Jump to content

British Politics


Gracii Guns

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

The Beatles were a look at the future fella, all long hair and multi-cultural, they are incongruent with Churchill and Spitfires and giving Johnny Euro the finger.

Bugger me, you have really turned. I thought you were certainly up for a rolicking good rendition of Ten German Bombers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Padme said:

Could you be more specific? I mean why you think the EU is like the Italian mafia?

Let's start at the very top with that permanently soused President of the EU Commission Herr Junker himself. He, as Prime Minister of Luxembourg, turned the microstate into a dodgy tax haven for corporates who offloaded their liabilities at 1%! 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/05/-sp-luxembourg-tax-files-tax-avoidance-industrial-scale

7 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I'm on your side you cunt, read the fuckin' posts :lol: 

Next you'll be sitting in a cafe drinking woofters coffee reading Sartre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

I just don’t think the world works like that, a great many think like Dies’ and the sad truth is there is no remedy for it

True, and that's part of the beauty of democracy, right, that everybody, no matter, gets one vote. It might sound remarkably silly but it has a huge pacifying effect on the populace. So we accept that the law of averages will rule but we gain a more peaceful society less prone to uprisings.

But my point isn't that everybody is rational, sane, able to think past decades old grievances, etc, but that SOME ARE, and hence, with what has happened these last two years, it is not unlikely that people's opinion has shifted. Diesel makes it seem like people are immune to new facts and can't possible have altered their opinions in these two years, but that is of course only because he hopes it very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

True, and that's part of the beauty of democracy, right, that everybody, no matter, gets one vote. It might sound remarkably silly but it has a huge pacifying effect on the populace. So we accept that the law of averages will rule but we gain a more peaceful society less prone to uprisings.

But my point isn't that everybody is rational, sane, able to think past decades old grievances, etc, but that SOME ARE, and hence, with what has happened these last two years, it is not unlikely that people's opinion has shifted. Diesel makes it seem like people are immune to new facts and can't possible have altered their opinions in these two years, but that is of course only because he hopes it very much.

Not true. I just don't see any evidence that they have (altered their opinion). Why would Farage not be so detrimental to a second referendum? Because he thinks leave will win again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Let's start at the very top with that permanently soused President of the EU Commission Herr Junker himself. He, as Prime Minister of Luxembourg, turned the microstate into a dodgy tax haven for corporates who offloaded their liabilities at 1%! 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/05/-sp-luxembourg-tax-files-tax-avoidance-industrial-scale

Next you'll be sitting in a cafe drinking woofters coffee reading Sartre.

Luxembourg and that's it? Yes, those very small countries in Europe are tax heavens. Some are members of the EU and others are not. Switzerland is a bigger tax heaven. And it's not an EU member.

I was hoping for a much bigger, better and shocking revelation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Not true. I just don't see any evidence that they have (altered their opinion). Why would Farage not be so detrimental to a second referendum? Because he thinks leave will win again. 

Maybe you haven't been looking? https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/should-the-united-kingdom-remain-a-member-of-the-european-union-or-leave-the-european-union-asked-after-the-referendum/

The referendum was on June 23, 2016. Since these polls started in October 2016, the "remain" side has been in majority almost continuously throughout the period. The last poll was on January 11 this year, with 47 % remain and 45 % leave. At the most, in December last year, it was 52 % remain and only 40 % leave. Based on these meta-polls, there is no doubt that the majority of people in the UK now wants to stay in the EU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Padme said:

Luxembourg and that's it? Yes, those very small countries in Europe are tax heavens. Some are members of the EU and others are not. Switzerland is a bigger tax heaven. And it's not an EU member.

I was hoping for a much bigger, better and shocking revelation

You don't think the person, subsequently chosen by the EU as their President to the Commission, who presided over one of the biggest tax avoidance scams in corporate history, is shocking enough? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Maybe you haven't been looking? https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/should-the-united-kingdom-remain-a-member-of-the-european-union-or-leave-the-european-union-asked-after-the-referendum/

The referendum was on June 23, 2016. Since these polls started in October 2016, the "remain" side has been in majority almost continuously throughout the period. The last poll was on January 11 this year, with 47 % remain and 45 % leave. At the most, in December last year, it was 52 % remain and only 40 % leave. Based on these meta-polls, there is no doubt that the majority of people in the UK now wants to stay in the EU.

I have seen polls which state the exact reverse! If the Mail or Express run a poll it'll be heavily weighted towards leave. It depends on who is conducting these polls. And those margins really do not represent a gigantic shift in public opinion. I am unconvinced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I have seen polls which state the exact reverse! If the Mail or Express run a poll it'll be heavily weighted towards leave. It depends on who is conducting these polls. And those margins really do not represent a gigantic shift in public opinion. I am unconvinced. 

Hahah :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Hahah :lol:

You should have watched this QaA show with a bunch of young people presided over by John Snow, the channel 4 newsreader (with an evident remain bias). He assumed everyone, because they were young and studenty, was remain and suddenly developed a face like a smacked backside when he found out quite a few of them were leave. Hilarious television. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You should have watched this QaA show with a bunch of young people presided over by John Snow, the channel 4 newsreader (with an evident remain bias). He assumed everyone, because they were young and studenty, was remain and suddenly developed a face like a smacked backside when he found out quite a few of them were leave. Hilarious television. 

Okay, let me explain a few things to you. And sorry for perhaps being condescending, but your ignorance of fundamental statistics is baffling.

This is a independent survey site that ask a representative sample of the population their opinion on stuff. The representative is a keyword, because it means that the answer you get will correspond to the people's opinion in relation to the sample size. So if you ask X million representative individuals, you can expect it to correlate to the population's opinion with a certain confidence Y that is a function of X. Basically, the larger the sample size, the more trustworthy conclusions.

This is very different from simple newspaper polls that primarily aren't asking a representative sample of people (but rather their particular group of readers) and may not be too concerned over sample size.

Secondly, even if you do your best at asking a representative sample, and you try to ask as many as possible, there will be a remnant of uncertainty left in the results. To counter that you combine the results of independent surveys, to basically reduce that uncertainty.

As far as I understand it, the link I sent you is based on an aggregation of proper statistical surveys. In other words, your comparables to newspapers polls and John Snow is laughable.

Secondly, you argued that the difference between "stay" and "leave" in the data wasn't enough  for you to care, yet, that difference is about as large or larger than the difference between "stay" and "leave" in the 2016 referendum. If you thoight it was good enough back then you should think it is large enough now, too, unless, of course, you don't like care about evidence or data or anything but only about having it your way :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Okay, let me explain a few things to you. And sorry for perhaps being condescending, but your ignorance of fundamental statistics is baffling.

This is a independent survey site that ask a representative sample of the population their opinion on stuff. The representative is a keyword, because it means that the answer you get will correspond to the people's opinion in relation to the sample size. So if you ask X million representative individuals, you can expect it to correlate to the population's opinion with a certain confidence Y that is a function of X. Basically, the larger the sample size, the more trustworthy conclusions.

This is very different from simple newspaper polls that primarily aren't asking a representative sample of people (but rather their particular group of readers) and may not be too concerned over sample size.

Secondly, even if you do your best at asking a representative sample, and you try to ask as many as possible, there will be a remnant of uncertainty left in the results. To counter that you combine the results of independent surveys, to basically reduce that uncertainty.

As far as I understand it, the link I sent you is based on an aggregation of proper statistical surveys. In other words, your comparables to newspapers polls and John Snow is laughable.

Secondly, you argued that the difference between "stay" and "leave" in the data wasn't enough  for you to care, yet, that difference is about as large or larger than the difference between "stay" and "leave" in the 2016 referendum. If you thoight it was good enough back then you should think it is large enough now, too, unless, of course, you don't like care about evidence or data or anything but only about having it your way :lol:

I should point out that I have called every election correctly, even the 2015 one which everyone thought would be some sort of hung parliament/coalition mess. I also called the Scottish and EU referenda correctly, both of which saw the losing vote ahead in opinion polls at stages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

I should point out that I have called every election correctly, even the 2015 one which everyone thought would be some sort of hung parliament/coalition mess. I also called the Scottish and EU referenda correctly, both of which saw the losing vote ahead in opinion polls at stages.

Yes, to round off your string of irrelevant and nonsensical arguments, that is exactly what you should point out :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You don't think the person, subsequently chosen by the EU as their President to the Commission, who presided over one of the biggest tax avoidance scams in corporate history, is shocking enough? 

The guy won't be President of the EU Commission forever. And Luxembourg was one of the founder of the EU as it was Belgium, all started 50 or 60 years ago with BENELUX. That's why those countries are given prominent positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, to round off your string of irrelevant and nonsensical arguments, that is exactly what you should point out :lol:

In 2015 everybody, politicians, political experts, the polls which you favour so much, said it would be a hung parliament and I said ''it would be a Tory majority''. I'm clearly not so ill informed as you portray me. 

1 minute ago, Padme said:

The guy won't be President of the EU Commission forever. And Luxembourg was one of the founder of the EU as it was Belgium, all started 50 or 60 years ago with BENELUX. That's why those countries are given prominent positions.

You are a bit myopic when it comes to the EU if you don't mind me saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when you think of it, isn't is baffling how we are totally willing to let fundamental, life changing decisions like leaving or staying, depend on an accidental majority?

we would never let one fool make such a decision. but it's not problem when, say 1.000.000 fools make the decision. how does that work, again?

so why is it suddenly making a difference, when the majority of a any number of fools decides to leave or stay?

given how there are more dumb people in society than there are smart people (as per definition), why do we give more weight to a decision when the majority number increases?

doesn't the moderate level of intelligence lower with increasing the population of a voting vehicle? How could moderate intelligence levels increase, when there are more dumb than smart people?

Edited by action
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, action said:

when you think of it, isn't is baffling how we are totally willing to let fundamental, life changing decisions like leaving or staying, depend on an accidental majority?

we would never let one fool make such a decision. but it's not problem when, say 1.000.000 fools make the decision. how does that work, again?

so why is it suddenly making a difference, when the majority of a any number of fools decides to leave or stay?

given how there are more dumb people in society than there are smart people (as per definition), why do we give more weight to a decision when the majority number increases?

doesn't the moderate level of intelligence lower with increasing the population of a voting vehicle? How could moderate intelligence levels increase, when there are more dumb than smart people?

I pointed to this by saying we are ruled by the law of averages, somewhere before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, action said:

when you think of it, isn't is baffling how we are totally willing to let fundamental, life changing decisions like leaving or staying, depend on an accidental majority?

we would never let one fool make such a decision. but it's not problem when, say 1.000.000 fools make the decision. how does that work, again?

so why is it suddenly making a difference, when the majority of a any number of fools decides to leave or stay?

given how there are more dumb people in society than there are smart people (as per definition), why do we give more weight to a decision when the majority number increases?

doesn't the moderate level of intelligence lower with increasing the population of a voting vehicle? How could moderate intelligence levels increase, when there are more dumb than smart people?

There's a famous philsopher/raconteur around these parts called Roy 'Chubby' Brown who said more or less what you're saying here condensed into one sentence, he said 'ere, there's some thick bastards knockin' about these days eh?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

There's a famous philsopher/raconteur around these parts called Roy 'Chubby' Brown who said more or less what you're saying here condensed into one sentence, he said 'ere, there's some thick bastards knockin' about these days eh?'

And by “these parts” you mean Middlebrough. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

You are a bit myopic when it comes to the EU if you don't mind me saying.

You are the one making bizarre statements and accusations about the EU just because of one person and one country. Sure nothing is perfect. There is always room for change. But it's silly to hate the EU just because of one person and one country.

If I say I hate the U.S. because Trump is corrupt and undemocratic. Wouldn't you ask me for more and better reasons than just Trump?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...