European Parliment Election Results 2019

[SoulMonster]

32 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am looking at what you posted,

''Suggested''? Is there not even a formula or data for producing this 

I am sure there is. But regardless, better than your convenient disregard of these factions.

And again, of course The Guardian, like any other newspaper has a political bias, and so do you, but in contrast to you they are still credible. It is not bias that is the problem it is if, and how it affects their reporting. 

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I am sure there is. But regardless, better than your convenient disregard of these factions.

And again, of course The Guardian, like any other newspaper has a political bias, and so do you, but in contrast to you they are still credible. It is not bias that is the problem it is if, and how it affects their reporting. 

I do have a political bias but I have omitted it when producing that electoral conclusion which I have based on ambiguity. If I allowed my bias to dictate I,

- Would have chucked the Tories/DUP into the Brexit column, and possibly even Labour also (by emphasizing their ''official policy'').

- Wouldn't have statistically included the UK European Union Party (0.20%) in the unambiguous remain section. I could have quite easily left UKEUP out, a party hardly anyone has heard of, whilst including TED/Tommy Robinson/TUV in the Brexiteer section, and you would have been completely oblivious. I didn't do this.

[SoulMonster]

About biases in the media:

They are all biased. Because the editors are humans and they decide on what stories to run. Naturally this will lead to some stories being more important than others. Also, there will be editorial pieces where they break from objective reporting to give standpoints and subjective opinions, like who to vote for. In a sense that is good because it means they are flagging their biases. It is honest. 

So the Guardian, being slightly to the left, will tend to not focus as much on negative impacts of immigration as right-leaning papers would, and they tend to be more likely to report on stories that pictures Israel in a bad light. 

Again, this bias isn't a problem when people know about it, and as long as the stories they decide to run are presented objectively and according to proper journalistic methods. So you can be biased, yet still credible and presenting facts objectively. 

And as a side note, we can't get away from editorial bias as long as we let humans choose the stories. Only computers could do this entirely unbiased, but they would still need some algorithms on how to choose what to report and what to not report. 

[DieselDaisy]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

About biases in the media:

They are all biased. Because the editors are humans and they decide on what stories to run. Naturally this will lead to some stories being more important than others. Also, there will be editorial pieces where they break from objective reporting to give standpoints and subjective opinions, like who to vote for. In a sense that is good because it means they are flagging their biases. It is honest. 

So the Guardian, being slightly to the left, will tend to not focus as much on negative impacts of immigration as right-leaning papers would, and they tend to be more likely to report on stories that pictures Israel in a bad light. 

Again, this bias isn't a problem when people know about it, and as long as the stories they decide to run are presented objectively and according to proper journalistic methods. So you can be biased, yet still credible and presenting facts objectively. 

And as a side note, we can't get away from editorial bias as long as we let humans choose the stories. Only computers could do this entirely unbiased, but they would still need some algorithms on how to choose what to report and what to not report. 

So you think a statistic mind-reading voting preferences, ''suggested'' by a well publicised EUphile writing for a Europhile publication, a suggestion with no supporting data or evidence I might add, is credible and should be taken as bona fide from all and sundry?

I'll agree, for the process of fairness, that the Express run a load of shite also, but come on!!

 

Edited May 28, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

So you think a statistic mind-reading voting preferences, ''suggested'' by a well publicised EUphile writing for a Europhile publication, a suggestion with no supporting data or evidence I might add, is credible and should be taken as bona fide from all and sundry?

I will trust that the method employed by The Guardian is better than your approach of just disregarding a large fraction of the votes. Because they are credible. 

[DieselDaisy]

Soul, can you answer me if the Liberal Democrats are biased?

They have just said 56% of the United Kingdom voted ''for Brexit''? Surely the Liberal Democrats cannot be guilty of proliferating Brexity biased bullshit? 

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

your approach of just disregarding a large fraction of the votes.

I cannot very well regard a large fraction of the votes when I do not know whether that vote is for Brexit or against, and it is undoubtedly true that both Labour and Tories, more so the former but to a certain extent the latter, are ambiguous on Brexit. How can anyone ascertain the intent unless mind-reading is employed? Oh yes, ''a suggestion''?

Edited May 28, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Soul, can you answer me if the Liberal Democrats are biased?

Is that a newspaper? As I said, all media is biased because they are run by humans. 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Is that a newspaper? As I said, all media is biased because they are run by humans. 

That is the Liberal Democrats' own official manifesto preceding the EU Elections.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

That is the Liberal Democrats' own official manifesto preceding the EU Elections.

So are you seriously asking me if a political party is biased? 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

So are you seriously asking me if a political party is biased? 

I'm clearly being rhetorical.

My point is that a party with such zealous Europhile tendencies as the Liberal Democrats clearly had no problems in labeling the Conservatives and Labour Brexity before May 23rd. By the Liberal Democrats' logic, Brexit won 56%!!

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

I'm clearly being rhetorical.

My point is that a party with such zealous Europhile tendencies as the Liberal Democrats clearly had no problems in labeling the Conservatives and Labour Brexity before May 23rd. By the Liberal Democrats' logic, Brexit won 56%!!

Why would I care about what a political party thinks about this? And did they, post-election, say the result was 56 % leave, or are you simply inferring from their pre-election rhetorics? 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Why would I care about what a political party thinks about this? And did they, post-election, say the result was 56 % leave, or are you simply inferring from their pre-election rhetorics? 

I should probably point out that the Liberal Democrats have been spinning the election result much as how you (and that writer with the ''suggestion'') have been spinning the election. I should further point out, in case you don't already know, that Liberal Democrats were the second biggest party after The Brexit Party, and certainly now the party of choice for remainers. 

Goalposts being moved and all... - that is my point.

Further on this,

Quote

The Conservatives have spent half a decade trying to please UKIP and Nigel Farage. Jeremy Corbyn has his own Brexit vision: instead of opposing it, he wants to deliver it. The fact is that whether Labour Red or Tory Blue, Brexit is bad for the UK.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/45093/attachments/original/1557342873/Liberal_Democrat_European_Election_Manifesto_2019.pdf?1557342873

Again, the LDs have no reservations in labeling Labour as a party for Brexit.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I should probably point out that the Liberal Democrats have been spinning the election result much as how you (and that writer with the ''suggestion'') have been spinning the election. 

In an integrity battle between The Guardian and their post-election analysis of the election and whatever is afterwards inferred from pre-election political ads and statements, the Guardian wins hands down. That should be obvious. 

And I am not spinning anything. I am merely saying that I trust The Guardian much more than I trust you. They are a highly respected newspaper, you are some guy on the Internet who have a history of being unable to be objective and fair. 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

In an integrity battle between The Guardian and their post-election analysis of the election and whatever is afterwards inferred from pre-election political ads and statements, the Guardian wins hands down. That should be obvious. 

And I am not spinning anything. I am merely saying that I trust The Guardian much more than I trust you. They are a highly respected newspaper, you are some guy on the Internet who have a history of being unable to be objective and fair. 

Funny because I would say exactly the same thing about you. You are also clearly not very well informed about the European Union, the very organisation you are espousing so vehemently. 

 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

You are also clearly not very well informed about the European Union, the very organisation you are espousing so vehemently. 

I have outsourced all my opinions on the EU to the Guardian, a highly reputable newspaper with integrity and pondus. 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

I have outsourced all my opinions on the EU to the Guardian, a highly reputable newspaper with integrity and pondus. 

And only a ''suggestion'', with no empirical data.

Your terms ''highly reputable...with integrity and pondus'' are merely just your opinion. I rate the newspaper very poorly. As I said, just as biased as the Express, just that it is on the opposite polarity.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

And only a ''suggestion'', with no empirical data.

Your terms ''highly reputable...with integrity and pondus'' are merely just your opinion. I rate the newspaper very poorly. As I said, just as biased as the Express, just that it is on the opposite polarity.

Again, bias it not a problem, or avoidable. 

And no, it isn't just my opinion, it is considered the most trustworthy newspaper in England. 

[SoulMonster]

Re: the Guardian:

"In an Ipsos MORI research poll in September 2018 designed to interrogate the public's trust of specific titles online, The Guardian scored highest for digital-content news, with 84% of readers agreeing that they "trust what [they] see in it".[14] A December 2018 report of a poll by the Publishers Audience Measurement Company (PAMCo) stated that the paper's print edition was found to be the most trusted in the UK in the period from October 2017 to September 2018. It was also reported to be the most-read of the UK's "quality newsbrands", including digital editions; other "quality" brands included The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, and the i. While The Guardian's print circulation is in decline, the report indicated that news from The Guardian, including that reported online, reaches more than 23 million UK adults each month.[15]"

From Wikipedia. 

[DieselDaisy]

11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Again, bias it not a problem, or avoidable. 

And no, it isn't just my opinion, it is considered the most trustworthy newspaper in England. 

By you and others of similar ilk.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

By you and others of similar ilk.

The Express, on the other hand, is obviously tabloid shite. 

[DieselDaisy]

The Guardian is a credible newspaper, filled with ''integrity'' and whatever accolades you care to bestow on it, if your politics are the same as The Guardian's. If you are,

- Upper middle class

- university educated 

- London (or other conurbation) based

- hate poor people and/or the north of England. 

- Like Thatcherite-Blarite-EU Neoliberal economics.

- like political correctness and frequently use politically correct terminology in regular discourse  

- worship the EU with a religious fanaticism.

It is your ideal paper. It has Polly Toynbee working for it who is utterly insane. 

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

The Express, on the other hand, is obviously tabloid shite. 

That is the only thing we can agree on. Even its cricket section is utterly pathetic. 

[SoulMonster]

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The Guardian is a credible newspaper, filled with ''integrity'' and whatever accolades you care to bestow on it, if your politics are the same as The Guardian's. If you are,

It seems you can't get over its bias 

[DieselDaisy]

6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

It seems you can't get over its bias 

I find the newspaper's politics highly distasteful (disdain for poor people, demonizing of the north, demonizing of people in small communities and rural areas) so it is unlikely I'd agree with the entire newspaper, unless we're discussing something neutral like a cricket article. It is an inherent situation. ''It is what it is''.

This is an alternative way to organise the results which itemizes everything and states the official policy of the political party in question, rather than offering ''suggestions'' based on telepathy or psychosis. It also includes the smaller parties which are left out elsewhere. It is certifiable fact and spin-proof,

PS

I did find this amusing I have to say,

Edited May 29, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is certifiable fact and spin-proof,

Of course the public opinion of a political party towards any particular issue is a fact. It is stated in their programs Doesn't mean that every party member agrees on every single aspect of the party platform, though. So even if party X is pro-Brexit that doesn't mean that every member of said party, or every voter who would tend to vote for said party, is also pro-Brexit. Are you not aware that there are often disagreements within political parties and among their voters?

Disregarding this internal dissens is as silly as disregarding all votes from parties where the voters are in disagreement.

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Of course the public opinion of a political party towards any particular issue is a fact. It is stated in their programs Doesn't mean that every party member agrees on every single aspect of the party platform, though. So even if party X is pro-Brexit that doesn't mean that every member of said party, or every voter who would tend to vote for said party, is also pro-Brexit. Are you not aware that there are often disagreements within political parties and among their voters?

Disregarding this internal dissens is as silly as disregarding all votes from parties where the voters are in disagreement.

Of course.

And that is why my preferred method was to siphon off the ambiguous and focus solely on what we know?. But an itemized collation which places data at the forefront and specifies the party's official platform is a vastly superior method of interpreting the results than a ''suggestion'' based on telepathy.