• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.

C

CyclopsRock

Member
Nicktendo86 said:
They seem unelectable to me, similar to the Tories post 97. Toxic legacy still stuffed with personnel tainted by new labour. Unimaginable that our fucked up system means a man as unpopular as Ed has a fantastic chance of being pm.
Click to expand...

I actually don't think that they're unelectable at all. I still maintain that the Tories will win a minority, but it's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that Labour win (either a majority or minority). There was always going to be a kickback against the cuts and certain parts of the welfare reform - it's just a matter of whether it's enough of a kickback to nullify the good that the Tories have done.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
FliXFantatier said:
they where at 2% 3 days ago... o_O?
Click to expand...

Entschuldigung, bitte?

I'm referring to the bookies odd of the Scottish referendum coming back with a No vote. The polling is much closer but obviously that's not how gambling works. The odds you get suggest that the bookies think that a No vote is approx 5x more likely than a Yes vote.
 
A

anonymous_abc

Member
CyclopsRock said:
Entschuldigung, bitte?

I'm referring to the bookies odd of the Scottish referendum coming back with a No vote. The polling is much closer but obviously that's not how gambling works. The odds you get suggest that the bookies think that a No vote is approx 5x more likely than a Yes vote.
Click to expand...

lol, reading comprehension fail...

Move along
r2CKTSQ.gif
 
W

Walshicus

Member
Lol, Unionists running scared.

Scraps thrown to Glasgow from Westminster... or massive savings to all of Scotland from throwing Trident out. Hmm. Tough call.


Sturgeon's response:
“I can confirm that the Scottish Government will match in full the funding announced today by the UK government - a proposal which we understand consists of just £15 million a year for the first five years, with future years' funding contingent on a review at the end of the first five year period.

“Of course, the UK’s proposed £15 million a year is dwarfed by the Scottish Government’s on-going investment in Glasgow. Investment in the Commonwealth Games, the new Southern General hospital, Fastlink and the Glasgow Subway improvements alone amounts to a massive £1.5 billion in capital spend - that is Scottish Government investment in jobs and infrastructure happening now. We have also provided capital funding of £1.1 billion to Glasgow City Council since 2008.

“As well as matching the UK government funding now, we will also guarantee this funding to Glasgow when Scotland becomes independent. However, unlike the UK Government, we will ensure that all of Scotland’s cities can benefit as well - which is the intention of our recently announced Growth Accelerator funding model. Indeed, it is regrettable that the UK government has offered nothing to any of Scotland's other cities, including Danny Alexander's home City of Inverness.
Click to expand...
 
W

Walshicus

Member
CyclopsRock said:
"Running scared", I think, suggests a much bigger chance of the Yes vote succeeding that really exists.
Click to expand...

I think you underestimate the capacity of the Scots to vote in their (and our) interest.

We're *very* close to victory here. So close to the day when we can metaphorically shit on the Union Jack and be done with it.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
Sir Fragula said:
I think you underestimate the capacity of the Scots to vote in their (and our) interest.

We're *very* close to victory here. So close to the day when we can metaphorically shit on the Union Jack and be done with it.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but being close to victory isn't the same as victory. This isn't a parliamentary election. You can't half secede. And if the "no" vote succeeds, it'll kill the issue for a generation imo. I'm not underestimating anything, I'm just looking at polls.
 
Nicktendo86

Nicktendo86

Member
Sir Fragula said:
I think you underestimate the capacity of the Scots to vote in their (and our) interest.

We're *very* close to victory here. So close to the day when we can metaphorically shit on the Union Jack and be done with it.
Click to expand...
Not sure about that, I think the no vote will win quite comfortably in the end. Just a gut feeling.
 
W

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
CyclopsRock said:
Also, the odds for a No vote keep creeping up. Up 2% from 79% to 81% in as many days.
Click to expand...

Perversely (or is it?) I find myself having a lot more trust in the betting odds than I do in the polling. Polling is too politicised and assumes that voting in a survey is reflective of the seriousness of actually voting.

I think the Independence movement will lose, just so I'm not hedging my bets. I think you have to be very persuasive to argue for independence and I don't think the advantages are strong enough (or have been made to appear so) for that.
 
J

jimbor

Banned
CyclopsRock said:
Entschuldigung, bitte?

I'm referring to the bookies odd of the Scottish referendum coming back with a No vote. The polling is much closer but obviously that's not how gambling works. The odds you get suggest that the bookies think that a No vote is approx 5x more likely than a Yes vote.
Click to expand...

That's not how gambling usually works. Odds increase/decrease depending upon where the money is going as well, rather than in isolation of what they think.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
jimbor said:
That's not how gambling usually works. Odds increase/decrease depending upon where the money is going as well, rather than in isolation of what they think.
Click to expand...

Sure, but that's primarily because where the money is going is a particularly effective method of polling. People bet on what they think is the most likely, and they bet more money the more certain they are. Furthermore, almost all of them are interested in the issue and have a real incentive to get it right - as such, in many ways, it offers a far better view of what's going to happen than normal polling which doesn't usually offer such nuance - which, naturally, will impact what the bookies think the result will be.
 
J

jimbor

Banned
CyclopsRock said:
Sure, but that's primarily because where the money is going is a particularly effective method of polling. People bet on what they think is the most likely, and they bet more money the more certain they are. Furthermore, almost all of them are interested in the issue and have a real incentive to get it right - as such, in many ways, it offers a far better view of what's going to happen than normal polling which doesn't usually offer such nuance - which, naturally, will impact what the bookies think the result will be.
Click to expand...

People often bet on what they want to happen rather than what is most likely to happen, thus skewing the odds. You only need to look at any sport involving an English representative to see the odds become ridiculously low because of patriotic/heart over head betting.

Not sure if it necessarily applies to this issue but it could do.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
jimbor said:
People often bet on what they want to happen rather than what is most likely to happen, thus skewing the odds. You only need to look at any sport involving an English representative to see the odds become ridiculously low because of patriotic/heart over head betting.

Not sure if it necessarily applies to this issue but it could do.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it does - though I assume the gang at Ladbrokes etc have methods of working out what it all means. Especially because they know the address of who is betting: I assume, if 10,000 people bet on "No" who lives in London and 10,000 in Scotland voting for "No", they wouldn't interpret that in the same way. I don't have any personal experience of their process, but they have both the money and the incentive to get their data right.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
Nicktendo86 said:
I am sure we do, biggest hurdle is political. Imagine the stink from the rmt.
Click to expand...

It's silly though - the DLR trains all still have a dude in them (turning a key) but it means they can be out there, actually helping people rather than sitting in their box where no one can talk to them, doing a job which can apparently be replaced by a computer from the 80's.
 
Jezbollah

Jezbollah

Member
Nicktendo86 said:
I am sure we do, biggest hurdle is political. Imagine the stink from the rmt.
Click to expand...

Actually, most of the tube trains we have are capable of driving automatically. As you say, it's the unions and the fear of being replaced by machines who dont strike that is the hurdle.

Those drivers get a very nice wage and benefits package.
 
Nicktendo86

Nicktendo86

Member
CyclopsRock said:
It's silly though - the DLR trains all still have a dude in them (turning a key) but it means they can be out there, actually helping people rather than sitting in their box where no one can talk to them, doing a job which can apparently be replaced by a computer from the 80's.
Click to expand...

100% agree, but look how backwards the RMT have been with the tube. Fought to get their drivers amazing pay for just sitting in the cab pushing a button. I'm sure they would bleat on about safety as well, always seems to be the excuse whenever any change is proposed.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
Nicktendo86 said:
100% agree, but look how backwards the RMT have been with the tube. Fought to get their drivers amazing pay for just sitting in the cab pushing a button. I'm sure they would bleat on about safety as well, always seems to be the excuse whenever any change is proposed.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty hard to argue that it'd be less safe if a person were in the carriage rather than in the front, especially given the DLR's pretty excellent record since its creation. There are more tunnels in the rest of the tube network, but it still seems better to have a guy in the carriage rather than the front in, say, the event of a fire or evacuation.
 
Nicktendo86

Nicktendo86

Member
Labour were last night accused of “soft corruption” and engaging in “cash for access” as it emerged that the party is allowing wealth donors to attend a £15,000 gala dinner without having to publicly register their names.
Despite premier tables at the event costing £15,000, the Labour Party has set the “donation” contribution of the ticket at £7,000 - just below the level at which financial gifts must be officially declared.
Those who pay for the most expensive premier tables will have a “political host” and will receive a “signed commemorative memento photo of the event”.
Click to expand...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...iticised-for-cash-for-access-Gala-dinner.html
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
Whilst we should always strive the find the truth and ensure justice is done, the fact that the file (let along the dates of the potential crimes referred to within) was so long ago makes me think that it won't have too much political significance even if it's found.
 
W

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
If anything comes of it, I'd imagine the only real damage done will be to the overall opinion of the British political establishment.

Disgusting if there really was a cover up though.
 
F

fizzelopeguss

Banned
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/07/may-child-abuse-inquiry-maximum-transparency

Inquiry.

Hillsborough was made up of professionals in different fields, it remains to be soon who'll be on the panel and therefore to be seen how serious this will be taken. Make no mistake this is the biggest scandal in british democratic history.

This isn't some dirty toff screwing his mistress or sucking a rent boy off in a public toilet, this is rape and child molestation at the highest levels attainable in our country. Thousands of children go missing from our "care" homes every year never to be seen again, those kids don't cease to exist, they're not a statistic. Apparently it seems their fate is to be passed around fucking westminster.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
I'm watching the Daily Politics on afterwards, and holy shit, the level of debate with MPs in this country is awful. Liz Truss and ... whoever the Labour rep that sounds exactly like Terri from The Thick of It (I missed her name plate at the start - I am, in theory, at work).

It's so weird - Terri (?!) was saying that politicians are too worried about the statistics and that their own experiences are more useful, irrespective of the statistics, and then that Liz's stats were wrong. Andrew Neil played this fun little game where he said a statistic that backed up the Tory rep to which she nodded and the Lab girl decried, then he turned around that same statistic to show that actually it was worse now and their roles just reversed (for example, he said that the number of people waiting for over 4 hours had doubled! Liz Truss goes "wah wah but the average is down" and Terri is all "YEAH BITCHES, TORIES SUCK!" But then he said that the actual number of people going to A&E has doubled and that the percentage of people having to wait over 4 hours is basically identical, which then reversed their roles).

Basically, it just seems that no one knows what the fuck they're talking about. I know this isn't exactly a surprising thing to witness, but it really does cross the aisle - they're all so useless. If Farage has shown anything, it's that the public respond really well to politicians who speak a bit... normally. Not all this "Well, I'm very glad you asked me that Andrew, because I think it's really important we talk about this Top Down Organisation of the NHS" or "I think the important thing to remember here is that the Long Term Economic Plan Is Working." These two actually weren't quite so bad here, but sometimes it genuinely sounds like the interviewer is pulling Woody's string after he's been reprogrammed to say the same three political soundbites over and over again.
 
V

Volotaire

Member
CyclopsRock said:
I'm watching the Daily Politics on afterwards, and holy shit, the level of debate with MPs in this country is awful. Liz Truss and ... whoever the Labour rep that sounds exactly like Terri from The Thick of It (I missed her name plate at the start - I am, in theory, at work).

It's so weird - Terri (?!) was saying that politicians are too worried about the statistics and that their own experiences are more useful, irrespective of the statistics, and then that Liz's stats were wrong. Andrew Neil played this fun little game where he said a statistic that backed up the Tory rep to which she nodded and the Lab girl decried, then he turned around that same statistic to show that actually it was worse now and their roles just reversed (for example, he said that the number of people waiting for over 4 hours had doubled! Liz Truss goes "wah wah but the average is down" and Terri is all "YEAH BITCHES, TORIES SUCK!" But then he said that the actual number of people going to A&E has doubled and that the percentage of people having to wait over 4 hours is basically identical, which then reversed their roles).

Basically, it just seems that no one knows what the fuck they're talking about. I know this isn't exactly a surprising thing to witness, but it really does cross the aisle - they're all so useless. If Farage has shown anything, it's that the public respond really well to politicians who speak a bit... normally. Not all this "Well, I'm very glad you asked me that Andrew, because I think it's really important we talk about this Top Down Organisation of the NHS" or "I think the important thing to remember here is that the Long Term Economic Plan Is Working." These two actually weren't quite so bad here, but sometimes it genuinely sounds like the interviewer is pulling Woody's string after he's been reprogrammed to say the same three political soundbites over and over again.
Click to expand...

This is what happens when you invite political representatives instead of statisticians or consultants to be interviewed over statistics or details. They have no idea what the statistics mean in a wider context or the implications of them, but know how to use them in a petty debate. I partly agree with the Nigel comment, he definitely is more approachable to voters. At some point I wonder why they have these soundbite debates on a show whose primary audience is the part of the public who are politically and economically more astute. I got to see Nigel talk and he knew how to hold a conversation within his answers without repeating the same phrases (perhaps not all) with his persuasive body language, irrespective of what you thought about the quality of his answers and his policies.
 
Nicktendo86

Nicktendo86

Member
It really is frustrating listening to politicians talk. I feel I would be able to respect them so much more if they said 'yes, this is bad, we are doing x. y and z to fix it' rather than beating around the bush. Yes they always roll out party slogans as well, very annoying.

Andrew Neil is a great interviewer though. I know he can be a bit abrasive but his demolition of Dougie Alexander was masterful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tell me about your favourite game ever.
2 3
119
4K
ReyBrujo replied
[VGC] Keighley weighs in on debate over Dave the Diver qualifying for Best Indie Game
Opinion News 2
86
6K
calistan replied
Shameless Bragging Thread. Tell me about your greatest gaming achievement.
2 3
146
3K
StreetsofBeige replied
Long live Tango Gameworks! 'Appreciation Thread'
2
63
5K
Hudo replied
Prozac made me go nuts (triggered a manic episode) and the resulting explosions ruined my relationship
0
1
Puscifer replied
Top Bottom