshots and the only way we can validate them is against elections conducted at the same time.
As an aside, it's also inconsistent of those who claim that the Brexit polls were right because of the polls published a month before the vote, to then say that the POTUS polls were also right because those published within a day or two of the vote had Hillary a couple of points up and to ignore those from October that gave her much bigger leads.
The polls converged on the final week, but that doesn't make all polls wrong. Also there were polls showing LEAVE ahead within a few weeks of the public vote, not a month before it.
The POTUS polls were different. Hillary had larger leads closer to election day than REMAIN ever did. Even the exit polls were wrong in that case.
None of the three (out of 13) polls published after Jo Cox's death - i.e. the final 9 days of the campaign - had Leave the 4% ahead that they managed. The closest was a 2% lead that TNS gave them. By contrast, the *average* of the 9 Remain leads (there was one tied poll), was 4.5%.
Yes, there were bigger Leave leads earlier in the campaign but that, really, is beside the point. The relevant moment is as near to when the votes are cast as possible.
I've always been concerned by this. Polls have a natural margin of error (and 1 in 20 should even if perfect be outside the margin of error).
If a polling company does 20 polls, 19 are accurate but the 20th is the final one and is outside margin of error (or even in margin of error but at the extreme end of it) then have they "failed"?
It is a risk, although if their final poll produces a spike one way, counter to, or well beyond, the average then they can reasonably say that they hit an unlucky sample. But if every (or nearly every) pollster is out then that will be down to a systemic methodological flaw.
Re: Trump. Personally, I think it's only a question of time until he has a major falling out with the Repubican controlled Congress, following which very little will get done as both sides hurl missiles at each other.
It's possible we'll get resignations from even his own White House team as well.
I think it'll be an Unenumerated powers/separation of powers that causes it.
If there was a market on the Trump White House breaking the record for relying on Executive Privilege I'd be on it.
Remember when people were reassuring themselves that Trump didn't really want to be President and would let his veep have all the power? Or that he wasn't interested in foreign policy so the experts would be able to get on with it?
Danny Shaw West Midlands Police confirm Amber Rudd's speech to Conservative Party conference in Birmingham treated as a "hate incident"...
yes - it's the new left-wing meme in stifling free speech once people saw through the 'Waycist' scam.
(And on this blog and others, the new definition of insane seems to come from the argument.
I am sane. I hold some beliefs Therefore these beliefs are sane. xxx has different beliefs Since these beliefs aren't mine then they aren't sane. Therefore they are insane Therefore the holder of these beliefs cannot be sane. Therefore xxx is insane.
(I think there is a logical flaw in each of the conclusions stated) )
Quite. It's just another way to de-legitimise another POV.
So Ladbrokes are gambling on Le Pen losing? And I thought gambling was a mug's game!
When will they lay off their exposure? Or will they be biting their nails on the night?
As for Hypermind, "It is the first practical and commercial application of the spectacular results obtained by the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity’s Aggregative Contingent Estimation (ACE) program". IARPA's ACE is some crazy-arsed programme of the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It looks like a new manifestation of the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness office, which had the nutty idea of setting up a market in "terrorism futures".
How many elections or referendums have they predicted right in the past two years?
That's the wrong question. The right question is 'how many elections or referendums have they made a profit on?
@Patrick The difference between my generation and the previous one is that the dream of ownership and a middle-class life seems out of reach. In order to be a small c conservative, you have to have a stake in society - own a home, a car, start a family etc. If all those things become very difficult to achieve then there's a disillusioned generation whose politics may not go the way as the last generation. Also despite the trend of people getting more conservative as they get older, changes, as Anorak has noted have happened.
Polling sub-samples seem to show that 18-24 year-olds hold political views that are well to the Left of the general population, and far more pro-EU than the general population. I don't know if these sub-samples are accurately reflecting opinion, or if the polling companies are just picking up small numbers of very politicised people.
Most of the opinion polls reported the public voting LEAVE. There was literally a thread on it on this site.
[snip]
Not in the week before polling day, they didn't, which is surely relevant.
Pollsters can't realistically say "yes, we got the figures wrong on the day but look: those we published four weeks ago were right", not least because we have no idea if they were 'right' - polls are supposed to be snapshots and the only way we can validate them is against elections conducted at the same time.
As an aside, it's also inconsistent of those who claim that the Brexit polls were right because of the polls published a month before the vote, to then say that the POTUS polls were also right because those published within a day or two of the vote had Hillary a couple of points up and to ignore those from October that gave her much bigger leads.
The polls converged on the final week, but that doesn't make all polls wrong. Also there were polls showing LEAVE ahead within a few weeks of the public vote, not a month before it.
The POTUS polls were different. Hillary had larger leads closer to election day than REMAIN ever did. Even the exit polls were wrong in that case.
None of the three (out of 13) polls published after Jo Cox's death - i.e. the final 9 days of the campaign - had Leave the 4% ahead that they managed. The closest was a 2% lead that TNS gave them. By contrast, the *average* of the 9 Remain leads (there was one tied poll), was 4.5%.
Yes, there were bigger Leave leads earlier in the campaign but that, really, is beside the point. The relevant moment is as near to when the votes are cast as possible.
I've always been concerned by this. Polls have a natural margin of error (and 1 in 20 should even if perfect be outside the margin of error).
If a polling company does 20 polls, 19 are accurate but the 20th is the final one and is outside margin of error (or even in margin of error but at the extreme end of it) then have they "failed"?
They all moved to Remain in the last week though - some combination of swingback, shy Leave after Jo Cox, and methodological changes. The final polls did point to a Remain win, though I certainly accept that any polling failure was far smaller than that at GE2015.
Jo Cox tragedy was horrible in every way (and probably had a historic political effect in influencing the attitudes of Boris and Gove in the Tory leadership election that followed) but without it, I think Leave would only have won by something like 53-47, as opposed to 52-48.
@Patrick The difference between my generation and the previous one is that the dream of ownership and a middle-class life seems out of reach. In order to be a small c conservative, you have to have a stake in society - own a home, a car, start a family etc. If all those things become very difficult to achieve then there's a disillusioned generation whose politics may not go the way as the last generation. Also despite the trend of people getting more conservative as they get older, changes, as Anorak has noted have happened.
All this left-right business is bollards anyway. There are plenty of people on the so called left who are socially conservative (old labour) and plenty on the right who are social liberal (Hannan, yes really!). There are people on the left and right who are stupid about money, and on the left and right who want the books to balance. The are leftie authoritarians (Brown) and right wing authoritarians (May). There are both left and right wing internationalists and isolationists. The one remaining dividing line that makes any sense, which is why it is currently so prominent is identity.
Without getting into it too deeply, my problem with alot of what is currently seen as left wing thinking is that is emphasises rights at the expense of obligations, and the concentration on the individual at the expense of their community, and I use the word community as opposed to "state" deliberately. What matters to me is the common good of the community and strength of its institutions, possibly a rather asian view, but that should not be a surprise give how my life has gone
Take care using the word 'community'. These days it is usually used to refer to people who have a common feature - of religion, ethnicity, sexuality, etc., rather than people who live together in the same town, village, suburb or block of flats.
Watching the news, I'll sometimes turn to Wor Lass and ask "So what is the view of the Asian Community on this?" Clearly, the joke has worn a bit thin after the 200th time.
@Patrick The difference between my generation and the previous one is that the dream of ownership and a middle-class life seems out of reach. In order to be a small c conservative, you have to have a stake in society - own a home, a car, start a family etc. If all those things become very difficult to achieve then there's a disillusioned generation whose politics may not go the way as the last generation. Also despite the trend of people getting more conservative as they get older, changes, as Anorak has noted have happened.
Polling sub-samples seem to show that 18-24 year-olds hold political views that are well to the Left of the general population, and far more pro-EU than the general population. I don't know if these sub-samples are accurately reflecting opinion, or if the polling companies are just picking up small numbers of very politicised people.
I would think that the sample would skew to those in further and higher education, rather than those at work in C2DE jobs. The pollsters should adjust for this, but they're often dealing with only double-digit samples.
Not in the week before polling day, they didn't, which is surely relevant.
Pollsters can't realistically say "yes, we got the figures wrong on the day but look: those we published four weeks ago were right", not least because we have no idea if they were 'right' - polls are supposed to be snapshots and the only way we can validate them is against elections conducted at the same time.
As an aside, it's also inconsistent of those who claim that the Brexit polls were right because of the polls published a month before the vote, to then say that the POTUS polls were also right because those published within a day or two of the vote had Hillary a couple of points up and to ignore those from October that gave her much bigger leads.
The polls converged on the final week, but that doesn't make all polls wrong. Also there were polls showing LEAVE ahead within a few weeks of the public vote, not a month before it.
The POTUS polls were different. Hillary had larger leads closer to election day than REMAIN ever did. Even the exit polls were wrong in that case.
None of the three (out of 13) polls published after Jo Cox's death - i.e. the final 9 days of the campaign - had Leave the 4% ahead that they managed. The closest was a 2% lead that TNS gave them. By contrast, the *average* of the 9 Remain leads (there was one tied poll), was 4.5%.
Yes, there were bigger Leave leads earlier in the campaign but that, really, is beside the point. The relevant moment is as near to when the votes are cast as possible.
I've always been concerned by this. Polls have a natural margin of error (and 1 in 20 should even if perfect be outside the margin of error).
If a polling company does 20 polls, 19 are accurate but the 20th is the final one and is outside margin of error (or even in margin of error but at the extreme end of it) then have they "failed"?
They all moved to Remain in the last week though - some combination of swingback, shy Leave after Jo Cox, and methodological changes. The final polls did point to a Remain win, though I certainly accept that any polling failure was far smaller than that at GE2015.
Jo Cox tragedy was horrible in every way (and probably had a historic political effect in influencing the attitudes of Boris and Gove in the Tory leadership election that followed) but without it, I think Leave would only have won by something like 53-47, as opposed to 52-48.
Exactly - barely affected the actual result but had a profound effect on the polling.
@Patrick The difference between my generation and the previous one is that the dream of ownership and a middle-class life seems out of reach. In order to be a small c conservative, you have to have a stake in society - own a home, a car, start a family etc. If all those things become very difficult to achieve then there's a disillusioned generation whose politics may not go the way as the last generation. Also despite the trend of people getting more conservative as they get older, changes, as Anorak has noted have happened.
Polling sub-samples seem to show that 18-24 year-olds hold political views that are well to the Left of the general population, and far more pro-EU than the general population. I don't know if these sub-samples are accurately reflecting opinion, or if the polling companies are just picking up small numbers of very politicised people.
I would think that the sample would skew to those in further and higher education, rather than those at work in C2DE jobs. The pollsters should adjust for this, but they're often dealing with only double-digit samples.
That's my suspicion. Opinions do vary by age, class, region etc., but the skew towards left wing/Europhile opinions in sub-samples of 18-24 year olds does suggest that those sub-samples are dominated by students.
Danny Shaw West Midlands Police confirm Amber Rudd's speech to Conservative Party conference in Birmingham treated as a "hate incident"...
What on Earth did she say for the police to be investigating it several months later?
Maybe once we leave the EU we can enact a freedom of speech bill, rather than allowing the taking of offence to be a trump card?
Part of the problem is that some senior police officers are just stupid.
The police have a problem with their insistence of promoting from within, and on the tendency of uniform officers to make it to the top. What makes someone a perfectly acceptable woodentop, and might attract someone to that career is somewhat at variance to the sort of person that would be a good fit for a police chief.
Danny Shaw West Midlands Police confirm Amber Rudd's speech to Conservative Party conference in Birmingham treated as a "hate incident"...
Apparently some twat from Oxford university made a complaint, claiming it was a hate crime, which the police have a legal duty to investigate & they said no it wasn't, but recorded it as a "non-crime hate inciden
Whole thing makes a mockery of when some one is actually beaten up just cos they are black, white, Jew, Muslim etc.
Danny Shaw West Midlands Police confirm Amber Rudd's speech to Conservative Party conference in Birmingham treated as a "hate incident"...
yes - it's the new left-wing meme in stifling free speech once people saw through the 'Waycist' scam.
(And on this blog and others, the new definition of insane seems to come from the argument.
I am sane. I hold some beliefs Therefore these beliefs are sane. xxx has different beliefs Since these beliefs aren't mine then they aren't sane. Therefore they are insane Therefore the holder of these beliefs cannot be sane. Therefore xxx is insane.
(I think there is a logical flaw in each of the conclusions stated) )
Anyone who uses the term "waycist" is seeking to stifle free speech - or at least to restrict the terms of debate.
I've always been concerned by this. Polls have a natural margin of error (and 1 in 20 should even if perfect be outside the margin of error).
If a polling company does 20 polls, 19 are accurate but the 20th is the final one and is outside margin of error (or even in margin of error but at the extreme end of it) then have they "failed"?
No, but if one of those 20 has a result two or three times as far from the prediction as the stated margin of error, in other words at z=4 or z=6, the pollster has messed up BIG TIME. Such results should happen only once every 16000 times (z=4) or 500 million times (z=6).
Anyway there aren't 19 other events that can reasonably be put in the same bag in this context as the Brexit referendum or the US election.
Polls don't have a "natural" margin of error. Has someone analysed how pollsters have performed not simply relative to their predicted outcomes but relative to their stated margins of error? That would be interesting. There was one academic expert who on the night of the 2015 general election was assessing the probability of some other result than a hung parliament at something like 1 in 3.4 million. I don't remember the exact figure, but it was huge and I think he may have stated it to 2 significant figures. This wasn't the kind of mistake that a competent person makes from time to time. What happened shows clearly that the guy's methods were total rubbish.
@Patrick The difference between my generation and the previous one is that the dream of ownership and a middle-class life seems out of reach. In order to be a small c conservative, you have to have a stake in society - own a home, a car, start a family etc. If all those things become very difficult to achieve then there's a disillusioned generation whose politics may not go the way as the last generation. Also despite the trend of people getting more conservative as they get older, changes, as Anorak has noted have happened.
Polling sub-samples seem to show that 18-24 year-olds hold political views that are well to the Left of the general population, and far more pro-EU than the general population. I don't know if these sub-samples are accurately reflecting opinion, or if the polling companies are just picking up small numbers of very politicised people.
Similar polling in 1997-2002 showed heavy majorities in favour of the UK joining the euro but the views of today's 32-40 year olds (who should be the same people) are far more balanced on leaving the EU in its entirety.
What 'forthcoming national events'? The triggering (or not, possibly), of Article 50? I don't see why that should help the Lib Dems to by-election winning scores in a seat that was comfortably Leave. It could help the Lib Dems rise nationally from single figures to low teens but it's a niche position. Also, Olney had the advantage of being the main challenger to Goldsmith. By contrast, the Lib Dems start in fourth in Copeland, having lost their deposit last time. Appealing to Labour voters to back her in order to 'stop the Tories' (or - or even and - to appeal to Tories to vote Lib Dem to stop Corbyn), will look absurd.
As an aside, what's with the necklace in the photo in the article linked to?
So Ladbrokes are gambling on Le Pen losing? And I thought gambling was a mug's game!
When will they lay off their exposure? Or will they be biting their nails on the night?
Chances are they probably have an account with Betfair and have already handsomely covered their exposure.
Betfair odds are considerably higher than the odds they have been offering recently and SOMEBODY has been consistently betting fairly large amounts to keep Le Pen's price on Betfair down to an unrealistically low level.
Danny Shaw West Midlands Police confirm Amber Rudd's speech to Conservative Party conference in Birmingham treated as a "hate incident"...
yes - it's the new left-wing meme in stifling free speech once people saw through the 'Waycist' scam.
(And on this blog and others, the new definition of insane seems to come from the argument.
I am sane. I hold some beliefs Therefore these beliefs are sane. xxx has different beliefs Since these beliefs aren't mine then they aren't sane. Therefore they are insane Therefore the holder of these beliefs cannot be sane. Therefore xxx is insane.
(I think there is a logical flaw in each of the conclusions stated) )
Anyone who uses the term "waycist" is seeking to stifle free speech - or at least to restrict the terms of debate.
I don't use the term myself but isn't it intended to be infantile to satirise those who jump to accusing anyone of racism who doesn't, say, agree with open borders, or wishes for restrictions on mass immigration because of integration challenges?
Danny Shaw West Midlands Police confirm Amber Rudd's speech to Conservative Party conference in Birmingham treated as a "hate incident"...
Apparently some twat from Oxford university made a complaint, claiming it was a hate crime, which the police have a legal duty to investigate & they said no it wasn't, but recorded it as a "non-crime hate inciden
Whole thing makes a mockery of when some one is actually beaten up just cos they are black, white, Jew, Muslim etc.
It would be better if we did away with the entire concept of "hate incidents/hate crimes." Either an act is a crime or it isn't.
The question is whether it might be necessary (though I do accept your tactical thinking of President Frying-Pan having run with Vice-President Fire).
I was speculating whether Senators and Congressmen might ultimately stay their hand if they have a slightly nutty but erratic and potentially fairly ineffectual President Trump, who would be replaced by a focused, coherent, politically adept, and supposedly dangerously clever hard-right alternative in Pence (who would then probably bring in Cruz as his hatchet man).
I'd agree with you if Trump does just prove to be "slightly nutty but erratic and ... fairly ineffectual". The problem is if he seems to be completely losing touch with reality and proportion and showing severe signs of paranoia. He's already starting some way down that road.
I think it is Buzzfeed and CNN that lost touch with Reality yesterday anyway. 45 minutes to piss on the president-elect.
I've not seen many running to defend CNN or Buzzfeed - it's a hot mess neither should've touched.
Too many people in the media run with stories because they hope that they are true and want to believe them or hope that merely with running with stories portraying someone as being a pervert will help their cause: 'McAlpine' anyone?
CNN ran with a story that was true and which has been confirmed to be true.
So Ladbrokes are gambling on Le Pen losing? And I thought gambling was a mug's game!
When will they lay off their exposure? Or will they be biting their nails on the night?
Chances are they probably have an account with Betfair and have already handsomely covered their exposure.
Betfair odds are considerably higher than the odds they have been offering recently and SOMEBODY has been consistently betting fairly large amounts to keep Le Pen's price on Betfair down to an unrealistically low level.
I don't think Ladbrokes would do this, because they'll just be paying an implied 5% to Betfair and are big enough to take on the risk and extra implied profit anyway.
I think trackside bookies at the nags do this however !
Not sure I would ever use Shep smith to defend my position & We know that the media loves nothing more than to talk about itself & in general defends other media eg look at section 40 stuff, guardian defending mail / sun.
@AlsoIndigo I actually agree with you re the community. Funnily enough, I think May talked about community a lot in her NYE message - and I liked that even though I've gone off her more recently.
I think it's also true that left/right divide has become less sharp in the last few decades or so. In this country on matters such as sexuality, and women's rights there seems to be a consensus. Social conservatism in this country seems to be nowhere near as divisive as it is in America. I'm on the centre-left but even I can appreciate the stability that family/marriage etc brings to society, although I believe that only people who really want children and are committed to family life should actually start a family. If they can't then it's better to be just married/single/cohabiting. Social conservatism in this country also isn't obsessed with abortion and it isn't about trying to tell people how to live their lives.
I wouldn't even say there's an economic divide because it appears that on the economy the left has literally run out of ideas anyway.
I was watching Newsnight a few weeks ago, and they were saying they think the big divide is internationalist and isolationist. Looking at Trump, and Brexit and now the upcoming elections across Europe I'm inclined to think that.
@Sean_F I think it's true that of the young people who are politically engaged, a lot of them are to left. But I think that's the thing: most young people aren't politically engaged.
Danny Shaw West Midlands Police confirm Amber Rudd's speech to Conservative Party conference in Birmingham treated as a "hate incident"...
Apparently some twat from Oxford university made a complaint, claiming it was a hate crime, which the police have a legal duty to investigate & they said no it wasn't, but recorded it as a "non-crime hate inciden
Whole thing makes a mockery of when some one is actually beaten up just cos they are black, white, Jew, Muslim etc.
Why would anyone choose to go to Oxford Uni is beyond me.
First Rhodes must fall, now this, it is snowflake central.
Danny Shaw West Midlands Police confirm Amber Rudd's speech to Conservative Party conference in Birmingham treated as a "hate incident"...
yes - it's the new left-wing meme in stifling free speech once people saw through the 'Waycist' scam.
(And on this blog and others, the new definition of insane seems to come from the argument.
I am sane. I hold some beliefs Therefore these beliefs are sane. xxx has different beliefs Since these beliefs aren't mine then they aren't sane. Therefore they are insane Therefore the holder of these beliefs cannot be sane. Therefore xxx is insane.
(I think there is a logical flaw in each of the conclusions stated) )
Anyone who uses the term "waycist" is seeking to stifle free speech - or at least to restrict the terms of debate.
Danny Shaw West Midlands Police confirm Amber Rudd's speech to Conservative Party conference in Birmingham treated as a "hate incident"...
yes - it's the new left-wing meme in stifling free speech once people saw through the 'Waycist' scam.
(And on this blog and others, the new definition of insane seems to come from the argument.
I am sane. I hold some beliefs Therefore these beliefs are sane. xxx has different beliefs Since these beliefs aren't mine then they aren't sane. Therefore they are insane Therefore the holder of these beliefs cannot be sane. Therefore xxx is insane.
(I think there is a logical flaw in each of the conclusions stated) )
Anyone who uses the term "waycist" is seeking to stifle free speech - or at least to restrict the terms of debate.
I don't use the term myself but isn't it intended to be infantile to satirise those who jump to accusing anyone of racism who doesn't, say, agree with open borders, or wishes for restrictions on mass immigration because of integration challenges?
@Patrick The difference between my generation and the previous one is that the dream of ownership and a middle-class life seems out of reach. In order to be a small c conservative, you have to have a stake in society - own a home, a car, start a family etc. If all those things become very difficult to achieve then there's a disillusioned generation whose politics may not go the way as the last generation. Also despite the trend of people getting more conservative as they get older, changes, as Anorak has noted have happened.
All this left-right business is bollards anyway. There are plenty of people on the so called left who are socially conservative (old labour) and plenty on the right who are social liberal (Hannan, yes really!). There are people on the left and right who are stupid about money, and on the left and right who want the books to balance. The are leftie authoritarians (Brown) and right wing authoritarians (May). There are both left and right wing internationalists and isolationists. The one remaining dividing line that makes any sense, which is why it is currently so prominent is identity.
Without getting into it too deeply, my problem with alot of what is currently seen as left wing thinking is that is emphasises rights at the expense of obligations, and the concentration on the individual at the expense of their community, and I use the word community as opposed to "state" deliberately. What matters to me is the common good of the community and strength of its institutions, possibly a rather asian view, but that should not be a surprise give how my life has gone
Take care using the word 'community'. These days it is usually used to refer to people who have a common feature - of religion, ethnicity, sexuality, etc., rather than people who live together in the same town, village, suburb or block of flats.
Watching the news, I'll sometimes turn to Wor Lass and ask "So what is the view of the Asian Community on this?" Clearly, the joke has worn a bit thin after the 200th time.
Many of my left-wing friends reject social identity on anything but the individual level.
Therefore, nationality is irrelevant within communities on the basis that it's impossible to know all your neighbours anyway, so they may as well be anyone from anywhere in the world.
Danny Shaw West Midlands Police confirm Amber Rudd's speech to Conservative Party conference in Birmingham treated as a "hate incident"...
What on Earth did she say for the police to be investigating it several months later?
Maybe once we leave the EU we can enact a freedom of speech bill, rather than allowing the taking of offence to be a trump card?
Part of the problem is that some senior police officers are just stupid.
The police have a problem with their insistence of promoting from within, and on the tendency of uniform officers to make it to the top. What makes someone a perfectly acceptable woodentop, and might attract someone to that career is somewhat at variance to the sort of person that would be a good fit for a police chief.
They need an Officer / NCO structure like the armed services. Junior army officers are recruited from a completely different demographic than other ranks - but face the harshest challenges on the front line, with severe up or out sifting as their careers progress. Military top brass are generally top notch. Much much more impressive people than police chiefs.
@AlsoIndigo I actually agree with you re the community. Funnily enough, I think May talked about community a lot in her NYE message - and I liked that even though I've gone off her more recently.
I think it's also true that left/right divide has become less sharp in the last few decades or so. In this country on matters such as sexuality, and women's rights there seems to be a consensus. Social conservatism in this country seems to be nowhere near as divisive as it is in America. I'm on the centre-left but even I can appreciate the stability that family/marriage etc brings to society, although I believe that only people who really want children and are committed to family life should actually start a family. If they can't then it's better to be just married/single/cohabiting. Social conservatism in this country also isn't obsessed with abortion and it isn't about trying to tell people how to live their lives.
I wouldn't even say there's an economic divide because it appears that on the economy the left has literally run out of ideas anyway.
I was watching Newsnight a few weeks ago, and they were saying they think the big divide is internationalist and isolationist. Looking at Trump, and Brexit and now the upcoming elections across Europe I'm inclined to think that.
@Sean_F I think it's true that of the young people who are politically engaged, a lot of them are to left. But I think that's the thing: most young people aren't politically engaged.
There is a social conservative/social liberal divide in this country, but it divides over different issues to the USA.
Danny Shaw West Midlands Police confirm Amber Rudd's speech to Conservative Party conference in Birmingham treated as a "hate incident"...
Apparently some twat from Oxford university made a complaint, claiming it was a hate crime, which the police have a legal duty to investigate & they said no it wasn't, but recorded it as a "non-crime hate inciden
Whole thing makes a mockery of when some one is actually beaten up just cos they are black, white, Jew, Muslim etc.
Why would anyone choose to go to Oxford Uni is beyond me.
First Rhodes must fall, now this, it is snowflake central.
Unfortunately there is a lot of this twattery around in leading universities at the moment. I was invited to an academic talk the other week at another leading institution on a topic that really couldn't be controversial in anyway (tech related) & the introduction included the phrase let's remember this is a safe space...
@Patrick The difference between my generation and the previous one is that the dream of ownership and a middle-class life seems out of reach. In order to be a small c conservative, you have to have a stake in society - own a home, a car, start a family etc. If all those things become very difficult to achieve then there's a disillusioned generation whose politics may not go the way as the last generation. Also despite the trend of people getting more conservative as they get older, changes, as Anorak has noted have happened.
Polling sub-samples seem to show that 18-24 year-olds hold political views that are well to the Left of the general population, and far more pro-EU than the general population. I don't know if these sub-samples are accurately reflecting opinion, or if the polling companies are just picking up small numbers of very politicised people.
I would think that the sample would skew to those in further and higher education, rather than those at work in C2DE jobs. The pollsters should adjust for this, but they're often dealing with only double-digit samples.
That's my suspicion. Opinions do vary by age, class, region etc., but the skew towards left wing/Europhile opinions in sub-samples of 18-24 year olds does suggest that those sub-samples are dominated by students.
It would be good to get a comment from a pollster on this, I can't imagine that many working class 18-24 year olds register for online political polling. Also note that 18-24 is only six years, compared to other age ranges given (e.g. 35-54) which are often up to 20 years and over three times as populous.
@AlsoIndigo I actually agree with you re the community. Funnily enough, I think May talked about community a lot in her NYE message - and I liked that even though I've gone off her more recently.
I think it's also true that left/right divide has become less sharp in the last few decades or so. In this country on matters such as sexuality, and women's rights there seems to be a consensus. Social conservatism in this country seems to be nowhere near as divisive as it is in America. I'm on the centre-left but even I can appreciate the stability that family/marriage etc brings to society, although I believe that only people who really want children and are committed to family life should actually start a family. If they can't then it's better to be just married/single/cohabiting. Social conservatism in this country also isn't obsessed with abortion and it isn't about trying to tell people how to live their lives.
I wouldn't even say there's an economic divide because it appears that on the economy the left has literally run out of ideas anyway.
I was watching Newsnight a few weeks ago, and they were saying they think the big divide is internationalist and isolationist. Looking at Trump, and Brexit and now the upcoming elections across Europe I'm inclined to think that.
@Sean_F I think it's true that of the young people who are politically engaged, a lot of them are to left. But I think that's the thing: most young people aren't politically engaged.
There is a social conservative/social liberal divide in this country, but it divides over different issues to the USA.
@AlsoIndigo I actually agree with you re the community. Funnily enough, I think May talked about community a lot in her NYE message - and I liked that even though I've gone off her more recently.
I think it's also true that left/right divide has become less sharp in the last few decades or so. In this country on matters such as sexuality, and women's rights there seems to be a consensus. Social conservatism in this country seems to be nowhere near as divisive as it is in America. I'm on the centre-left but even I can appreciate the stability that family/marriage etc brings to society, although I believe that only people who really want children and are committed to family life should actually start a family. If they can't then it's better to be just married/single/cohabiting. Social conservatism in this country also isn't obsessed with abortion and it isn't about trying to tell people how to live their lives.
I wouldn't even say there's an economic divide because it appears that on the economy the left has literally run out of ideas anyway.
I was watching Newsnight a few weeks ago, and they were saying they think the big divide is internationalist and isolationist. Looking at Trump, and Brexit and now the upcoming elections across Europe I'm inclined to think that.
@Sean_F I think it's true that of the young people who are politically engaged, a lot of them are to left. But I think that's the thing: most young people aren't politically engaged.
There is a social conservative/social liberal divide in this country, but it divides over different issues to the USA.
Immigration, foreign aid perhaps... not sure about true social issues. There is now barely an argument on death penalty/abortion/LGBT rights (up to a point).
I don't think this site has moved to the right. Instead, some who were always very right-wing have become a lot more open about it. I'd say that PB's default is solidly centre-right. But it always has been for as long as I have been on here (first post in 2008). That's a good thing. It's healthy to be exposed to ideas that you do not agree with and to test your own. Only fools stop reading, watching or listening to things because they do not reinforce opinions they already hold.
Observation, not a criticism here...
David Herdson writes one header per week. He is a Tory, I cant remember if he was a Leaver or Remainer. Almost all the other threads are written by left wingers who can be classed as Hardened Remainers.
Take a look at any thread from a year ago and note the political persuasions of those with "User Banned, Please Carry On" as their avatars. They are almost all Kippers (The Nats were already banned). There are also three people in PB Guantanemo Bay, ie not banned but unable to post, who are all outspoken Leavers.
Not complaining, just pointing out how it is. To say this site is Right Wing is so far fetched as to be madness. It is generally centre left/pro EU
Most of the thread headers are written by TSE, who is a card-carrying Conservative, or by OGH who is a Lib-Dem who are centrist or on the right based on their coalition with the Conservatives 2010 to 2015.
You have perhaps fallen into the trap of conflating two groups you dislike, Remainers and Lefties. They are not the same. Ask Jeremy Corbyn or Ken Clarke.
I dont dislike Remainers or lefties. I still think of myself as a bit of a leftie really.
Undoubtedly most threads are written by Leavers. Card Carrying Conservatives can still hold views that are indistinguishable from Blairites.
At times, I think I've disagreed with almost everybody on this site about something, and they probably have with me likewise.
Funny thing is: a few years later, my views might have moved on, and so have theirs, to the point where we disagree about something else entirely, but might now agree about the point we disagreed about in the first place.
Debates are always fluid. This is healthy.
Absolutely right. Theresa May and the Tories used to deride Ed Miliband. Now they are copying him :-)
@AlsoIndigo I actually agree with you re the community. Funnily enough, I think May talked about community a lot in her NYE message - and I liked that even though I've gone off her more recently.
I think it's also true that left/right divide has become less sharp in the last few decades or so. In this country on matters such as sexuality, and women's rights there seems to be a consensus. Social conservatism in this country seems to be nowhere near as divisive as it is in America. I'm on the centre-left but even I can appreciate the stability that family/marriage etc brings to society, although I believe that only people who really want children and are committed to family life should actually start a family. If they can't then it's better to be just married/single/cohabiting. Social conservatism in this country also isn't obsessed with abortion and it isn't about trying to tell people how to live their lives.
I wouldn't even say there's an economic divide because it appears that on the economy the left has literally run out of ideas anyway.
I was watching Newsnight a few weeks ago, and they were saying they think the big divide is internationalist and isolationist. Looking at Trump, and Brexit and now the upcoming elections across Europe I'm inclined to think that.
@Sean_F I think it's true that of the young people who are politically engaged, a lot of them are to left. But I think that's the thing: most young people aren't politically engaged.
"the big divide is internationalist and isolationist"
The Leavers are internationalist, so that makes the Remainers isolationist...
@AlsoIndigo I actually agree with you re the community. Funnily enough, I think May talked about community a lot in her NYE message - and I liked that even though I've gone off her more recently.
I think it's also true that left/right divide has become less sharp in the last few decades or so. In this country on matters such as sexuality, and women's rights there seems to be a consensus. Social conservatism in this country seems to be nowhere near as divisive as it is in America. I'm on the centre-left but even I can appreciate the stability that family/marriage etc brings to society, although I believe that only people who really want children and are committed to family life should actually start a family. If they can't then it's better to be just married/single/cohabiting. Social conservatism in this country also isn't obsessed with abortion and it isn't about trying to tell people how to live their lives.
I wouldn't even say there's an economic divide because it appears that on the economy the left has literally run out of ideas anyway.
I was watching Newsnight a few weeks ago, and they were saying they think the big divide is internationalist and isolationist. Looking at Trump, and Brexit and now the upcoming elections across Europe I'm inclined to think that.
@Sean_F I think it's true that of the young people who are politically engaged, a lot of them are to left. But I think that's the thing: most young people aren't politically engaged.
There is a social conservative/social liberal divide in this country, but it divides over different issues to the USA.
Immigration, foreign aid perhaps... not sure about true social issues. There is now barely an argument on death penalty/abortion/LGBT rights (up to a point).
The question is whether it might be necessary (though I do accept your tactical thinking of President Frying-Pan having run with Vice-President Fire).
I was speculating whether Senators and Congressmen might ultimately stay their hand if they have a slightly nutty but erratic and potentially fairly ineffectual President Trump, who would be replaced by a focused, coherent, politically adept, and supposedly dangerously clever hard-right alternative in Pence (who would then probably bring in Cruz as his hatchet man).
I'd agree with you if Trump does just prove to be "slightly nutty but erratic and ... fairly ineffectual". The problem is if he seems to be completely losing touch with reality and proportion and showing severe signs of paranoia. He's already starting some way down that road.
I think it is Buzzfeed and CNN that lost touch with Reality yesterday anyway. 45 minutes to piss on the president-elect.
I've not seen many running to defend CNN or Buzzfeed - it's a hot mess neither should've touched.
Too many people in the media run with stories because they hope that they are true and want to believe them or hope that merely with running with stories portraying someone as being a pervert will help their cause: 'McAlpine' anyone?
CNN ran with a story that was true and which has been confirmed to be true.
Then why do they keep editing the story to add caveats and cover themselves:
Danny Shaw West Midlands Police confirm Amber Rudd's speech to Conservative Party conference in Birmingham treated as a "hate incident"...
Apparently some twat from Oxford university made a complaint, claiming it was a hate crime, which the police have a legal duty to investigate & they said no it wasn't, but recorded it as a "non-crime hate inciden
Whole thing makes a mockery of when some one is actually beaten up just cos they are black, white, Jew, Muslim etc.
Why would anyone choose to go to Oxford Uni is beyond me.
First Rhodes must fall, now this, it is snowflake central.
Because Oxford takes a wider range of people in the first place. There will always be a few outliers.
@AlsoIndigo I actually agree with you re the community. Funnily enough, I think May talked about community a lot in her NYE message - and I liked that even though I've gone off her more recently.
I think it's also true that left/right divide has become less sharp in the last few decades or so. In this country on matters such as sexuality, and women's rights there seems to be a consensus. Social conservatism in this country seems to be nowhere near as divisive as it is in America. I'm on the centre-left but even I can appreciate the stability that family/marriage etc brings to society, although I believe that only people who really want children and are committed to family life should actually start a family. If they can't then it's better to be just married/single/cohabiting. Social conservatism in this country also isn't obsessed with abortion and it isn't about trying to tell people how to live their lives.
I wouldn't even say there's an economic divide because it appears that on the economy the left has literally run out of ideas anyway.
I was watching Newsnight a few weeks ago, and they were saying they think the big divide is internationalist and isolationist. Looking at Trump, and Brexit and now the upcoming elections across Europe I'm inclined to think that.
@Sean_F I think it's true that of the young people who are politically engaged, a lot of them are to left. But I think that's the thing: most young people aren't politically engaged.
There is a social conservative/social liberal divide in this country, but it divides over different issues to the USA.
Immigration, foreign aid perhaps... not sure about true social issues. There is now barely an argument on death penalty/abortion/LGBT rights (up to a point).
Attitudes towards the EU, as well. There are of course socially conservative Remainers and socially liberal Leavers, but in broad terms, it's a divide between those who prioritise tradition, sovereignty and national identity and those who prioritise freedom of movement and capital, and international institutions.
Danny Shaw West Midlands Police confirm Amber Rudd's speech to Conservative Party conference in Birmingham treated as a "hate incident"...
Apparently some twat from Oxford university made a complaint, claiming it was a hate crime, which the police have a legal duty to investigate & they said no it wasn't, but recorded it as a "non-crime hate inciden
Whole thing makes a mockery of when some one is actually beaten up just cos they are black, white, Jew, Muslim etc.
Why would anyone choose to go to Oxford Uni is beyond me.
First Rhodes must fall, now this, it is snowflake central.
Because Oxford takes a wider range of people in the first place. There will always be a few outliers.
Better to be interesting than conforming.
He's a physicist, it's just co-incidence really. He can make a tit of himself if he wants.
Danny Shaw West Midlands Police confirm Amber Rudd's speech to Conservative Party conference in Birmingham treated as a "hate incident"...
Apparently some twat from Oxford university made a complaint, claiming it was a hate crime, which the police have a legal duty to investigate & they said no it wasn't, but recorded it as a "non-crime hate inciden
Whole thing makes a mockery of when some one is actually beaten up just cos they are black, white, Jew, Muslim etc.
It would be better if we did away with the entire concept of "hate incidents/hate crimes." Either an act is a crime or it isn't.
I agree, and would add that in England a judge usually has a lot of discretion to increase the severity of a sentence if the crime is exceptionally aggravated. He can also criticise public policy if he wishes. And both the prosecution and the defence can argue about whether the circumstances were aggravating, mitigating, or neither, once the verdict is in.
I also agree that a lot of the current discourse does indeed make a mockery of when real people really are beaten up, or their lives are otherwise made a misery, by racist thugs.
@AlsoIndigo I actually agree with you re the community. Funnily enough, I think May talked about community a lot in her NYE message - and I liked that even though I've gone off her more recently.
I think it's also true that left/right divide has become less sharp in the last few decades or so. In this country on matters such as sexuality, and women's rights there seems to be a consensus. Social conservatism in this country seems to be nowhere near as divisive as it is in America. I'm on the centre-left but even I can appreciate the stability that family/marriage etc brings to society, although I believe that only people who really want children and are committed to family life should actually start a family. If they can't then it's better to be just married/single/cohabiting. Social conservatism in this country also isn't obsessed with abortion and it isn't about trying to tell people how to live their lives.
I wouldn't even say there's an economic divide because it appears that on the economy the left has literally run out of ideas anyway.
I was watching Newsnight a few weeks ago, and they were saying they think the big divide is internationalist and isolationist. Looking at Trump, and Brexit and now the upcoming elections across Europe I'm inclined to think that.
@Sean_F I think it's true that of the young people who are politically engaged, a lot of them are to left. But I think that's the thing: most young people aren't politically engaged.
"the big divide is internationalist and isolationist"
The Leavers are internationalist, so that makes the Remainers isolationist...
Danny Shaw West Midlands Police confirm Amber Rudd's speech to Conservative Party conference in Birmingham treated as a "hate incident"...
yes - it's the new left-wing meme in stifling free speech once people saw through the 'Waycist' scam.
(And on this blog and others, the new definition of insane seems to come from the argument.
I am sane. I hold some beliefs Therefore these beliefs are sane. xxx has different beliefs Since these beliefs aren't mine then they aren't sane. Therefore they are insane Therefore the holder of these beliefs cannot be sane. Therefore xxx is insane.
(I think there is a logical flaw in each of the conclusions stated) )
Anyone who uses the term "waycist" is seeking to stifle free speech - or at least to restrict the terms of debate.
I don't use the term myself but isn't it intended to be infantile to satirise those who jump to accusing anyone of racism who doesn't, say, agree with open borders, or wishes for restrictions on mass immigration because of integration challenges?
Yes, it's a term designed to demean the person or argument it is being used against. It is as stifling of grown-up debate as the use of "racist" can often be. What's interesting is that people often bellow waycist when no-one has actually mentioned racism.
I was watching Newsnight a few weeks ago, and they were saying they think the big divide is internationalist and isolationist. Looking at Trump, and Brexit and now the upcoming elections across Europe I'm inclined to think that.
There is something in that, but even that needs a closer look.
A fair chunk of Leavers, probably including most of "ethnic" leavers wanted a level playing field between EU and non-EU immigrants, which would be selected on the basis of utility to the country rather than country of birth. I am a white male British citizen (yes, I am sorry) with strong ties in the poorer parts of Asia, and I fit in this category. I know lots of very able people who would be of great benefit to the UK, but cant get a visa because the application costs are too high and the chances of being granted are too low to risk it, whereas their, say, Bulgarian equivalent just walks across the border. A lot of the left call themselves internationalists, but really mean fellowship with the bits of Europe that are culturally and economically similar to the UK, and have no real answer about the wider world, except for the open borders idiots.
@AlsoIndigo I actually agree with you re the community. Funnily enough, I think May talked about community a lot in her NYE message - and I liked that even though I've gone off her more recently.
I think it's also true that left/right divide has become less sharp in the last few decades or so. In this country on matters such as sexuality, and women's rights there seems to be a consensus. Social conservatism in this country seems to be nowhere near as divisive as it is in America. I'm on the centre-left but even I can appreciate the stability that family/marriage etc brings to society, although I believe that only people who really want children and are committed to family life should actually start a family. If they can't then it's better to be just married/single/cohabiting. Social conservatism in this country also isn't obsessed with abortion and it isn't about trying to tell people how to live their lives.
I wouldn't even say there's an economic divide because it appears that on the economy the left has literally run out of ideas anyway.
I was watching Newsnight a few weeks ago, and they were saying they think the big divide is internationalist and isolationist. Looking at Trump, and Brexit and now the upcoming elections across Europe I'm inclined to think that.
@Sean_F I think it's true that of the young people who are politically engaged, a lot of them are to left. But I think that's the thing: most young people aren't politically engaged.
There is a social conservative/social liberal divide in this country, but it divides over different issues to the USA.
The main divide seems to be immigration.
Unusually, immigration is one area where British (and most European) public opinion is well to the right of US. Amnesties for illegal immigrants and Sanctuary Cities would be fringe positions on this side of the Atlantic.
Joe and Mika hit the nail on the head again, Trump has won again because no one is focusing on policy or the confirmation hearings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1I9z9U4cus
Too many people in the media run with stories because they hope that they are true and want to believe them or hope that merely with running with stories portraying someone as being a pervert will help their cause: 'McAlpine' anyone?
I'd recommend McAlpine's book The New Machiavelli, in which he recommends that the modern "prince" should master the art of spreading false allegations about themselves, for reasons of distraction.
I don't think this site has moved to the right. Instead, some who were always very right-wing have become a lot more open about it. I'd say that PB's default is solidly centre-right. But it always has been for as long as I have been on here (first post in 2008). That's a good thing. It's healthy to be exposed to ideas that you do not agree with and to test your own. Only fools stop reading, watching or listening to things because they do not reinforce opinions they already hold.
Observation, not a criticism here...
David Herdson writes one header per week. He is a Tory, I cant remember if he was a Leaver or Remainer. Almost all the other threads are written by left wingers who can be classed as Hardened Remainers.
Take a look at any thread from a year ago and note the political persuasions of those with "User Banned, Please Carry On" as their avatars. They are almost all Kippers (The Nats were already banned). There are also three people in PB Guantanemo Bay, ie not banned but unable to post, who are all outspoken Leavers.
Not complaining, just pointing out how it is. To say this site is Right Wing is so far fetched as to be madness. It is generally centre left/pro EU
Most of the thread headers are written by TSE, who is a card-carrying Conservative, or by OGH who is a Lib-Dem who are centrist or on the right based on their coalition with the Conservatives 2010 to 2015.
You have perhaps fallen into the trap of conflating two groups you dislike, Remainers and Lefties. They are not the same. Ask Jeremy Corbyn or Ken Clarke.
I dont dislike Remainers or lefties. I still think of myself as a bit of a leftie really.
Undoubtedly most threads are written by Leavers. Card Carrying Conservatives can still hold views that are indistinguishable from Blairites.
At times, I think I've disagreed with almost everybody on this site about something, and they probably have with me likewise.
Funny thing is: a few years later, my views might have moved on, and so have theirs, to the point where we disagree about something else entirely, but might now agree about the point we disagreed about in the first place.
Debates are always fluid. This is healthy.
Absolutely right. Theresa May and the Tories used to deride Ed Miliband. Now they are copying him :-)
It aint what you say its the way that you say it....
Unless your Corbyn, then you're just batshit crazy no matter what.
@AlsoIndigo I actually agree with you re the community. Funnily enough, I think May talked about community a lot in her NYE message - and I liked that even though I've gone off her more recently.
I think it's also true that left/right divide has become less sharp in the last few decades or so. In this country on matters such as sexuality, and women's rights there seems to be a consensus. Social conservatism in this country seems to be nowhere near as divisive as it is in America. I'm on the centre-left but even I can appreciate the stability that family/marriage etc brings to society, although I believe that only people who really want children and are committed to family life should actually start a family. If they can't then it's better to be just married/single/cohabiting. Social conservatism in this country also isn't obsessed with abortion and it isn't about trying to tell people how to live their lives.
I wouldn't even say there's an economic divide because it appears that on the economy the left has literally run out of ideas anyway.
I was watching Newsnight a few weeks ago, and they were saying they think the big divide is internationalist and isolationist. Looking at Trump, and Brexit and now the upcoming elections across Europe I'm inclined to think that.
@Sean_F I think it's true that of the young people who are politically engaged, a lot of them are to left. But I think that's the thing: most young people aren't politically engaged.
There is a social conservative/social liberal divide in this country, but it divides over different issues to the USA.
Immigration, foreign aid perhaps... not sure about true social issues. There is now barely an argument on death penalty/abortion/LGBT rights (up to a point).
There is an elephant in the room, mind, as Seant would no doubt point out were he around.
I was watching Newsnight a few weeks ago, and they were saying they think the big divide is internationalist and isolationist. Looking at Trump, and Brexit and now the upcoming elections across Europe I'm inclined to think that.
There is something in that, but even that needs a closer look.
A fair chunk of Leavers, probably including most of "ethnic" leavers wanted a level playing field between EU and non-EU immigrants, which would be selected on the basis of utility to the country rather than country of birth.
Very few people seriously want a true level playing field once you get down to specifics.
So Ladbrokes are gambling on Le Pen losing? And I thought gambling was a mug's game!
When will they lay off their exposure? Or will they be biting their nails on the night?
Chances are they probably have an account with Betfair and have already handsomely covered their exposure.
Betfair odds are considerably higher than the odds they have been offering recently and SOMEBODY has been consistently betting fairly large amounts to keep Le Pen's price on Betfair down to an unrealistically low level.
I don't think Ladbrokes would do this, because they'll just be paying an implied 5% to Betfair and are big enough to take on the risk and extra implied profit anyway.
I think trackside bookies at the nags do this however !
I seem to recall discssussions on the Betfair forum a few years ago where it was stated that the major bookies negotiate preferential commisssion rates with Betfair. I would be surprised if they were paying more than 2%. Certainly it would appear that the bookies get quite heavily involved in the betting on footie, given the size of some of the bets placed on there.
But I agree, they are big enough to take the risk and Shadsy has his head screwed on.
The question is whether it might be necessary (though I do accept your tactical thinking of President Frying-Pan having run with Vice-President Fire).
I was speculating whether Senators and Congressmen might ultimately stay their hand if they have a slightly nutty but erratic and potentially fairly ineffectual President Trump, who would be replaced by a focused, coherent, politically adept, and supposedly dangerously clever hard-right alternative in Pence (who would then probably bring in Cruz as his hatchet man).
I'd agree with you if Trump does just prove to be "slightly nutty but erratic and ... fairly ineffectual". The problem is if he seems to be completely losing touch with reality and proportion and showing severe signs of paranoia. He's already starting some way down that road.
I think it is Buzzfeed and CNN that lost touch with Reality yesterday anyway. 45 minutes to piss on the president-elect.
I've not seen many running to defend CNN or Buzzfeed - it's a hot mess neither should've touched.
Too many people in the media run with stories because they hope that they are true and want to believe them or hope that merely with running with stories portraying someone as being a pervert will help their cause: 'McAlpine' anyone?
CNN ran with a story that was true and which has been confirmed to be true.
I'd add I think it is absolutely newsworthy. The fact that the authorities thought it worth informing Trump and Obama is significant.
I was watching Newsnight a few weeks ago, and they were saying they think the big divide is internationalist and isolationist. Looking at Trump, and Brexit and now the upcoming elections across Europe I'm inclined to think that.
There is something in that, but even that needs a closer look.
A fair chunk of Leavers, probably including most of "ethnic" leavers wanted a level playing field between EU and non-EU immigrants, which would be selected on the basis of utility to the country rather than country of birth. I am a white male British citizen (yes, I am sorry) with strong ties in the poorer parts of Asia, and I fit in this category. I know lots of very able people who would be of great benefit to the UK, but cant get a visa because the application costs are too high and the chances of being granted are too low to risk it, whereas their, say, Bulgarian equivalent just walks across the border. A lot of the left call themselves internationalists, but really mean fellowship with the bits of Europe that are culturally and economically similar to the UK, and have no real answer about the wider world, except for the open borders idiots.
Louise Mensch (sorry to mention her) introduced this very argument on QT a couple of weeks ago. I'm actually quite sympathetic to it, as someone on the Left and as the grand-daughter of Jamaican immigrants. I think one the reasons why so many Remainers don't acknowledge this aspect of Leavers' perspective is because (to my knowledge, anyway) it wasn't really talked about at length during the campaign. It's only a view I've discovered some Leavers have in the last few months or so!
The latest poll from France has Le Pen first and Fillon second with Macron third and not making the run-off so Macron's chances should not be rated too high though he has a good chance if he does make it. Le Pen also polls slightly better against Fillon than Macron and better against both than she did against Juppe so she is still not completely out of it and the 36% she polls against Fillon is double the 18% her father got against Chirac
Comments
- Trump thinking everyone is out to get him is not irrational but correct - even to the extent of serious people convincing themselves that a pack of lies has, just has, to be true.
- If Trump has been this way throughout his whole life maybe he's already well adjusted to existing in a state of controlled paranoia and is less likely to be sent even more bonkers.
Lines between opinion & news are blurred when activist journalists try to influence voters rather than inform them.
https://t.co/TJ2L7XH1e5 https://t.co/dPfEFZNYpc
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/rita-panahi/rita-panahi-whining-media-playing-straight-into-donald-trumps-hands/news-story/df3f7d409be39ccc484c56894896a39f
The negotiator's tactic in a nutshell: "If he says '10' then he wants '8' and would be happy with '6' - so it's worth '4' and you therefore offer '2'".
Yes, there were bigger Leave leads earlier in the campaign but that, really, is beside the point. The relevant moment is as near to when the votes are cast as possible.
Danny Shaw
West Midlands Police confirm Amber Rudd's speech to Conservative Party conference in Birmingham treated as a "hate incident"...
Hopefully (ha) this'll lead politicians to realise that continually tightening the acceptable bounds of free speech affects everyone.
On banning/censorship: Nero was bizarrely comfortable with being lampooned, mocked and satirised.
When will they lay off their exposure? Or will they be biting their nails on the night?
As for Hypermind, "It is the first practical and commercial application of the spectacular results obtained by the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity’s Aggregative Contingent Estimation (ACE) program". IARPA's ACE is some crazy-arsed programme of the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It looks like a new manifestation of the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness office, which had the nutty idea of setting up a market in "terrorism futures".
How many elections or referendums have they predicted right in the past two years?
It's possible we'll get resignations from even his own White House team as well.
If a polling company does 20 polls, 19 are accurate but the 20th is the final one and is outside margin of error (or even in margin of error but at the extreme end of it) then have they "failed"?
Difficult to prove conclusively, but I'm pretty sure her murder had a significant shy Leave effect.
(And on this blog and others, the new definition of insane seems to come from the argument.
I am sane.
I hold some beliefs
Therefore these beliefs are sane.
xxx has different beliefs
Since these beliefs aren't mine then they aren't sane.
Therefore they are insane
Therefore the holder of these beliefs cannot be sane.
Therefore xxx is insane.
(I think there is a logical flaw in each of the conclusions stated)
)
If there was a market on the Trump White House breaking the record for relying on Executive Privilege I'd be on it.
Maybe once we leave the EU we can enact a freedom of speech bill, rather than allowing the taking of offence to be a trump card?
Without getting into it too deeply, my problem with alot of what is currently seen as left wing thinking is that is emphasises rights at the expense of obligations, and the concentration on the individual at the expense of their community, and I use the word community as opposed to "state" deliberately. What matters to me is the common good of the community and strength of its institutions, possibly a rather asian view, but that should not be a surprise give how my life has gone
See: Responsive communitarianism.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-38596584
Watching the news, I'll sometimes turn to Wor Lass and ask "So what is the view of the Asian Community on this?" Clearly, the joke has worn a bit thin after the 200th time.
Whole thing makes a mockery of when some one is actually beaten up just cos they are black, white, Jew, Muslim etc.
Anyway there aren't 19 other events that can reasonably be put in the same bag in this context as the Brexit referendum or the US election.
Polls don't have a "natural" margin of error. Has someone analysed how pollsters have performed not simply relative to their predicted outcomes but relative to their stated margins of error? That would be interesting. There was one academic expert who on the night of the 2015 general election was assessing the probability of some other result than a hung parliament at something like 1 in 3.4 million. I don't remember the exact figure, but it was huge and I think he may have stated it to 2 significant figures. This wasn't the kind of mistake that a competent person makes from time to time. What happened shows clearly that the guy's methods were total rubbish.
As an aside, what's with the necklace in the photo in the article linked to?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/shep-smith-defends-cnn-russia-report-2017-1
Betfair odds are considerably higher than the odds they have been offering recently and SOMEBODY has been consistently betting fairly large amounts to keep Le Pen's price on Betfair down to an unrealistically low level.
I think trackside bookies at the nags do this however !
I actually agree with you re the community. Funnily enough, I think May talked about community a lot in her NYE message - and I liked that even though I've gone off her more recently.
I think it's also true that left/right divide has become less sharp in the last few decades or so. In this country on matters such as sexuality, and women's rights there seems to be a consensus. Social conservatism in this country seems to be nowhere near as divisive as it is in America. I'm on the centre-left but even I can appreciate the stability that family/marriage etc brings to society, although I believe that only people who really want children and are committed to family life should actually start a family. If they can't then it's better to be just married/single/cohabiting. Social conservatism in this country also isn't obsessed with abortion and it isn't about trying to tell people how to live their lives.
I wouldn't even say there's an economic divide because it appears that on the economy the left has literally run out of ideas anyway.
I was watching Newsnight a few weeks ago, and they were saying they think the big divide is internationalist and isolationist. Looking at Trump, and Brexit and now the upcoming elections across Europe I'm inclined to think that.
@Sean_F I think it's true that of the young people who are politically engaged, a lot of them are to left. But I think that's the thing: most young people aren't politically engaged.
First Rhodes must fall, now this, it is snowflake central.
Therefore, nationality is irrelevant within communities on the basis that it's impossible to know all your neighbours anyway, so they may as well be anyone from anywhere in the world.
And with that, I must be off.
I didn't know if to laugh or cry.
"the big divide is internationalist and isolationist"
The Leavers are internationalist, so that makes the Remainers isolationist...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/12/scottish-government-rejects-press-clampdown-section-40-law/
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/
Because Oxford takes a wider range of people in the first place. There will always be a few outliers.
Better to be interesting than conforming.
BBC Archive
#OTD 1972: Nationwide investigated a set of council garages with a rather obvious design flaw https://t.co/5PxtfYpd2n
I also agree that a lot of the current discourse does indeed make a mockery of when real people really are beaten up, or their lives are otherwise made a misery, by racist thugs.
A fair chunk of Leavers, probably including most of "ethnic" leavers wanted a level playing field between EU and non-EU immigrants, which would be selected on the basis of utility to the country rather than country of birth. I am a white male British citizen (yes, I am sorry) with strong ties in the poorer parts of Asia, and I fit in this category. I know lots of very able people who would be of great benefit to the UK, but cant get a visa because the application costs are too high and the chances of being granted are too low to risk it, whereas their, say, Bulgarian equivalent just walks across the border. A lot of the left call themselves internationalists, but really mean fellowship with the bits of Europe that are culturally and economically similar to the UK, and have no real answer about the wider world, except for the open borders idiots.
Publishing within the UK and being protected by Scots law will likely make Section40 a laughing stock.
As it should be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1I9z9U4cus
Unless your Corbyn, then you're just batshit crazy no matter what.
But I agree, they are big enough to take the risk and Shadsy has his head screwed on.