Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polls did NOT get BREXIT wrong: Only 41% had REMAIN leads.

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited December 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polls did NOT get BREXIT wrong: Only 41% had REMAIN leads. 59% didn’t

"undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper={}),window.datawrapper["6LtM9"]={},window.datawrapper["6LtM9"].embedDeltas={"100":761.8,"200":553.8,"300":526.8,"400":499.8,"500":499.8,"600":499.8,"700":499.8,"800":472.8,"900":472.8,"1000":472.8},window.datawrapper["6LtM9"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-6LtM9"),window.datawrapper["6LtM9"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["6LtM9"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["6LtM9"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])"6LtM9"==b&&(window.datawrapper["6LtM9"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px")});

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    edited December 2016
    Thirst.

    Interesting how the narrative has developed differently.
  • Indeed, and there's a meme that the polls got the White House race wrong, whilst state polling didn't cover themselves in glory. the national poll got it largely spot on.
  • Thirst.

    Interesting how the narrative has developed differently.

    The pollsters each made a call on the eve of the referendum. They could have said too close to call, but most did not. Therein lies the problem.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,399
    The punters piling in for short odds on Remain even after results started coming in did, however, get it very wrong.
  • Thirst.

    Interesting how the narrative has developed differently.

    The pollsters each made a call on the eve of the referendum. They could have said too close to call, but most did not. Therein lies the problem.
    I've urged the pollsters to move to rather than giving a single figure, they should say a band/range.
  • The launch of another Brexit campaign. http://www.whatstheplan.uk/petition/
  • The punters piling in for short odds on Remain even after results started coming in did, however, get it very wrong.

    I may be wrong but there seems to be -- and not just in political betting -- a lot of high-staking punters who pile in late on whichever team, horse or politician is odds-on favourite.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    The punters piling in for short odds on Remain even after results started coming in did, however, get it very wrong.

    I suspect a lot of them had simply left bets in Betfair and were too slow to respond to new information.

    A mistake few on Politicalbetting made. I wonder if I'll ever surpass it for betting profits in a single evening*?

    * I would have made more money, but I'd been drinking a bottle of Chateau Palmer, and I was really worried I was being pissed and stupid.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited December 2016
    rcs1000 said:

    The punters piling in for short odds on Remain even after results started coming in did, however, get it very wrong.

    I suspect a lot of them had simply left bets in Betfair and were too slow to respond to new information.

    A mistake few on Politicalbetting made. I wonder if I'll ever surpass it for betting profits in a single evening*?

    * I would have made more money, but I'd been drinking a bottle of Chateau Palmer, and I was really worried I was being pissed and stupid.
    I'm particularly fond of GE2015 night.

    Tory majority 2/1 after the Nuneaton result
  • SeanT said:

    Sandpit said:

    SeanT said:

    Coming next, our resident Leavers patiently explain to us why a dustbin on Arlington Street is in fact the entrance to a private suite at the Ritz.

    I take it you mean Arlington Road?

    http://www.zoopla.co.uk/new-homes/details/41977246?search_identifier=cf75227956556d4a563db1ca49846e92#Opw4k4d8wDViJ4Y8.97

    2 bed flat: £1,225,000
    Google reckons it's Arlington Street.
    https://www.google.ae/maps/@51.5074264,-0.1412422,3a,75y,215.78h,106.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUw7lJZIc8fPKM2tRygpIvA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
    Ah, I thought Mr Meeks was having an amusing little dig at my Camden hood, because - to be fair - Arlington Road IS one of the scuzziest streets in London, thanks to the presence of several hostels, homeless shelters, &c.

    I can't understand why anyone would pay 1.2 mill for a small flat there.
    Can't understand why anyone would pay £1.2m for a small flat anywhere. This is what that kind of money would buy round where I live:

    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-44488570.html
  • Indeed, and there's a meme that the polls got the White House race wrong, whilst state polling didn't cover themselves in glory. the national poll got it largely spot on.

    The state polls were quite important though given the differential swing.
  • The punters piling in for short odds on Remain even after results started coming in did, however, get it very wrong.

    I may be wrong but there seems to be -- and not just in political betting -- a lot of high-staking punters who pile in late on whichever team, horse or politician is odds-on favourite.
    I think there is a lot in that. Non-regular politics punters often get involved on big events and tend to follow the favourite. Good on them.

    I did not place a single bet on BREXIT until 0054 on June 23rd when I went heavily for LEAVE. My view before was that REMAIN would win but the odds weren't attractive so I kept out.

  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    Thirst.

    Interesting how the narrative has developed differently.

    The pollsters each made a call on the eve of the referendum. They could have said too close to call, but most did not. Therein lies the problem.
    I've urged the pollsters to move to rather than giving a single figure, they should say a band/range.

    The problem is that the range would cover both (e.g.) Leave and Remain.

    Whichever was greater or more likely would then be taken as the prediction.

  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    Indeed, and there's a meme that the polls got the White House race wrong, whilst state polling didn't cover themselves in glory. the national poll got it largely spot on.

    I am not even sure the state polling was that far off. My impression is that pundits saw the (reasonably accurate) national polling figures and assumed a fairly normal distribution of it across the states, and hence a Hillary win, whereas the state polling showed the battleground states much closer than the national polls implied, with Hillary piling up votes where she didn't need them. Pretty much exactly what happened, within MoE.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    edited December 2016
    A poll is a snapshot in time, not a prediction.

    Given that the polling all swung away from leave in the final stages with only one or two even giving a leave lead in the last week means they were wrong. Most not drastically to be fair, this was not GE15, but there was still a bias.

    Sorry.
  • On topic, the polls did get it wrong. It's not tenable to say that 'yes, our final poll was rubbish but we published two that were almost spot on four weeks ago.'

    The overall final picture wasn't good. Of the 13 polls published after Jo Cox's murder - i.e. the final nine days of the campaign - only three had Leave ahead, and those by 1, 2 and 2%. The last poll published that had Leave ahead by the 4% they achieved (or more) was an online one with BMG, with fieldwork from 10-15 June (which had Leave ahead by 10%, at the same time as they also published a phone poll that had Remain 6% up, which hardly did much for their credibility).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    MTimT said:

    Indeed, and there's a meme that the polls got the White House race wrong, whilst state polling didn't cover themselves in glory. the national poll got it largely spot on.

    I am not even sure the state polling was that far off. My impression is that pundits saw the (reasonably accurate) national polling figures and assumed a fairly normal distribution of it across the states, and hence a Hillary win, whereas the state polling showed the battleground states much closer than the national polls implied, with Hillary piling up votes where she didn't need them. Pretty much exactly what happened, within MoE.
    I think there's a lot of truth in that. Hillary did underperform her national vote share projection, but only just. If you'd known that she would be 1.5% ahead, you'd have put her likelihood of winning the Presidency at 90+%. It's just that - for many reasons - this time around her vote was incredibly inefficiently distributed.
  • A poll is a snapshot in time, not a prediction.

    Given that the polling all swung away from leave in the final stages with only one or two even giving a leave lead in the last week means they were wrong. Most not drastically to be fair, this was not GE15, but there was still a bias. - Sorry.

    :+1:
  • SeanT, I don't note personal information of that type. That would be a bit creepy. Just a coincidence I'm afraid.
  • This sums up the Zeitgeist of 2016. May is attending the GCC summit. A group however worthy composed entirely of Islamic dictatorships. While in September in Bratislava the EU, a group of democracies who are near neighbours , held a summit without us for the first time in over 40 years.

    http://english.aawsat.com/2016/12/article55363347/british-pm-attend-37th-gcc-summit-bahrain
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    The punters piling in for short odds on Remain even after results started coming in did, however, get it very wrong.

    And long may they continue to do so...

    We, on the other hand, had @AndyJS and his spreadsheet :D
  • So, red, white and blue Brexit.
    I suppose it has the virtue of making Brexit means Brexit sound a bit less shit.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    A backwards community, religious-based, mistreating women:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-75361d40-67f0-4544-bb29-c9bee5b2251f
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    A poll is a snapshot in time, not a prediction.

    Given that the polling all swung away from leave in the final stages with only one or two even giving a leave lead in the last week means they were wrong. Most not drastically to be fair, this was not GE15, but there was still a bias.

    Sorry.

    The Brexit and Trump polling frequently experienced methodology/sampling changes that appeared to reflect what the pollsters 'thought' the result should look like. Why change your data en route otherwise?

    I repeatedly pointed out the very peculiar +6/7/8/9/10/11/12 Democrat sample weightings that defied logic based on the primaries and HRC lacklustre rally enthusiasm.
  • rcs1000 said:

    The punters piling in for short odds on Remain even after results started coming in did, however, get it very wrong.

    I suspect a lot of them had simply left bets in Betfair and were too slow to respond to new information.

    A mistake few on Politicalbetting made. I wonder if I'll ever surpass it for betting profits in a single evening*?

    * I would have made more money, but I'd been drinking a bottle of Chateau Palmer, and I was really worried I was being pissed and stupid.
    I got far too drunk even by Sunderland.

    But I will only bet whilst sober.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    So, red, white and blue Brexit.
    I suppose it has the virtue of making Brexit means Brexit sound a bit less shit.

    Mix red, white and blue and you'll get a light purple.

    Purple is UKIP's colour.

    Just saying ... ;)
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    This sums up the Zeitgeist of 2016. May is attending the GCC summit. A group however worthy composed entirely of Islamic dictatorships. While in September in Bratislava the EU, a group of democracies who are near neighbours , held a summit without us for the first time in over 40 years.

    http://english.aawsat.com/2016/12/article55363347/british-pm-attend-37th-gcc-summit-bahrain


    Britain has already converted Europe to democracy.

    Now we have to work on the rest.

  • The punters piling in for short odds on Remain even after results started coming in did, however, get it very wrong.

    I may be wrong but there seems to be -- and not just in political betting -- a lot of high-staking punters who pile in late on whichever team, horse or politician is odds-on favourite.
    I just hope the people putting £100k+ at4/7 or even 2/7 have £100k+ to lose.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956
    Yes Mike, but:

    - As others here have pointed out, the final polls were wrong; there's no point getting it right two months out and wrong on June the 22nd.

    - It seems that a lot of Leave's leads generally were in the 1-4% range, and perhaps discounted as such, whereas a lot of phone polls as late as May were showing double-digit Remain leads, and some from the start of the campaign bigger than that.

    - The media and analysts tended to give a lot of weight to phone over online polls. The former were wrong on the whole. Not really the pollsters' fault how others interpreted them I guess.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    A backwards community, religious-based, mistreating women:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-75361d40-67f0-4544-bb29-c9bee5b2251f

    Jeez, what on Earth have the Beeb done with their website?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,743

    I may be wrong but there seems to be -- and not just in political betting -- a lot of high-staking punters who pile in late on whichever team, horse or politician is odds-on favourite.

    Interesting point. If you want to bet odds-on you need to have serious money to make it work.

    In horse racing (where I bet far more often than on politics) one in three odds on chances gets beaten and it's much more sensible to follow the money rather than simply back the favourite. In a binary contest, it's harder to do that and if you're a bookie, you can't ignore the weight of money even if you think it's wrong.

    If every other book is going 4/6 and you're standing at 8/11 and someone comes in wanting £110k to win £80k, you're either going to blink or take a big hit.

    In the EU Referendum, I went to bed having read the IPSOS Mori poll in the Standard showing a 52-48 REMAIN lead and then hearing the online Populus poll apparently showing a big late swing to REMAIN (55-45). Had you asked me at 11pm on the Thursday night, I'd have said REMAIN 53-47.

    It was the perception of that late Populus poll (which I believe convinced No.10 as well that REMAIN had won) that perhaps gives credence to the notion that all polls were wrong. OGH is right - there were plenty of polls with LEAVE in front and a considerable number within MoE showing an effective dead heat.

    Can you argue that with a 3% MoE, a poll showing a 51-49 REMAIN lead would have been statistically accurate ?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Sandpit said:

    A backwards community, religious-based, mistreating women:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-75361d40-67f0-4544-bb29-c9bee5b2251f

    Jeez, what on Earth have the Beeb done with their website?
    That's common on these in-depth stories they do. Sometimes it adds to the story; at other times it's horrible.
  • Indeed, and there's a meme that the polls got the White House race wrong, whilst state polling didn't cover themselves in glory. the national poll got it largely spot on.

    Quite probably via offsetting errors [which obviously didn't offset to the right amount in individual states]. Better to be lucky than good, though they're not even getting credit for the former...
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    edited December 2016
    stodge said:

    I may be wrong but there seems to be -- and not just in political betting -- a lot of high-staking punters who pile in late on whichever team, horse or politician is odds-on favourite.

    Interesting point. If you want to bet odds-on you need to have serious money to make it work.

    In horse racing (where I bet far more often than on politics) one in three odds on chances gets beaten and it's much more sensible to follow the money rather than simply back the favourite. In a binary contest, it's harder to do that and if you're a bookie, you can't ignore the weight of money even if you think it's wrong.

    If every other book is going 4/6 and you're standing at 8/11 and someone comes in wanting £110k to win £80k, you're either going to blink or take a big hit.

    In the EU Referendum, I went to bed having read the IPSOS Mori poll in the Standard showing a 52-48 REMAIN lead and then hearing the online Populus poll apparently showing a big late swing to REMAIN (55-45). Had you asked me at 11pm on the Thursday night, I'd have said REMAIN 53-47.

    It was the perception of that late Populus poll (which I believe convinced No.10 as well that REMAIN had won) that perhaps gives credence to the notion that all polls were wrong. OGH is right - there were plenty of polls with LEAVE in front and a considerable number within MoE showing an effective dead heat.

    Can you argue that with a 3% MoE, a poll showing a 51-49 REMAIN lead would have been statistically accurate ?
    No. With a 3% MOE, the chance of Remain getting 48% given a poll showing 51-49 Remain should have been less than 1%
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    A backwards community, religious-based, mistreating women:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-75361d40-67f0-4544-bb29-c9bee5b2251f

    The Labour Party?
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Oh, the irony!

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-38220399

    However, the last comment is true. What on earth is security like in the city if a man who admits to killing 300 people and having a hand in 3000 more murders is targeted for crime not once, but twice?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    A poll is a snapshot in time, not a prediction.

    Given that the polling all swung away from leave in the final stages with only one or two even giving a leave lead in the last week means they were wrong. Most not drastically to be fair, this was not GE15, but there was still a bias.

    Sorry.

    Precisely. The quantity of 'right' or 'wrong' polls is neither here nor there. It is the polls nearest the event that count as predictions.
  • The punters piling in for short odds on Remain even after results started coming in did, however, get it very wrong.

    I may be wrong but there seems to be -- and not just in political betting -- a lot of high-staking punters who pile in late on whichever team, horse or politician is odds-on favourite.
    I just hope the people putting £100k+ at4/7 or even 2/7 have £100k+ to lose.
    The first rule of gambling is to only stake what you can afford to lose.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    PlatoSaid said:

    A poll is a snapshot in time, not a prediction.

    Given that the polling all swung away from leave in the final stages with only one or two even giving a leave lead in the last week means they were wrong. Most not drastically to be fair, this was not GE15, but there was still a bias.

    Sorry.

    The Brexit and Trump polling frequently experienced methodology/sampling changes that appeared to reflect what the pollsters 'thought' the result should look like. Why change your data en route otherwise?

    I repeatedly pointed out the very peculiar +6/7/8/9/10/11/12 Democrat sample weightings that defied logic based on the primaries and HRC lacklustre rally enthusiasm.
    As was repeatedly explained to you, the sample weightings were fine. What was missed was the lack of propensity of certain voters (e.g. AA) to turn out. The national polls were very accurate and correctly forecast a Clinton plurality.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    A backwards community, religious-based, mistreating women:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-75361d40-67f0-4544-bb29-c9bee5b2251f

    That is a horrible story. Closed segregated communities like this are not good. There is a very fine line between a strong community from which people can draw strength and a community which limits people and turns on them if they do not conform.

    It is not easy to come up with practical solutions but we certainly should not stand aside and look away.

  • stodge said:

    I may be wrong but there seems to be -- and not just in political betting -- a lot of high-staking punters who pile in late on whichever team, horse or politician is odds-on favourite.

    Interesting point. If you want to bet odds-on you need to have serious money to make it work.

    In horse racing (where I bet far more often than on politics) one in three odds on chances gets beaten and it's much more sensible to follow the money rather than simply back the favourite. In a binary contest, it's harder to do that and if you're a bookie, you can't ignore the weight of money even if you think it's wrong.

    If every other book is going 4/6 and you're standing at 8/11 and someone comes in wanting £110k to win £80k, you're either going to blink or take a big hit.

    In the EU Referendum, I went to bed having read the IPSOS Mori poll in the Standard showing a 52-48 REMAIN lead and then hearing the online Populus poll apparently showing a big late swing to REMAIN (55-45). Had you asked me at 11pm on the Thursday night, I'd have said REMAIN 53-47.

    It was the perception of that late Populus poll (which I believe convinced No.10 as well that REMAIN had won) that perhaps gives credence to the notion that all polls were wrong. OGH is right - there were plenty of polls with LEAVE in front and a considerable number within MoE showing an effective dead heat.

    Can you argue that with a 3% MoE, a poll showing a 51-49 REMAIN lead would have been statistically accurate ?
    REMAIN actually got 48.11% - so polls with it on 51% were statistically accurate within the margin of error.

  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340

    stodge said:

    I may be wrong but there seems to be -- and not just in political betting -- a lot of high-staking punters who pile in late on whichever team, horse or politician is odds-on favourite.

    Interesting point. If you want to bet odds-on you need to have serious money to make it work.

    In horse racing (where I bet far more often than on politics) one in three odds on chances gets beaten and it's much more sensible to follow the money rather than simply back the favourite. In a binary contest, it's harder to do that and if you're a bookie, you can't ignore the weight of money even if you think it's wrong.

    If every other book is going 4/6 and you're standing at 8/11 and someone comes in wanting £110k to win £80k, you're either going to blink or take a big hit.

    In the EU Referendum, I went to bed having read the IPSOS Mori poll in the Standard showing a 52-48 REMAIN lead and then hearing the online Populus poll apparently showing a big late swing to REMAIN (55-45). Had you asked me at 11pm on the Thursday night, I'd have said REMAIN 53-47.

    It was the perception of that late Populus poll (which I believe convinced No.10 as well that REMAIN had won) that perhaps gives credence to the notion that all polls were wrong. OGH is right - there were plenty of polls with LEAVE in front and a considerable number within MoE showing an effective dead heat.

    Can you argue that with a 3% MoE, a poll showing a 51-49 REMAIN lead would have been statistically accurate ?
    No. With a 3% MOE, the chance of Remain getting 48% given a poll showing 51-49 Remain should have been less than 1%
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    So, red, white and blue Brexit.
    I suppose it has the virtue of making Brexit means Brexit sound a bit less shit.

    Mix red, white and blue and you'll get a light purple.

    Purple is UKIP's colour.

    Just saying ... ;)
    Did May really come up with a phrase as banal and trite as "A red, white and blue Brexit"?

    Really?

    If so, I despair.



  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Dylan Sharpe
    Twitter makes me laugh. Folks losing their sh*t over a throwaway May soundbite. EU mother Merkel proposes Ukip policy & barely any complaint
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    edited December 2016

    stodge said:

    I may be wrong but there seems to be -- and not just in political betting -- a lot of high-staking punters who pile in late on whichever team, horse or politician is odds-on favourite.

    Interesting point. If you want to bet odds-on you need to have serious money to make it work.

    In horse racing (where I bet far more often than on politics) one in three odds on chances gets beaten and it's much more sensible to follow the money rather than simply back the favourite. In a binary contest, it's harder to do that and if you're a bookie, you can't ignore the weight of money even if you think it's wrong.

    If every other book is going 4/6 and you're standing at 8/11 and someone comes in wanting £110k to win £80k, you're either going to blink or take a big hit.

    In the EU Referendum, I went to bed having read the IPSOS Mori poll in the Standard showing a 52-48 REMAIN lead and then hearing the online Populus poll apparently showing a big late swing to REMAIN (55-45). Had you asked me at 11pm on the Thursday night, I'd have said REMAIN 53-47.

    It was the perception of that late Populus poll (which I believe convinced No.10 as well that REMAIN had won) that perhaps gives credence to the notion that all polls were wrong. OGH is right - there were plenty of polls with LEAVE in front and a considerable number within MoE showing an effective dead heat.

    Can you argue that with a 3% MoE, a poll showing a 51-49 REMAIN lead would have been statistically accurate ?
    REMAIN actually got 48.11% - so polls with it on 51% were statistically accurate within the margin of error.

    Yes, but being at the edge of the probability distribution should have been very unlikely. Less than 10% chance.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
  • The pollsters, both here and in America, were also a little unlucky in that both outcomes were relatively close. Most of the AV referendum polling was even more out but no-one noticed because in terms of outcome, they were right: they said a hefty No and it was a hefty No. By contrast, the Brexit vote predicted one outcome and the other one was delivered.
  • stodge said:

    I may be wrong but there seems to be -- and not just in political betting -- a lot of high-staking punters who pile in late on whichever team, horse or politician is odds-on favourite.

    Interesting point. If you want to bet odds-on you need to have serious money to make it work.

    In horse racing (where I bet far more often than on politics) one in three odds on chances gets beaten and it's much more sensible to follow the money rather than simply back the favourite. In a binary contest, it's harder to do that and if you're a bookie, you can't ignore the weight of money even if you think it's wrong.

    If every other book is going 4/6 and you're standing at 8/11 and someone comes in wanting £110k to win £80k, you're either going to blink or take a big hit.

    In the EU Referendum, I went to bed having read the IPSOS Mori poll in the Standard showing a 52-48 REMAIN lead and then hearing the online Populus poll apparently showing a big late swing to REMAIN (55-45). Had you asked me at 11pm on the Thursday night, I'd have said REMAIN 53-47.

    It was the perception of that late Populus poll (which I believe convinced No.10 as well that REMAIN had won) that perhaps gives credence to the notion that all polls were wrong. OGH is right - there were plenty of polls with LEAVE in front and a considerable number within MoE showing an effective dead heat.

    Can you argue that with a 3% MoE, a poll showing a 51-49 REMAIN lead would have been statistically accurate ?
    REMAIN actually got 48.11% - so polls with it on 51% were statistically accurate within the margin of error.

    No - the MOE is centered on the spot figure, i.e. the range 49.5 - 52.5. And the likelihood is NOT uniformly distributed as is often erroneously claimed here.
    Margin of error does not encapsulate all the possible types of error, in any event. Indeed it (sampling error) is the most easily avoided.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    rcs1000 said:

    A backwards community, religious-based, mistreating women:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-75361d40-67f0-4544-bb29-c9bee5b2251f

    The Labour Party?
    Who or what does their religion worship? (Groucho) Marx? Stalin? Corbyn? Incompetence? fiscal prudence?
  • This sums up the Zeitgeist of 2016. May is attending the GCC summit. A group however worthy composed entirely of Islamic dictatorships. While in September in Bratislava the EU, a group of democracies who are near neighbours , held a summit without us for the first time in over 40 years.

    http://english.aawsat.com/2016/12/article55363347/british-pm-attend-37th-gcc-summit-bahrain


    Britain has already converted Europe to democracy.

    Now we have to work on the rest.

    I'm beginning to hope the EU does collapse*. I love Britain. If in 10 years time we've handed hegemony over a continent to the Germans while we're whoring ourselves out to what's left of the Sunni Gulf Monarchies to pays our Benefits bill I'll die of shame.

    *Actually I'm as labile as SeanT. On other days I hope the Germans are upto the Manifest Destiny we've handed them. The Jury is out.
  • stodge said:

    I may be wrong but there seems to be -- and not just in political betting -- a lot of high-staking punters who pile in late on whichever team, horse or politician is odds-on favourite.

    Interesting point. If you want to bet odds-on you need to have serious money to make it work.

    In horse racing (where I bet far more often than on politics) one in three odds on chances gets beaten and it's much more sensible to follow the money rather than simply back the favourite. In a binary contest, it's harder to do that and if you're a bookie, you can't ignore the weight of money even if you think it's wrong.

    If every other book is going 4/6 and you're standing at 8/11 and someone comes in wanting £110k to win £80k, you're either going to blink or take a big hit.

    In the EU Referendum, I went to bed having read the IPSOS Mori poll in the Standard showing a 52-48 REMAIN lead and then hearing the online Populus poll apparently showing a big late swing to REMAIN (55-45). Had you asked me at 11pm on the Thursday night, I'd have said REMAIN 53-47.

    It was the perception of that late Populus poll (which I believe convinced No.10 as well that REMAIN had won) that perhaps gives credence to the notion that all polls were wrong. OGH is right - there were plenty of polls with LEAVE in front and a considerable number within MoE showing an effective dead heat.

    Can you argue that with a 3% MoE, a poll showing a 51-49 REMAIN lead would have been statistically accurate ?
    REMAIN actually got 48.11% - so polls with it on 51% were statistically accurate within the margin of error.

    About 1 poll in 40 which is fairly sampled and weighted and has a sample of 1000 should be low by 3%.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    PlatoSaid said:

    Dylan Sharpe
    Twitter makes me laugh. Folks losing their sh*t over a throwaway May soundbite. EU mother Merkel proposes Ukip policy & barely any complaint

    Well, May is our PM. So what she says matters to us.

    Merkel's view on the burqa less so, even assuming she will get such a policy through. One might also have wondered why she did not think of matters such as this before - rather than after - letting in a million people from the Middle East.

    But there you go: hindsight is a wonderful thing.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    Can anyone explain to me why making the A50 bill (assuming it is needed) short makes it difficult to amend please? I don't know much about the mechanics, but I assume any change to the text can be proposed? So even if the bill just said "Article 50 will be triggered", couldn't someone change it to "Article 50 will be triggered as long as we stay in the Single Market" (or whatever)?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    It is not easy to come up with practical solutions but we certainly should not stand aside and look away.

    I had the misfortune to sit behind some Hasidic jews on a flight from the US a few days ago.

    They were extremely rude to the poor female flight attendants.
  • Can anyone explain to me why making the A50 bill (assuming it is needed) short makes it difficult to amend please? I don't know much about the mechanics, but I assume any change to the text can be proposed? So even if the bill just said "Article 50 will be triggered", couldn't someone change it to "Article 50 will be triggered as long as we stay in the Single Market" (or whatever)?

    As a point of order, the number of wrecking amendments is more easily restricted.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Can anyone explain to me why making the A50 bill (assuming it is needed) short makes it difficult to amend please? I don't know much about the mechanics, but I assume any change to the text can be proposed? So even if the bill just said "Article 50 will be triggered", couldn't someone change it to "Article 50 will be triggered as long as we stay in the Single Market" (or whatever)?

    The proposed short Bill says something like "Following the referendum result this House gives permission for the Government to open negotiations with the EU at a time of its choosing"

    That's difficult to amend without completely changing the intent.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Cyclefree said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Dylan Sharpe
    Twitter makes me laugh. Folks losing their sh*t over a throwaway May soundbite. EU mother Merkel proposes Ukip policy & barely any complaint

    Well, May is our PM. So what she says matters to us.

    Merkel's view on the burqa less so, even assuming she will get such a policy through. One might also have wondered why she did not think of matters such as this before - rather than after - letting in a million people from the Middle East.

    But there you go: hindsight is a wonderful thing.
    Reem Sahwil's tears might be in the process of tearing Europe apart.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited December 2016
    Cyclefree said:
    I saw this first time around - it's wonderful and a tear-jerker for more sentimental sorts like me.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Dylan Sharpe
    Twitter makes me laugh. Folks losing their sh*t over a throwaway May soundbite. EU mother Merkel proposes Ukip policy & barely any complaint

    Well, May is our PM. So what she says matters to us.

    Merkel's view on the burqa less so, even assuming she will get such a policy through. One might also have wondered why she did not think of matters such as this before - rather than after - letting in a million people from the Middle East.

    But there you go: hindsight is a wonderful thing.
    Reem Sahwil's tears might be in the process of tearing Europe apart.
    Who is Reem Sahwil?

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    The ironic thing with Burqa banning is that it will mean far from women divesting themselves of the burqa, they will simply stay at home without the relative freedom that the burqa affords. And men won't be affected at all. I'm not a fan of the garment, but this is a silly sticking plaster solution.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    edited December 2016
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Dylan Sharpe
    Twitter makes me laugh. Folks losing their sh*t over a throwaway May soundbite. EU mother Merkel proposes Ukip policy & barely any complaint

    Well, May is our PM. So what she says matters to us.

    Merkel's view on the burqa less so, even assuming she will get such a policy through. One might also have wondered why she did not think of matters such as this before - rather than after - letting in a million people from the Middle East.

    But there you go: hindsight is a wonderful thing.
    Reem Sahwil's tears might be in the process of tearing Europe apart.
    Who is Reem Sahwil?
    A girl who confronted Merkel about German's attitude to immigrants. Some connect this with Merkel's abrupt change in policy a couple of months later.

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/merkel-and-the-crying-girl-five-lessons
  • The punters piling in for short odds on Remain even after results started coming in did, however, get it very wrong.

    I may be wrong but there seems to be -- and not just in political betting -- a lot of high-staking punters who pile in late on whichever team, horse or politician is odds-on favourite.
    I did not place a single bet on BREXIT until 0054 on June 23rd when ...
    The pedant in me assumes you mean 00:54 on Jun 24th....
  • The ironic thing with Burqa banning is that it will mean far from women divesting themselves of the burqa, they will simply stay at home without the relative freedom that the burqa affords. And men won't be affected at all. I'm not a fan of the garment, but this is a silly sticking plaster solution.

    If I were a devout Muslim woman intent on being modestly dressed (which is one of the more speculative leaps of imagination I've had to make this year), I would be dressing up as Mr Blobby or teaming up with a friend as a pantomime horse.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,743

    The punters piling in for short odds on Remain even after results started coming in did, however, get it very wrong.

    I may be wrong but there seems to be -- and not just in political betting -- a lot of high-staking punters who pile in late on whichever team, horse or politician is odds-on favourite.
    I just hope the people putting £100k+ at4/7 or even 2/7 have £100k+ to lose.
    The first rule of gambling is to only stake what you can afford to lose.
    Indeed and the second rule is win little and often.

    Bets of £100k are plentiful in the ring at Cheltenham in March and Ascot in June and I suspect at many Hong Kong race meetings.

    My tenners and the occasional score aren't going to make the bookies flinch except at a midweek all weather meeting (and not even then to be honest).

    As a bookie, if you want business at the big meetings, you pay big money for the best pitch and you stand the biggest bets and that means the £100k bets but there's no point you going 4/7 if the guy next door is offering 4/6 or 8/13 as the big player still wants value.

    If, however, you think the 4/7 shot should be 1/2 you might be right to duck it and let the guy next door take the pain - it's a judgement call.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    Can anyone explain to me why making the A50 bill (assuming it is needed) short makes it difficult to amend please? I don't know much about the mechanics, but I assume any change to the text can be proposed? So even if the bill just said "Article 50 will be triggered", couldn't someone change it to "Article 50 will be triggered as long as we stay in the Single Market" (or whatever)?

    The point is that, once we've triggered it, then the amendements are irrelevent.

    The bill could read "The government to invoke Article 50 and to arrange for the US to become a dominion of the United Kingdom", and it wouldn't matter one jot. Once the letter has been submitted to the EU, then the ball is rolling.
  • With reference to the Supreme Court case, it may be worth remembering for betting purposes that often your case looks best before you begin to speak.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Dylan Sharpe
    Twitter makes me laugh. Folks losing their sh*t over a throwaway May soundbite. EU mother Merkel proposes Ukip policy & barely any complaint

    Well, May is our PM. So what she says matters to us.

    Merkel's view on the burqa less so, even assuming she will get such a policy through. One might also have wondered why she did not think of matters such as this before - rather than after - letting in a million people from the Middle East.

    But there you go: hindsight is a wonderful thing.
    Reem Sahwil's tears might be in the process of tearing Europe apart.
    Who is Reem Sahwil?
    A girl who confronted Merkel about German's attitude to immigrants. Some connect this with Merkel's abrupt change in policy a couple of months later.

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/merkel-and-the-crying-girl-five-lessons
    Thank you.

  • So, red, white and blue Brexit.
    I suppose it has the virtue of making Brexit means Brexit sound a bit less shit.

    Mix red, white and blue and you'll get a light purple.

    Purple is UKIP's colour.

    Just saying ... ;)
    Lavender I'd say.
    Spinsters cycling to Evensong redux.
  • So, red, white and blue Brexit.
    I suppose it has the virtue of making Brexit means Brexit sound a bit less shit.

    Mix red, white and blue and you'll get a light purple.

    Purple is UKIP's colour.

    Just saying ... ;)
    Lavender I'd say.
    Spinsters cycling to Evensong redux.
    Gay Brexit. Guaranteed to annoy both liberal Remoaners and kipper Leavers.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,819
    What I can't figure out with polling is why at each election the problem seems to be something different:

    Ge 2015: phone polls better than online. LD UKIP accurate but Tories undercalled and Lab over called.

    EUref: online polls beat phone. Understate leave

    Richmond: LDs beat all polling saying Zac would hold.

    Austria: this time polls understated the "mainstream/acceptable" option - no shy FPOers?

    Italy: polls say TCTC yet actually landslide NO - it wasn't the unpalatable option as Renzi was unpopular and it became a vote on him.

    This is just a handful of the errors - but it seems like there are many so many causes at work and the polls are failing in numerous directions - look even at Corbyn polling in local elections and non Richmond by elections, Not great but held on to vote much better than expected.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    The ironic thing with Burqa banning is that it will mean far from women divesting themselves of the burqa, they will simply stay at home without the relative freedom that the burqa affords. And men won't be affected at all. I'm not a fan of the garment, but this is a silly sticking plaster solution.

    If I were a devout Muslim woman intent on being modestly dressed (which is one of the more speculative leaps of imagination I've had to make this year), I would be dressing up as Mr Blobby or teaming up with a friend as a pantomime horse.
    Considering Mr Blobby is, apart from a stiff collar and bowtie, seemingly naked, that could qualify as provocative rather than modest.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    edited December 2016

    The ironic thing with Burqa banning is that it will mean far from women divesting themselves of the burqa, they will simply stay at home without the relative freedom that the burqa affords. And men won't be affected at all. I'm not a fan of the garment, but this is a silly sticking plaster solution.

    If I were a devout Muslim woman intent on being modestly dressed (which is one of the more speculative leaps of imagination I've had to make this year), I would be dressing up as Mr Blobby or teaming up with a friend as a pantomime horse.
    Winter long-distance walker kit routinely includes a balaklava. So they could leave their houses as a long-distance walker.

    Oh, and the kit also includes vaseline.

    I once surprised an elderly shopkeeper in North Norfolk with my balaklava and vaseline. (fnarr, fnarr)
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    With reference to the Supreme Court case, it may be worth remembering for betting purposes that often your case looks best before you begin to speak.

    Mr Meeks, that has a ring of truth to it. I also find that most of my 'great ideas' to not stand the test of translation from what is in my head to the written word on the page. They end up either being trite or unworkable.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited December 2016

    The ironic thing with Burqa banning is that it will mean far from women divesting themselves of the burqa, they will simply stay at home without the relative freedom that the burqa affords. And men won't be affected at all. I'm not a fan of the garment, but this is a silly sticking plaster solution.

    That's an argument I equate with Justin Trudeau's 'if we kill our enemies, they'll have won'

    Burquas are appalling control garments that the worst misogynists just love as it removes a female's entire identity using SHAME as a justification. If a Christian bloke tried to make his girlfriend or spouse wear one - we'd be outraged. But because a branch of Islam has somehow become a protected class - it's all handwaved away.

    Imagine men being coerced into wearing a bin-liner - nope me neither.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    What I can't figure out with polling is why at each election the problem seems to be something different:

    Ge 2015: phone polls better than online. LD UKIP accurate but Tories undercalled and Lab over called.

    EUref: online polls beat phone. Understate leave

    Richmond: LDs beat all polling saying Zac would hold.

    Austria: this time polls understated the "mainstream/acceptable" option - no shy FPOers?

    Italy: polls say TCTC yet actually landslide NO - it wasn't the unpalatable option as Renzi was unpopular and it became a vote on him.

    This is just a handful of the errors - but it seems like there are many so many causes at work and the polls are failing in numerous directions - look even at Corbyn polling in local elections and non Richmond by elections, Not great but held on to vote much better than expected.

    I think the most recent polls had 10 point leads for No in Italy.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881

    Can anyone explain to me why making the A50 bill (assuming it is needed) short makes it difficult to amend please? I don't know much about the mechanics, but I assume any change to the text can be proposed? So even if the bill just said "Article 50 will be triggered", couldn't someone change it to "Article 50 will be triggered as long as we stay in the Single Market" (or whatever)?

    I found this article helpful:
    https://blogs.surrey.ac.uk/politics/2016/11/24/making-an-unamendable-a50-bill/

    That said I'm still not clear on whether Labour would be able to amend it... Suspect it will be another fun thing for the denizens of pb.com to argue over.
  • So, red, white and blue Brexit.
    I suppose it has the virtue of making Brexit means Brexit sound a bit less shit.

    Mix red, white and blue and you'll get a light purple.

    Purple is UKIP's colour.

    Just saying ... ;)
    Lavender I'd say.
    Spinsters cycling to Evensong redux.
    Gay Brexit. Guaranteed to annoy both liberal Remoaners and kipper Leavers.
    Just imagine instead of Gina Miller, you and I had brought the Article 50 case.

    I think we would have ticked every box for the Daily Mail.
  • MTimT said:

    With reference to the Supreme Court case, it may be worth remembering for betting purposes that often your case looks best before you begin to speak.

    Mr Meeks, that has a ring of truth to it. I also find that most of my 'great ideas' to not stand the test of translation from what is in my head to the written word on the page. They end up either being trite or unworkable.
    The other thing to remember is lots of questions from the Bench can be a good thing, not a bad thing. If you're talking rubbish, they won't need to query you as your reasoning won't be in the judgment.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    PlatoSaid said:

    The ironic thing with Burqa banning is that it will mean far from women divesting themselves of the burqa, they will simply stay at home without the relative freedom that the burqa affords. And men won't be affected at all. I'm not a fan of the garment, but this is a silly sticking plaster solution.

    That's an argument I equate with Justin Trudeau's 'if we kill our enemies, they'll have won'

    Burquas are appalling control garments that the worst misogynists just love as it removes a female's entire identity using SHAME as a justification. If a Christian bloke tried to make his girlfriend or spouse wear one - we'd be outraged. But because a branch of Islam has somehow become a protected class - it's all handwaved away.

    Imagine men being coerced into wearing a bin-liner - nope me neither.
    That argument falls down at the fact that, sadly, some women actively want to wear the burqa, and see it as as a necessity. Introduce a ban and they will exclude themselves from society, with no male coercion involved.

    It'd be a real problem, and one any ban would have to try to address.
  • So, red, white and blue Brexit.
    I suppose it has the virtue of making Brexit means Brexit sound a bit less shit.

    Mix red, white and blue and you'll get a light purple.

    Purple is UKIP's colour.

    Just saying ... ;)
    Lavender I'd say.
    Spinsters cycling to Evensong redux.
    Gay Brexit. Guaranteed to annoy both liberal Remoaners and kipper Leavers.
    Just imagine instead of Gina Miller, you and I had brought the Article 50 case.

    I think we would have ticked every box for the Daily Mail.
    How's your swordsmanship?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Dylan Sharpe
    Twitter makes me laugh. Folks losing their sh*t over a throwaway May soundbite. EU mother Merkel proposes Ukip policy & barely any complaint

    Well, May is our PM. So what she says matters to us.

    Merkel's view on the burqa less so, even assuming she will get such a policy through. One might also have wondered why she did not think of matters such as this before - rather than after - letting in a million people from the Middle East.

    But there you go: hindsight is a wonderful thing.
    Reem Sahwil's tears might be in the process of tearing Europe apart.
    Who is Reem Sahwil?
    A girl who confronted Merkel about German's attitude to immigrants. Some connect this with Merkel's abrupt change in policy a couple of months later.

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/merkel-and-the-crying-girl-five-lessons
    What a great article, thanks.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Financial Conduct Authority to look at tightening rules on spread betting.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/06/spread-betting-does-fca-want-tighten-rules/
  • Cyclefree said:

    Did May really come up with a phrase as banal and trite as "A red, white and blue Brexit"?

    To be fair to her, she was answering a dumb question about a black Brexit, white Brexit or some in-between grey Brexit.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited December 2016
    Well this is going to confuse the Brexiteers/Trumpers who support the flag burning banning amendment

    https://twitter.com/LivKinsleyTV/status/806135805865590784
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    SeanT, I don't note personal information of that type. That would be a bit creepy. Just a coincidence I'm afraid.

    Wasn't Dangermouse's HQ entered via a drain on Piccadilly? Not too different to a bin on Arlington St!
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    What I can't figure out with polling is why at each election the problem seems to be something different:

    Ge 2015: phone polls better than online. LD UKIP accurate but Tories undercalled and Lab over called.

    EUref: online polls beat phone. Understate leave

    Richmond: LDs beat all polling saying Zac would hold.

    Austria: this time polls understated the "mainstream/acceptable" option - no shy FPOers?

    Italy: polls say TCTC yet actually landslide NO - it wasn't the unpalatable option as Renzi was unpopular and it became a vote on him.

    This is just a handful of the errors - but it seems like there are many so many causes at work and the polls are failing in numerous directions - look even at Corbyn polling in local elections and non Richmond by elections, Not great but held on to vote much better than expected.

    Aren't all the above errors (except GE2015) ultimately about estimating who will turn up to vote, rather than in the raw data?

    EU Ref - non-voters turning out in greater numbers
    Richmond - low skewed turnout, and tactical voting; turned into EU vote
    Austria - a second vote on the same issue, bringing out many who sat out the first round
    Italy - high turnout, including non-voters

    I may be wrong and don't have the time to do the research to support this with facts, but none of those four votes were standard plebiscites with predictable electorates, or indeed predictable voting for existing voters.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Did May really come up with a phrase as banal and trite as "A red, white and blue Brexit"?

    To be fair to her, she was answering a dumb question about a black Brexit, white Brexit or some in-between grey Brexit.
    I actually think it's quite a good response, even if it's a bit politician-y!
  • Sandpit said:

    Financial Conduct Authority to look at tightening rules on spread betting.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/06/spread-betting-does-fca-want-tighten-rules/

    Financial spreads are the target, though sports betting likely to be the collateral.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited December 2016

    So, red, white and blue Brexit.
    I suppose it has the virtue of making Brexit means Brexit sound a bit less shit.

    Mix red, white and blue and you'll get a light purple.

    Purple is UKIP's colour.

    Just saying ... ;)
    Lavender I'd say.
    Spinsters cycling to Evensong redux.
    Gay Brexit. Guaranteed to annoy both liberal Remoaners and kipper Leavers.
    Just imagine instead of Gina Miller, you and I had brought the Article 50 case.

    I think we would have ticked every box for the Daily Mail.
    How's your swordsmanship?
    Put it this way, my puns are better than my swordsmanship
  • PlatoSaid said:

    The ironic thing with Burqa banning is that it will mean far from women divesting themselves of the burqa, they will simply stay at home without the relative freedom that the burqa affords. And men won't be affected at all. I'm not a fan of the garment, but this is a silly sticking plaster solution.

    That's an argument I equate with Justin Trudeau's 'if we kill our enemies, they'll have won'

    Burquas are appalling control garments that the worst misogynists just love as it removes a female's entire identity using SHAME as a justification. If a Christian bloke tried to make his girlfriend or spouse wear one - we'd be outraged. But because a branch of Islam has somehow become a protected class - it's all handwaved away.

    Imagine men being coerced into wearing a bin-liner - nope me neither.
    That argument falls down at the fact that, sadly, some women actively want to wear the burqa, and see it as as a necessity. Introduce a ban and they will exclude themselves from society, with no male coercion involved.

    It'd be a real problem, and one any ban would have to try to address.
    True. But that's no reason for not banning face coverings; it's just an argument for having other policies alongside to integrate these women into Western attitudes.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    I don't know if this has been covered on here, but Gore has just had his second meeting with Trump (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/al-gore-meets-trump-extremely-interesting-conversation-n692196) in the last week, about climate change.

    Coming hot on the heels of Trump deciding AGW is real, I wonder if Al Gore could be the most surprising Trump appointment.
  • rcs1000 said:

    I don't know if this has been covered on here, but Gore has just had his second meeting with Trump (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/al-gore-meets-trump-extremely-interesting-conversation-n692196) in the last week, about climate change.

    Coming hot on the heels of Trump deciding AGW is real, I wonder if Al Gore could be the most surprising Trump appointment.

    appointed to where?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    PlatoSaid said:

    The ironic thing with Burqa banning is that it will mean far from women divesting themselves of the burqa, they will simply stay at home without the relative freedom that the burqa affords. And men won't be affected at all. I'm not a fan of the garment, but this is a silly sticking plaster solution.

    That's an argument I equate with Justin Trudeau's 'if we kill our enemies, they'll have won'

    Burquas are appalling control garments that the worst misogynists just love as it removes a female's entire identity using SHAME as a justification. If a white bloke tried to make his girlfriend or spouse wear one - we'd be outraged. But because a branch of Islam has somehow become a protected class - it's all handwaved away.

    Imagine men being coerced into wearing a bin-liner - nope me neither.
    Be all that as it may, a law must be judged on its actual consequences, and its consequences would be as I described. Its only positive outcome (if enforced) would be that many of the non-Muslim population would possibly feel a greater sense of security and less sense of alienation. That might be a desirable thing, but it wouldn't be based on reality.

    If we think that a vocal Muslim minority is acting in a way that is at odds with our own values, there are lots of current laws (FGM?) we should actually apply before we introduct additional tokenistic sticking tape regulations on things like burqas, where, as I said, there would be a net loss to women's freedoms.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    the Brexiteers/Trumpers who support the flag burning banning amendment

    Presumably a very small subset of Brexiters and those who supported Trump
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,083
    Off topic, anyone who still thinks Boris was sensible to propose an airport out in the middle of bird-heavy wetlands should go watch the movie Sully
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    rcs1000 said:

    I don't know if this has been covered on here, but Gore has just had his second meeting with Trump (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/al-gore-meets-trump-extremely-interesting-conversation-n692196) in the last week, about climate change.

    Coming hot on the heels of Trump deciding AGW is real, I wonder if Al Gore could be the most surprising Trump appointment.

    The influence of Ivanka making itself felt.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Charles said:

    SeanT, I don't note personal information of that type. That would be a bit creepy. Just a coincidence I'm afraid.

    Wasn't Dangermouse's HQ entered via a drain on Piccadilly? Not too different to a bin on Arlington St!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ilf2hiK77Y
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    PlatoSaid said:

    The ironic thing with Burqa banning is that it will mean far from women divesting themselves of the burqa, they will simply stay at home without the relative freedom that the burqa affords. And men won't be affected at all. I'm not a fan of the garment, but this is a silly sticking plaster solution.

    That's an argument I equate with Justin Trudeau's 'if we kill our enemies, they'll have won'

    Burquas are appalling control garments that the worst misogynists just love as it removes a female's entire identity using SHAME as a justification. If a Christian bloke tried to make his girlfriend or spouse wear one - we'd be outraged. But because a branch of Islam has somehow become a protected class - it's all handwaved away.

    Imagine men being coerced into wearing a bin-liner - nope me neither.
    It's a difficult subject, and the reasons behind it are many and complicated.

    The Casey report does highlight one big problem which can be more easily addressed, which is the endemic importation of foreign brides in arranged marriages.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/05/muslim-communities-remain-isolated-men-keep-marrying-foreign/
  • MTimT said:

    the Brexiteers/Trumpers who support the flag burning banning amendment

    Presumably a very small subset of Brexiters and those who supported Trump
    The Venn diagram of those Brits who backed Remain and Trump would be most illuminating.
  • On topic, an old friend rightly points out that more credence was given by many (including yours truly) to phone polls, which turned out to be less accurate than online polls. Perhaps a case of confirmation bias?
This discussion has been closed.