Boris is Boss

[Spud1]

The Lib Dems essentially betrayed their entire base the second they had a sniff of power as part of the coalition, and should have faded in to obscurity, but are at it again with their Remain BS.

I have to pick up on this - this is just not true. The LD had a manifesto commitment regarding tuition fees *if they won an election*. They didn't, they formed a coalition government with the conservatives. That means compromise, especially given they were the minority party. No lies, no "betrayal" - simply common sense. Not to mention the whole idea of free tutition fees at university is just a stupid idea anyway when we need to *reduce* the number of people going to university, an encourage more practical routers to further education. They are already free at point of use and paid for through taxation (call it a student loan if you want, but its not a loan at all - its a tax)

@saracen, I am on a tablet so not going to find the buttons to quote you but yes, defining "major" parties is a tricky one and you can look at it in different ways. I should really have included Plaid in my list too if including the SNP.

In what sense are the SNP a UK party? Well, scotland is part of the UK, so they are every bit a UK party as Plaid, or the tories or the LD etc...

I also disagree that this is/was/should be a debate between two potential prime ministers - thats a thin argument that falls down quickly imo..we don't vote for prime ministers, we vote for parties and policies. In this election specifically its even more complex given that this is really a Brexit election and nothing more, which to his credit, Bojo at least appears to admit. Corbyn can't and keeps clinging on to this ideal that he can get elected whilst sorting brexit later (whilst also not telling anyone what his or his parties view on brexit is)

At the very least, they should have included a 3rd point of view on this and they didn't, which means the program was effectively just for brexiteers...half of the population's view on brexit was simply not represented - and to me that is wrong given how important that particular issue is.

[Saracen999]

I have to pick up on this - this is just not true. The LD had a manifesto commitment regarding tuition fees *if they won an election*. They didn't, they formed a coalition government with the conservatives. That means compromise, especially given they were the minority party. No lies, no "betrayal" - simply common sense. Not to mention the whole idea of free tutition fees at university is just a stupid idea anyway when we need to *reduce* the number of people going to university, an encourage more practical routers to further education. They are already free at point of use and paid for through taxation (call it a student loan if you want, but its not a loan at all - its a tax)

....

That is just buying into LibDem revisionism.

The LibDems had a decade-long history of opposing rises is tuition fees, and s conference (General Policy zcommittee, IIRC) commitment to do so. The LD's also assuduously courted the student vote, loudly, publicly, repeatedly and, in my opinion, rather pompously and self-righteously, culminatory in most of their MPs, and from memory all or virtually all the senior ones, signing that infamous pledge that they'd worked out with the NUS, in returning for the NUS recomendjng any student with a vote in a constituency with a pledge-signer to vote for him/her on that basis.

And in case anyone's forgotten (perish the very notion of that thought) what the pledge said, it was

“I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.”

Note the phraseology .... "vote against", and "in the next Parliament".

Finally "to pressure the government".

This categorically was not in anticipation of "winning an election". If (by some miracle) they'd done that, they could hardly "pressure" the next government because they'd be that government. Are we supposed to think all that hoo-haa and pledge publucity was a pledge to pressure themselves? Not hardly.

Also, nothing in that pledge said anything about being in a coalition was an exception.
On the contrary, in a cialition they were in a perfect position to pressure the government because, without their on-going support, Cameron's government was likely to fall.

Instead, and senior LibDems have confirmed this, they regarded the package being proposed on tuition fees as broadly fair, given that is scrapped paying up-front and implemented what was effectively a pay-in-arrears tuitikn tax, with clauses that the lowest would pay nothing, and that a large chunk of ex-students woukd never repay in full, or in most cases, near to it.

The irony is, they decided their Tory-limiting political capital was better expended elsewhere, and I happen to agree.

The downside was tgat they had to betray that pledge, and u-turn on a policy that had been core to their platfirm for a decade or so, since Blair/Brkwn dud much the same.

The result is they promised, very loudly, to do one thing and, having got bums on ministerial seats, did the exact opposite on this.

[Saracen999]

...

In what sense are the SNP a UK party? Well, scotland is part of the UK, so they are every bit a UK party as Plaid, or the tories or the LD etc...

As I said in that post ...

For the SNP, in what sense is it a UK party? That it's a party and in part of the UK?

That's why I mentioned, somewhat dismissively, the Monster Raving Loonies.

If, by that rationale, any party operating in part of the UK qualifies, then all I have to do is get a few mates together, go through the party-forming procedures, pay our £500/per head and the Saracen for Galactic Overlord Party (SGO) can expect a seat (or lectern, to stand at) at the Leader's debate, along BoJo, Corbyn, and what woukd probably end up as dozens of others once it got out that all it'd cost you was a few grand,

"A party in the UK" doesn't cut it for a leader's debate .... or I, as the founder/leader of the SGO want my place too.

So, leader of what? Or potential leader of what?

Leader of one of the parties that might actually run the country, perhaps. There is zero chance that will be "leaders" of the SNP or Plaid. Mathematically, perhaps a slightly higher chance for the Monsters, if they stand in enough seats. But neither the SNP nor Plaid do.

LibDems, argubably, yeah. Greens .... perhaps but I've no idea how many seats they actually contest, but it's usually quite a few.

Of course, the SNP could stand in most of the 610-ish seats that they don't contest and then, at least theoretically, they could take Downing Street. Good luck with that, Nicola.

In my opinion, being a party that exists in the UK doesn't equate to being a UK party, in the general meaning of that phrase, unless you stand, briadly speaking, more or less right across the UK. Not every seat necessarily, but at least the bulk of them. But then, it's just an opinion.

But who takes part in an ITV (*) (or commercial channel's) "Leader's debate" is a matter for the broadcasting policy of that broadcaster.

Broadcasters are required to abide by electoral laws about giving fair coverage but contrary to common perceptions, that applies overall, not on a program-by-program basis. The BBC are not, for instance, required to have a Labour person (or LD, etc) just because they've got a Tory. Most politics programs do do that, because it makes for better TV, but not because they're required to. The requirement is to, overall, give fair coverage, in both time and prominence. And they csn be challenged on that, after the fact, by OfCom, and woukd have to justify wgat they did and how they did it.


(*) Unless the broadcast by ITV was as part of it's mandated publuc service requirement, which it isn't.

I also disagree that this is/was/should be a debate between two potential prime ministers - thats a thin argument that falls down quickly imo..we don't vote for prime ministers, we vote for parties and policies. In this election specifically its even more complex given that this is really a Brexit election and nothing more, which to his credit, Bojo at least appears to admit. Corbyn can't and keeps clinging on to this ideal that he can get elected whilst sorting brexit later (whilst also not telling anyone what his or his parties view on brexit is)

At the very least, they should have included a 3rd point of view on this and they didn't, which means the program was effectively just for brexiteers...half of the population's view on brexit was simply not represented - and to me that is wrong given how important that particular issue is.

[TooNice]

Ummm ..... no.

Statistically, that simply isn't true, bekueve it or not, but in terms of polls it's much more complicated that simple sampling.

[...]

Which brings me to the end, and a favoured quote, usually but not exclusively attributed to Disraeli ..... Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

Well, thanks for taking the time of typing it all out.

Seeing sample size being criticised on the sole basis that it is a fraction of the population is a pet peeve of mine even though I can see why it might not be immediately obvious given that there is really no concise way of thoroughly explaining it. But the explanation is also widely available with a quick Google.

Obviously, as you've noted, and as probably obvious from everyone's experience, survey can get it wrong. This may well be down to issues with the sampling methodology (as with the case of using phones for polling when only certain demographic are likely to have them) and I will not dispute that. Though it also mean a sample of 5000 that is appropriately picked can end up giving more accurate result that a much larger sample that was not as rigorously decided.

And sure enough it would not be hard through questionable methodology to draws lies using statistics. Which is why the source of the survey matter (a survey conducted, and most likely viewed by Daily Mail reader will likely be very different from one conducted by Guardian reader, not because they are not applying the statistic properly but because they are drawing different, and biased demographics). As far as I know though, YouGov is non-partisan, and while this doesn't exempt it from making mistakes, I would consider reasonable to assume that they aren't intentionally trying to deceive (which is what I would consider a lie).

[Smudger]

Well, thanks for taking the time of typing it all out.

Seeing sample size being criticised on the sole basis that it is a fraction of the population is a pet peeve of mine even though I can see why it might not be immediately obvious given that there is really no concise way of thoroughly explaining it. But the explanation is also widely available with a quick Google.

Obviously, as you've noted, and as probably obvious from everyone's experience, survey can get it wrong. This may well be down to issues with the sampling methodology (as with the case of using phones for polling when only certain demographic are likely to have them) and I will not dispute that. Though it also mean a sample of 5000 that is appropriately picked can end up giving more accurate result that a much larger sample that was not as rigorously decided.

And sure enough it would not be hard through questionable methodology to draws lies using statistics. Which is why the source of the survey matter (a survey conducted, and most likely viewed by Daily Mail reader will likely be very different from one conducted by Guardian reader, not because they are not applying the statistic properly but because they are drawing different, and biased demographics). As far as I know though, YouGov is non-partisan, and while this doesn't exempt it from making mistakes, I would consider reasonable to assume that they aren't intentionally trying to deceive (which is what I would consider a lie).

From Wikipedia:

YouGov was founded in the UK in May 2000 by Stephan Shakespeare and future MP Nadhim Zahawi, at the time both active in the British Conservative Party. In 2001 they engaged BBC political analyst Peter Kellner, who became chairman, and then from 2007–2016, President.[3][4]

Not strictly non-partisan...

[TooNice]

From Wikipedia:



Not strictly non-partisan...

Isn’t YouGov run by Conservatives / Labour supporters?
Inevitably the political team is made up of people who are interested in politics, but they represent a wide range of political views – both to the left and the right. More widely, other people within the organisation also sometimes have political backgrounds. For example Stephan Shakespeare, the CEO, is a former Conservative candidate, while Peter Kellner, the former company President, and Marcus Roberts, YouGov’s International Projects Director, have both been significant figures in the Labour party for many years. As a commercial research company our job is to accurately, independently and objectively measure and report the views and opinions of the public at large.

So, they've had CEO and former president from the two major opposing parties. I would argue that doesn't prove the organisation is prejudiced towards a particular party. Can you demonstrate it from the work they've done?

[Top_gun]

My bad, you're spot on with that, I miss read that. Utterly We can wipe that one out for a start.
Yes please, if you can re educate me on this it would be helpful - thank you


The stats pages are as follows:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...-britain-voted

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne...Reweighted.pdf

Unsurprisingly, the Brexiters are unable to supply evidence that all of their voters were highly intellectual and non racist.

Still, they can only argue about methodolog at time countless stats have shown the link between low educational attainment and Brexit vote.

[DanceswithUnix]

low educational attainment and Brexit vote.

Thanks, that YouGov survey is interesting. In the 18-24 age group that voted remain, assuming people get their degree at the age of 21, half of those people are too young to have a degree and of the remaining half will have a degree. OFC half of those in the young age group will end up with a degree at some point, but at that point they didn't have one.

The next age group up, where you would expect half of the people to have a degree, is split pretty much down the middle in voting.

In the oldest age group where only 5% of people went on to get a degree (because that was normal at the time), they voted leave.

So that just reinforces the view that mostly old people bothered to vote. I'm still convinced that if it had been a sunny day (it was raining quite hard here) then more young people would have voted and we would have had a remain result.

None of that helps me choose which box sends the least hopeless idiot into number 10 though, and the hours are ticking down to my voting time.

[Saracen999]

Unsurprisingly, the Brexiters are unable to supply evidence that all of their voters were highly intellectual and non racist.

Still, they can only argue about methodolog at time countless stats have shown the link between low educational attainment and Brexit vote.

Why the hell should Brexit supporters dignify such obnoxious and offensive allegations with an answer at all.

It's typical third-rate debate tactics - play be person not the subject, stick up some straw man cobblers and try to get people on the defensive, and for decades the classic move is to immediately call people racist ..... because it is so obnoxious.

And another thing. It's often said that Leavers tend to be quite a bit older. So when considering "educational achievement", bear in mind that in my day, about 4% got to go to uni, and now it's closer to 50%. That doesn't mean young people now are any brighter, it just means that vastly more get the chance of educational attainment.

It is, by definition, built-in that if you measure educational achievement by age, it is much higher now. Instead of sneering at older people, maybe you ought to be glad you've had it so much better .... from the fruits of their efforts to make it so.

And yes, this is another example of why simple statistics are dangerous if taken at face value with looking at the background. But acter all, why bother with methodology when it's so much easier to just take surface appearances.

[Top_gun]

Typical Brexiter gamemanship:

- lacking in facts
- lacking in evidence (just exactly where are the surveys that says all Brexit voters were super intelligent?)
- crocodile tears to gain discourse advantage
- down playing the remain argument

@DancesWithLinux

I do recall the BBC crossing checking Census data with Brexit areas which pointed out a link with low educational attainment areas.

[Ttaskmaster]

I do recall the BBC crossing checking Census data with Brexit areas which pointed out a link with low educational attainment areas.

Plenty of studies also substantiate the idea that being an educated smartypants does not in any way mean you would know your anus from your elbow, when it actually mattered... even the medically trained ones.

Both sides have their share of absolute idiots. Both played the game the same way.

[Spud1]

@Saracen - i'm late to reply to your comments above, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on it, I certainly understand your perspective.

I'm now looking forward to a night of watching newsreaders try and talk about nothing for several hours, its usually quite fun when you have a few friends over we all have the day off tomorrow so will stay up for the duration I think...

And you know what, tonight I suspect we're both hoping for the same thing. I may despise the very idea of Brexit, and would love the Lib Dems to win..but I am not stupid enough to believe they stand a chance. What I do hope, more than pretty much anything else today, is that Corbyn does not make it in to power. However much damage I believe Brexit could do to our economy, country and planet - it's nothing compared to the negative effects of a Corbyn led labour government.

I may not have voted for them, but I really, really want the conservatives to win tonight (ideally by a *very* slim majority, just enough to leave Brexit not happening as a possibility...and thats where we diverge again ). God help us all if Corbyn gets in.

[Top_gun]

@Saracen - i'm late to reply to your comments above, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on it, I certainly understand your perspective.

I'm now looking forward to a night of watching newsreaders try and talk about nothing for several hours, its usually quite fun when you have a few friends over we all have the day off tomorrow so will stay up for the duration I think...

And you know what, tonight I suspect we're both hoping for the same thing. I may despise the very idea of Brexit, and would love the Lib Dems to win..but I am not stupid enough to believe they stand a chance. What I do hope, more than pretty much anything else today, is that Corbyn does not make it in to power. However much damage I believe Brexit could do to our economy, country and planet - it's nothing compared to the negative effects of a Corbyn led labour government.

I may not have voted for them, but I really, really want the conservatives to win tonight (ideally by a *very* slim majority, just enough to leave Brexit not happening as a possibility...and thats where we diverge again ). God help us all if Corbyn gets in.

The reality most people have no understanding on Labour's economic policies or a basic understanding of economics. What we see here is people believing the Tory smears from their friends in the media.

[spacein_vader]

The reality most people have no understanding on Labour's economic policies or a basic understanding of economics. What we see here is people believing the Tory smears from their friends in the media.

What we see here (assuming the exit poll is even vaguely accurate,) is an emphatic rejection of Labours current leadership and policies. Hopefully their new leader will tack back towards the centre-left. Corbyn has done worse than Foot, they need a new Blair to save them from themselves.

[Top_gun]

What we see here (assuming the exit poll is even vaguely accurate,) is an emphatic rejection of Labours current leadership and policies. Hopefully their new leader will tack back towards the centre-left. Corbyn has done worse than Foot, they need a new Blair to save them from themselves.

The rejection of Corbyn in marginal seats outside London has no bearing to me. Why? Do the constituents have the same sophistication as us Londoners? They merely isolated people under the influence of the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph newspapers.

[Spud1]

The rejection of Corbyn in marginal seats outside London has no bearing to me. Why? Do the constituents have the same sophistication as us Londoners? They merely isolated people under the influence of the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph newspapers.

I do hope that's said with tongue-in-cheek and you are not being serious. In fact, it's such a ridiculous statement that I am going to choose to read it that way

Exit polls are promising, but we've a long night to go. I expect the tory lead to be smaller than predicted, but I have to admit a huge amount of relief as soon as I saw those exit polls being so strong against Corbyn and his deeply flawed policies.