Not The Politics Thread.

[Facecloth]

Just now, Strokes said:

Was Keith banned then? I don’t recall the memo.

I’m pretty sure Jeff adds polls from different sources, not just Yougov. Also Yougov’s accuracy has been quite good for a number of years, it might not be wise to accuse them of deliberately manipulating figures based on nothing but who their founder is. Do you have any more evidence?

Of course it wasn't banned, but I'm just pointing out he's still making the same idiotic joke that he still can't explain why he finds it so funny (because it's not, but then simple things please simple minds I guess).

 

I'm pretty sure he doesn't but I'm not searching through old posts. I offered an opinion that it might be biased, if you don't agree that's fine, but historical yougov polls weren't taken during a time when the Tory PM was accused of various misdemeanors. I simply pointing out it might be in the tories best interests to show a healthy lead, public support means they can point to the polls and say people don't care when challenged about the allegations so stop pushing for answers.

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Of course it wasn't banned, but I'm just pointing out he's still making the same idiotic joke that he still can't explain why he finds it so funny (because it's not, but then simple things please simple minds I guess).

 

I'm pretty sure he doesn't but I'm not searching through old posts. I offered an opinion that it might be biased, if you don't agree that's fine, but historical yougov polls weren't taken during a time when the Tory PM was accused of various misdemeanors. I simply pointing out it might be in the tories best interests to show a healthy lead, public support means they can point to the polls and say people don't care when challenged about the allegations so stop pushing for answers.

I think it’s massive stretch that a respected company would stake their whole reputation and probably future to help out a party, that probably doesn’t need it.

 

Ive checked, yes he does link more than Yougov.

[Facecloth]

Just now, Strokes said:

I think it’s massive stretch that a respected company would stake their whole reputation and probably future to help out a party, that probably doesn’t need it.

 

Ive checked, yes he does link more than Yougov.

Considering how many have been posted I'm not buying you checked them, that was far too quick.

 

As for the first part, we're years away from an general election, these polls will have nothing to back them up, so they risk nothing by bumping up the numbers to take the heat off the PM.

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Considering how many have been posted I'm not buying you checked them, that was far too quick.

 

As for the first part, we're years away from an general election, these polls will have nothing to back them up, so they risk nothing by bumping up the numbers to take the heat off the PM.

Page 82 of the old politics thread, one by survation one by comres.

whether you have it or not isn’t really important.

[Facecloth]

Just now, Strokes said:

Page 82 of the old politics thread, one by survation one by comres.

whether you have it or not isn’t really important.

So one of each from someone else? WOW!

 

Whether I have what? Sorry, the last sentence makes no sense.

[Strokes]

Just now, Facecloth said:

So one of each from someone else? WOW!

 

Whether I have what? Sorry, the last sentence makes no sense.

I only checked one page, I only needed too. How many are you claiming he linked from Yougov as I found zero on the page I checked?

 

[Facecloth]

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I only checked one page, I only needed too. How many are you claiming he linked from Yougov as I found zero on the page I checked?

 

Actually I don't know why I'm arguing with you about that, I never said he only post yougov, just that there might be bias in yougov polls. Other polls show it much closers right now, yougov shows a huge lead. 

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

Actually I don't know why I'm arguing with you about that, I never said he only post yougov, just that there might be bias in yougov polls. Other polls show it much closers right now, yougov shows a huge lead. 

Can you link the other polls? I can only see the survation one that contradicts the Yougov poll.

Here is a poll tracker which is a combination poll.

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

10 hours ago, Facecloth said:

I didn't know this until today, do you know who founded YouGov? Nadhim Zahawi, and he still has a stake in it. I wonder why a tory founded, tory owned pollster might want to show the tories with a healthy lead. I think in future we should avoid YouGov and look a less biased polls when you feel the need to share your poll fetish.

"The polls are biased" is one of the dumbest crank memes I see on twitter, it instantly shows someone who isn't serious. Is there anything in YouGovs methodology that makes their findings biased or incorrect in favour of one party? Probably not, otherwise the Sunday Times wouldn't keep commissioning them.

Edited 2 May 2021 by Sharpe's Fox

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

"The polls are biased" is one of the dumbest crank memes I see on twitter, it instantly shows someone who isn't serious. Is there anything in YouGovs methodology that makes their findings biased or incorrect? Probably not, otherwise the Sunday Times wouldn't keep commissioning them.

It’s pretty clear Keith just doesn’t resonate with Joe public. I’m not sure why, maybe he needs more time? What do you think?

[Facecloth]

And that, ladies and gentleman is how a poll can create discussion, if you add something. If there's a big change or some "information" that questions it. I found the thing about Nazawi and saw the opportunity to post about it to prove a point, and engaged a little to carry on the discussion. Posting an barely changed poll every day does not create discussion. 

 

I thank you.

[Strokes]

19 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

And that, ladies and gentleman is how a poll can create discussion, if you add something. If there's a big change or some "information" that questions it. I found the thing about Nazawi and saw the opportunity to post about it to prove a point, and engaged a little to carry on the discussion. Posting an barely changed poll every day does not create discussion. 

 

I thank you.

I’m just glad we all agree that polls are important, how else would we know if we are in an echo chamber or not?

Thankfully Jeff keeps us all regularly informed, otherwise this place might seem representative of the wider public.

[Facecloth]

Just now, Strokes said:

I’m just glad we all agree that polls are important, how else would we know if we are in an echo chamber or not?

Thankfully Jeff keeps us all regularly informed, otherwise this place might seem representative of the wider public.

Polls are important if they offer a discussion point. I created one out of that, otherwise its just a meaningless poll that offers nothing.

[Strokes]

.

 

Edited 2 May 2021 by Strokes
I’m trolling, I don’t want to get another thread pulled.

[Sharpe's Fox]

52 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It’s pretty clear Keith just doesn’t resonate with Joe public. I’m not sure why, maybe he needs more time? What do you think?

I've said this before but Starmer is someone is apolitical. That's not the same being a 'centrist' in the style of Blair. Blair had clear principles with a solid political project and although I would disagree with it it's clear he had it. Starmer is someone who lacks a political project, lacks convictions to act upon, lacks political allies to back him up or anything that means he can offer anything transactional to anyone. Starmer often talks about "values" but declines to say what they actually are. That says a lot

 

I think when even you don't know what you want or what you are for its difficult to convince people that you are acting in their interests. I'd go further and say he comes across as slimy and opportunist but that's my opinion. 

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

I've said this before but Starmer is someone is apolitical. That's not the same being a 'centrist' in the style of Blair. Blair had clear principles with a solid political project and although I would disagree with it it's clear he had it. Starmer is someone who lacks a political project, lacks convictions to act upon, lacks political allies to back him up or anything that means he can offer anything transactional to anyone. Starmer often talks about "values" but declines to say what they actually are. That says a lot

 

I think when even you don't know what you want or what you are for its difficult to convince people that you are acting in their interests. I'd go further and say he comes across as slimy and opportunist but that's my opinion. 

good post 

I would consider voting for him but your points about his politics and character are well made.  So we go from one opportunist to another ?

 

as it happens, starmer strikes me as being someone I could trust with their hand on the tiller - that they could occupy the middle ground and not be pushed left or right ...... maybe their politics aren’t actually that important .......but I will be watching over the next couple years to see if he is someone who repeatedly can’t keep a reasonable position over a period of time because that’s not what a leader requires .....

[Strokes]

9 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

I've said this before but Starmer is someone is apolitical. That's not the same being a 'centrist' in the style of Blair. Blair had clear principles with a solid political project and although I would disagree with it it's clear he had it. Starmer is someone who lacks a political project, lacks convictions to act upon, lacks political allies to back him up or anything that means he can offer anything transactional to anyone. Starmer often talks about "values" but declines to say what they actually are. That says a lot

 

I think when even you don't know what you want or what you are for its difficult to convince people that you are acting in their interests. I'd go further and say he comes across as slimy and opportunist but that's my opinion. 

Yeah I guess I can understand your line of thinking, it is quite difficult to understand what he stands for or even believes. 

[Sharpe's Fox]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

good post 

I would consider voting for him but your points about his politics and character are well made.  So we go from one opportunist to another ?

 

as it happens, starmer strikes me as being someone I could trust with their hand on the tiller - that they could occupy the middle ground and not be pushed left or right ...... maybe their politics aren’t actually that important .......but I will be watching over the next couple years to see if he is someone who repeatedly can’t keep a reasonable position over a period of time because that’s not what a leader requires .....

Yep. I think there will be people out there who finds someone obviously as professional as Starmer, someone who has led a big public institution,  and who doesn't change much appealing. I'd argue in an age of populism with huge challenges in the 21st century that slice of the electorate won't be enough to win, though.

[Dunge]

What Starmer’s doing reminds me of Cameron when he first got the leadership of the Conservatives. He had a mission to change them from what they were before - in Cameron’s case to “modernise” his party, in Starmer’s case to make them “electable to the masses”, but in both cases a change from what came before without any specific, nailed down description of what that meant.

 

Like Cameron, Starmer doesn’t yet have an idea or policy that you can hang your hat on and say “that’s Starmer-esque” or “that’s Keir-nomics” or any other phrase like that. For Cameron, I always thought it was a deliberate tactic: Present to the public that you’re not like that unpopular thing that went before, but only reveal what you actually are when an election approaches or an opportunity presents itself. Essentially, take the time now to clear the canvas so that you can paint something timely at the key moment.

 

Whether that will work is another matter. There’s no doubt that the economic crisis helped Cameron’s cause, but even then he couldn’t get an outright majority. And we never really got much out of him other than “don’t worry, we’ll fix the crisis for you” and some guff about the Big Society, which sounded nice as a title but never got any details. 

 

So all in all, I think @Sharpe's Fox is right when he’s talking about Starmer being apolitical, but it strikes me that that may be part of a longer-term plan. He would have to nail down some specific policies and declare what he stands for at some point, particularly if not helped out by an external event that collapses the Tories, but right now it could well be strategic to make sure he doesn’t collect unnecessary baggage.

 

...although, on the other hand, maybe he simply understands that British people don’t like being preached to?

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, Facecloth said:

Of course it wasn't banned, but I'm just pointing out he's still making the same idiotic joke that he still can't explain why he finds it so funny (because it's not, but then simple things please simple minds I guess).

 

I'm pretty sure he doesn't but I'm not searching through old posts. I offered an opinion that it might be biased, if you don't agree that's fine, but historical yougov polls weren't taken during a time when the Tory PM was accused of various misdemeanors. I simply pointing out it might be in the tories best interests to show a healthy lead, public support means they can point to the polls and say people don't care when challenged about the allegations so stop pushing for answers.

 

I hadn't seen his idiotic joke about Kieth for ages.....until you made your idiotic post about biased polls.

 

He might not have explained the joke, but I did (before the previous thread was shut). What makes the joke funny to him is that it winds certain people up. Of course, the "joke" only remains funny so long as there is some idiot who is willing to be wound up. Fortunately, you always seem to be willing to fill that role for him, so it's worth his while repeating it. He also knows that refusing to explain the joke will wind you up even more - so that makes it even funnier for him, even if it risks ruining the thread for others.

 

As pointed out by @Sharpe's Fox (certainly not a Tory, more like an SWP or Socialist Party member/sympathiser, at a guess) and @Strokes, no polling company wanting to stay in business would deliberately produce biased polls, regardless of their ownership as their financial viability relies on their polls being commissioned by media outlets - for which they must be credible. Polls may get things wrong, make sampling errors etc. But that won't be deliberate. If anything, polls in recent decades have tended to overstate Labour support and understate Tory support ("shy Tory syndrome" etc.) - 2017 being an exception. This was even true of polls done by Michael Ashcroft, the ex-Tory Chairman.

 

Maybe Thursday's results will be better for Labour than the polls suggest, due to sleaze cutting through a bit - or maybe they'll be even better than expected for the Tories. But it's reasonable to assume that an average of recent polls (not one specific poll) will give an accurate snapshot of current voting intentions. And overall, polls by multiple pollsters (and yes, @UpTheLeagueFoxdoes post from different pollsters) suggest the results could be poor for Labour. That has little relevance to what might happen in a general election in 2-3 years as these elections are being held at a particularly good time for the Tories and an awful lot could happen in 2-3 years.....but there's no point making spurious accusations of bias so as to deny current realities.

[Facecloth]

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I hadn't seen his idiotic joke about Kieth for ages.....until you made your idiotic post about biased polls.

 

He might not have explained the joke, but I did (before the previous thread was shut). What makes the joke funny to him is that it winds certain people up. Of course, the "joke" only remains funny so long as there is some idiot who is willing to be wound up. Fortunately, you always seem to be willing to fill that role for him, so it's worth his while repeating it. He also knows that refusing to explain the joke will wind you up even more - so that makes it even funnier for him, even if it risks ruining the thread for others.

 

As pointed out by @Sharpe's Fox (certainly not a Tory, more like an SWP or Socialist Party member/sympathiser, at a guess) and @Strokes, no polling company wanting to stay in business would deliberately produce biased polls, regardless of their ownership as their financial viability relies on their polls being commissioned by media outlets - for which they must be credible. Polls may get things wrong, make sampling errors etc. But that won't be deliberate. If anything, polls in recent decades have tended to overstate Labour support and understate Tory support ("shy Tory syndrome" etc.) - 2017 being an exception. This was even true of polls done by Michael Ashcroft, the ex-Tory Chairman.

 

Maybe Thursday's results will be better for Labour than the polls suggest, due to sleaze cutting through a bit - or maybe they'll be even better than expected for the Tories. But it's reasonable to assume that an average of recent polls (not one specific poll) will give an accurate snapshot of current voting intentions. And overall, polls by multiple pollsters (and yes, @UpTheLeagueFoxdoes post from different pollsters) suggest the results could be poor for Labour. That has little relevance to what might happen in a general election in 2-3 years as these elections are being held at a particularly good time for the Tories and an awful lot could happen in 2-3 years.....but there's no point making spurious accusations of bias so as to deny current realities.

Tbf Alf I explained why I posted about the post being biased, I know full well its not. I know I'm seen as argumentative, and I had to keep my persona whilst engaging in the "discussion".

 

3 hours ago, Facecloth said:

And that, ladies and gentleman is how a poll can create discussion, if you add something. If there's a big change or some "information" that questions it. I found the thing about Nazawi and saw the opportunity to post about it to prove a point, and engaged a little to carry on the discussion. Posting an barely changed poll every day does not create discussion. 

 

I thank you.

 

Edited 2 May 2021 by Facecloth

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

What Starmer’s doing reminds me of Cameron when he first got the leadership of the Conservatives. He had a mission to change them from what they were before - in Cameron’s case to “modernise” his party, in Starmer’s case to make them “electable to the masses”, but in both cases a change from what came before without any specific, nailed down description of what that meant.

 

Like Cameron, Starmer doesn’t yet have an idea or policy that you can hang your hat on and say “that’s Starmer-esque” or “that’s Keir-nomics” or any other phrase like that. For Cameron, I always thought it was a deliberate tactic: Present to the public that you’re not like that unpopular thing that went before, but only reveal what you actually are when an election approaches or an opportunity presents itself. Essentially, take the time now to clear the canvas so that you can paint something timely at the key moment.

 

Whether that will work is another matter. There’s no doubt that the economic crisis helped Cameron’s cause, but even then he couldn’t get an outright majority. And we never really got much out of him other than “don’t worry, we’ll fix the crisis for you” and some guff about the Big Society, which sounded nice as a title but never got any details. 

 

So all in all, I think @Sharpe's Fox is right when he’s talking about Starmer being apolitical, but it strikes me that that may be part of a longer-term plan. He would have to nail down some specific policies and declare what he stands for at some point, particularly if not helped out by an external event that collapses the Tories, but right now it could well be strategic to make sure he doesn’t collect unnecessary baggage.

 

...although, on the other hand, maybe he simply understands that British people don’t like being preached to?

 

I strongly agree with most of this. I'm sure that Starmer is adopting a long-term strategic approach. Phase 1 of that is to make it clear that the party is now "under new management" (they even use that phrase) and is a credible, responsible opposition, holding the Govt to account when necessary, but supporting them when appropriate as we've been living through a national & international crisis.....a somewhat extreme comparison, admittedly, but Attlee didn't constantly criticise Churchill during WW2, he made the case for a different Labour vision when the time was right.

 

As I've said before, this is also an almost impossible moment for any opposition. The approach I've just described was working well, the polls suggested, until the Govt started getting credit for a successful vaccination programme (as opposed to discredit for a shambolic 2020 Covid response) and folk started feeling optimistic about lockdown soon coming to an end, life returning to semi-normal etc. Some criticise Starmer for not opposing the Govt more or for not presenting more of an alternative Labour vision before now - but I honestly don't think either would have worked while Covid & lockdown were the main focus. He'd have risked cynicism about "playing politics" or risked visionary ideas being ignored as irrelevant to the crisis in hand.

 

I don't buy @Sharpe's Fox's idea that Starmer is apolitical - though I'm sure he won't be as far to the Left as Sharpe's would like. If Covid does fade into the background somewhat, I guess we'll find out whether he's apolitical over the next year or so. Because unless the crisis continues at the horrendous levels of the past year, he'll need to start presenting a few visionary ideas and winning voters over so that they are no longer unclear what he stands for. I also agree with Sharpe's that some of those visionary ideas need to be quite radical as the post-Covid recovery period will be a time for presenting more radical ideas - so long as they're not totally lacking in credibility. 

[Alf Bentley]

10 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Tbf Alf I explained why I posted about the post being biased, I know full well its not. I know I'm seen as argumentative, and I had to keep my persona whilst engaging in the "discussion".

 

 

 

Nothing wrong with being argumentative. I'm one of the most argumentative twats out there.

 

But there's argument or discussion on substance, which is worthwhile - and argument or discussion about bullshit, which I think is what resulted from your "biased polls" post. 

 

Anyway, there are much more important things in life. The sun is out, summer is coming, lockdown is ending (probably), LCFC are getting ever closer to a CL place, not to mention the FAC final, we're all alive, the world is beautiful and there are multiple ways to have fun in life. 

 

Also, though Thursday's election results are likely to be good for the Tories, they'll have more than enough rope to hang themselves by 2023-2024.

The results of an exclusive, impeccably unbiased AlfGov poll are just in: Chances of Bojo being PM in 2024: 1%; Chances of a Tory majority in 2024: 2%. 

[Facecloth]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Nothing wrong with being argumentative. I'm one of the most argumentative twats out there.

 

But there's argument or discussion on substance, which is worthwhile - and argument or discussion about bullshit, which I think is what resulted from your "biased polls" post. 

 

Anyway, there are much more important things in life. The sun is out, summer is coming, lockdown is ending (probably), LCFC are getting ever closer to a CL place, not to mention the FAC final, we're all alive, the world is beautiful and there are multiple ways to have fun in life. 

 

Also, though Thursday's election results are likely to be good for the Tories, they'll have more than enough rope to hang themselves by 2023-2024.

The results of an exclusive, impeccably unbiased AlfGov poll are just in: Chances of Bojo being PM in 2024: 1%; Chances of a Tory majority in 2024: 2%. 

I think you're misunderstanding my intention, it was to prove a point. I engineered the discussion, to prove that polls are only discussion worthy when they is something to discuss, such as major swing, or some "information" about the poll, otherwise its just a bunch of numbers. Might have been a tad unfair on the the people who joined in making them think there was something real to discuss, but they were the ones I knew would engage and who I wanted to make the point to.

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I think you're misunderstanding my intention, it was to prove a point. I engineered the discussion, to prove that polls are only discussion worthy when they is something to discuss, such as major swing, or some "information" about the poll, otherwise its just a bunch of numbers. Might have been a tad unfair on the the people who joined in making them think there was something real to discuss, but they were the ones I knew would engage and who I wanted to make the point to.

No change in the polls in volatile political times is quite noteworthy too, it’s just that you are either incapable or refuse to understand it.