Let me make it clear; the Treeza Rant thread

13132333436

Comments

  • Ah yes - but remember, They Speak For The People!

    They know these things!

    They are sent by God to tell us these things!

    These things are therefore True!

    *ahem* I do apologise. I took some pills, but they didn't work.
  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Better the devil you know...

    According to the Daily Wail and the Daily Distress, yesterday's MEP elections proved conclusively that The Will Of The People is that Ukland wants nowt to do with those Horrid Foreigners, and that Niggle The Garbage is our only True Saviour!
    :fearful:

    A truly ghastly scenario would be a General Election which saw the rise of The Garbage and his Brexshit Party to a position of power.

    Since they haven't even published any exit polls, that's remarkable of them.

    Not really. Given that the collapse in the Conservative and UKIP vote, a drop in the Labour vote and a large rise in the number of votes for anti-Brexit parties also proved beyond reasonable doubt that the country was speaking with one voice and saying "Get on with it!", they clearly don't need the data as the conclusion is preformed.

    That's not like the DM at all....

    AFZ
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    I was saying to my wife what a bizarre time in office that May had, but she said, you always say that. I recall Alec Douglas-Home's time was weird, and of course Eden. No, they were all weird.
  • jay_emmjay_emm Shipmate
    They probably do have a fair incling of the actual results. I know of at least one strongly brexit witness, and im sure they can build a vagye picture.
    In addition its fairly predictable, i think its fairly safe that they and remain will get at least twefnty five percent and possibly near forty. And that thyey will bhe the biggest block againish. Regardless by that time the narrative will be fixed.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited May 25
    Not quite sure how they're going to compile exit polls when nobody was being polled on exit. Currently it's all guesswork, based on the voting intention polling before the vote and estimates as to how many are going to vote. Polls haven't been great at predicting elections recently.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    I hear (CNN I think) that the Tories are forecast to get less than 10% of the votes and loads of usual Tory voters have voted for the Brexit party. No idea of the source.

    Whatever. It looks very likely now that the Tories will replace Mrs May with a Hard Brexiteer and the odds on a No Deal Brexit have shortened considerably. The soft Brexiteer Tory MPs look like becoming an endangered sub species.

    Absurd, isn't it? The one clear majority in the House is against a No Deal Brexit. Yet they have been unable to get their act together for something.

    So we crash out and end up with a pseudo UKIP Tory Party led by a pseudo Trump. And in due course an independent Scotland. Well played, little Englanders.

  • Not quite sure how they're going to compile exit polls when nobody was being polled on exit. Currently it's all guesswork, based on the voting intention polling before the vote and estimates as to how many are going to vote. Polls haven't been great at predicting elections recently.
    Online polling companies run exit polls using their usual methods; I was polled after voting in a pre-arranged poll by Populus. UK rules mean that they can ‘t release the results til Sunday though, when other countries have finished voting (these rules vary according to country, several other countries have release exit polls).
  • edited May 25
    Likewise, I was asked to participate in an online exit poll. I'm not entirely sure of the value of exit polls, gaining an insight into the result that will be announced in a few hours anyway. I suppose it gives politicians a head up as to whether they need to use their victory or defeat speech, but both have probably been written anyway. [redacted] The potential for abuse probably makes them more problematic than beneficial.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited May 25
    There's a poll published here [https://www.politico.eu/2019-european-elections/united-kingdom/ ], based on a 35.6% turnout and declared voting intention for both the EU elections and a general election.

    It was an odd election locally - not much through the door in leaflets, not much in the way of posters in windows (one Change UK party to my surprise), no feeling of anyone wanting my vote for anything. I suspect a high Brexit Party vote here from who I saw voting - mainly older voters with lots of stereotypical tells that suggested right leaning. But the region is huge, so who knows how that will work out across the region. And there were candidates standing for several different far right parties, including UKIP and the Brexit Party.
  • Voting intention polls rely on people turning up to vote and not changing their minds in the booth. I suspect in this election might throw up more change than usual.
    Here in Cambridge we had leaflets from just about everyone, from the Greens to the English Democrats. Cambridge is stonkingly remainer and there are lots of lib deb signs out in my area.
  • However, Cambridge is a tiny remain area in the East of England region, which started with 3 Conservative, 1 Labour and 3 UKIP MEPs and is predicted to have elected 3 Brexit Party, 1 Labour, 1 Lib Dem with the 6th and 7th MEPs in doubt, possibly a fourth Brexit Party, possibly a Green, possibly a Conservative - link
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Hostly furry hat on

    It has come to my attention (hat-tip @BroJames) that there might be some problematic content here.

    Firstly, @Alan - I don't think your allegation was proved, and certainly not in a court of law. I've therefore redacted it.

    Secondly, @CK - there is a moratorium until Sunday pm on publishing exit polls. I've removed the link, while we check behind the scenes to see if we can re-insert it.

    Usual brick-bats and bouquets to Styx, please.

    Hostly furry hat off

    DT
    HH
  • It wasn't an exit poll, it was a poll taken on 22 May of statement of intent, promise.
  • Apologies for posting widely reported allegations as though they were proven facts. Here's an account in Bloomberg Businessweek about how exit polls can be used to make money gambling on the markets, in support of my concerns about potential abuse of exit polls.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    It wasn't an exit poll, it was a poll taken on 22 May of statement of intent, promise.

    I'm having problems deciphering the methodology used. Please bear with! (Also Styx, but you know that...)
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    @Curiosity killed - the link has been reinstated. Sorry it took a while.

    (here also - https://www.politico.eu/2019-european-elections/united-kingdom/)

    DT
    HH
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited May 25
    Rather a depressing scenario...though the investigation of Farage regarding possible fraud should be interesting...
    :grimace:

    We shall know more by Monday, of course. A friend who was acting as a teller on Thursday reminded me today that he could not discuss his view of how the election went until all the results were known, so there are protocols (and presumably laws) about this sort of thing.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    First official exit polls are expected at about 5pm uk time, results from 10pm.

    Apparently the bans are to do with not influencing other countries votes. Essentially like our usually coverage restrictions on the day of a general election, but prolonged because the Eu votes across 4 days.
  • First official exit polls are expected at about 5pm uk time, results from 10pm.

    Apparently the bans are to do with not influencing other countries votes. Essentially like our usually coverage restrictions on the day of a general election, but prolonged because the Eu votes across 4 days.

    Yes, my friend explained that this is so.

  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    That poll is interesting (and depressing...).

    It shows a phenomenon that I need to go and find the proper data on. I'm sure that someone has done that work on this. Namely I believe that the precision of polls is to a large extent determined by likelihood to vote estimates. If you look at that prediction, it is to a large extent reliant on a low turnout (~35%). If the turnout is significantly higher, then the Brexit party will probably have a lot less seats that this prediction suggests.

    Let me explain.

    I get a little bit annoyed with people saying things like Polls are always wrong anyway. This is, of course understandable but it's not really true. It is not as though in recent times there has been an election where the Liberal Democrats won despite being consistently 3rd or 4th. Even in the US election of 2016, the polls were accurate to within 2-3%. The reason so many people called it wrong is because they didn't understand that several close states might move together. This simple statistical fact meant that the Trump win was far more likely than many reported. (Which is why 538 had the chance of a Trump victory at around 1 in 3). Similarly if the polls has been wrong in the other direction, with the same fact that these states moved together, Clinton would have won the electoral college by a landslide.

    Polls (like any statistical methods) have a limit in the amount of precision you can achieve. The problem is that if this imprecision has no effect on the outcome, no one cares. In a close race, such imprecision will always risk polls being seen as 'totally wrong.'

    Let me illustrate this with a theoretical example:
    ALIENPOLLING COMPANY
    Candidate A Blue party 51%
    Candidate B Red party 49%

    You could describe this poll as predicting that A will win. And thus if B wins, it was wrong. A more accurate description would be that the poll predicts the race is really close and too close to call.

    ALIENPOLLING COMPANY
    Candidate A Blue party 81%
    Candidate B Red party 19%

    Conversely in this poll, if Candidate B won, you'd have a really good case for saying the poll was wrong. (Note these are voting percentages not odds of winning; you have to do a bit more work to calculate those).

    Polls are imprecise for the following reasons:
    1) They are a sample of ~1000 people out of a large population. Statistically that means the results are an estimate with roughly a 2% margin of error. So if two different polls taken at the same time from the same population got results different by 2%, that would be the normal sort of results we would expect because of sampling.
    2) People change their minds. How people would vote now if there was an election is not the same as how they might vote in a year's time.
    3) Unrepresentative sampling
    4) Likelihood of voting.


    1. is inevitable but if you read good pundits they talk about polling averages which basically minimize these effects. If you have a enough good polls of a race and it's not REALLY close, this isn't a major factor. Moreover if the lead is 10% then the margin of error probably doesn't matter, depending on the electoral system.
    2. you can't really do much about other than polling often!
    3. this is a big problem, but one that I think the polling companies are quite good at correcting for. If you took a sample of 1000 people living in rural Oxfordshire you would get a very different result than a sample of 1000 people living in Tower Hamlets in London. So the polling companies need to correct for unrepresentative sampling. There are actually several factors here - like whether someone's likelihood to respond to a poll is in anyway correlating with who they might vote for - which would be impossible to correct for. (For example, if there was a Nazi party running in the UK, they might get 5% of the votes but the polls done the week before showing support of <1% because people didn't want to admit they supported them...) Historically polling companies used to correct for socioeconomic group. I.e. If you looked at your 1000 people and found that 20% of them came from a group when in the real population only 10% belong to that group then clearly you have over-sampled that specific group. If that group tended to vote a particular way then you clearly have a bias in your poll. Hence you need to weight the proportions from this group less to correct for it. Socioeconomic groupings are not used very much anymore as they don't correlate very well with voting behaviour anymore. Most companies I have seen use the simple measure of who did you vote for last time? This is nice as the proportion who voted for party x is a matter of public record. if the people who responded to your poll who voted x last time is different to the known figure for the whole population, you can correct for it.
    4) Likelihood of voting. Here is where the companies diverge significantly in how they do it but from what I've seen a simple measure of how likely are you to vote from 1-10? is used. Some then only count those that score 6 or above and others weight for each score - i.e. if you say you are 10/10 likely to vote, your answers will be weighted much higher in the poll than someone who said it was 2/10.

    I think 4 is currently the most important factor in how precise polls are. As I said, I need to go and see if anyone's done the academic work on this and published it - right now it's no more than a hypothesis. The UK 2017 election polls showed Labour closing the gap but they still pointed to a Conservative Majority. However all of the good polling companies always publish the raw figures as well. The effect of likelihood of voting can be very significant is a close race. This is an example from 2017 The headline figures from this IpsosMori poll was a 5% lead for the conservatives but the raw data showed a 3% lead for Labour - an 8% difference! If you look at the data tables it showed that the weighting here was almost entirely due to likelihood of voting - i.e. The Conservative voters overall were more likely to vote.

    I think the reason that Labour out-performed the polls in 2017 is that the polling companies underestimated the turnout. That's not a criticism, it's that AFAICS, likelihood of voting is very difficult to estimate and has a large enough effect on the precision of the polls to make the poll 'wrong.'

    I draw two lessons from this;
    1) The polling companies that seem to manage this problem the best seem to be the most accurate - which is partly why exit polls are so accurate - you don't have to correct for likelihood of voting!
    2) Turnout is vital. As The West Wing teaches, decisions are made by those that show up. Farage has never commanded more than (a vocal) minority support but the low-turnout in the European elections amplifies this.

    So the thing to look out for tonight is whether the turnout is the same or higher. If it's a higher turnout then the anti-Brexit parties may well have done better than this poll suggests. Whilst it is possible that a number of highly motivated Brexiters will swell the Brexit Party numbers, I doubt it because these are the people who already turn out to vote in the EU elections.

    If we want to stop Farage (and Trump for that matter) then we really must turnout to vote and get everyone else to do so too.

    AFZ
  • That poll is interesting (and depressing...)

    [.......................]If we want to stop Farage (and Trump for that matter) then we really must turnout to vote and get everyone else to do so too.

    AFZ

    All too true, alas. A good friend (not the one mentioned above!) never votes, on the basis that 'they're all as bad as each other'. :grimace:

    He therefore gets the government he didn't vote for, IYSWIM - though the wretched (and surely now well past its sell-by date) First-Past-The-Post system has the same result for many of us who DO vote.

  • So the thing to look out for tonight is whether the turnout is the same or higher.
    The potential fly in the ointment there is that in 2014 local elections were also held on the same day in many parts of England. That could have resulted in a higher turnout in those areas, or maybe not (given that turn out for Euro Elections at ~35% is similar to turn out for English local elections at ~35%, it might have been more significant in Scotland where local election turn out is just short of 50%). Of course, the simple approach is to only compare turn out in areas where 2014 didn't include local elections, but the results are usually reported for large regions, you need to get down to ward level (maybe even box counts) to do that analysis.
  • What is depressing is the generally low turn-out for elections of any sort in Ukland.

    Truly, we reap what we do (or do not) sow...
  • AndrasAndras Shipmate
    Well, now we know. And we can be pretty sure that Brexit will destroy the next Tory leader just like it did the last however-many (depends on how you count) though it'll happen even faster this time round.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited May 27
    I'm beginning to think that the term 'Tory Leader' is, in fact, an oxymoron (rather like 'British Government').

    'Tory Quaffer-Of-Poisoned-Chalice' might be nearer the mark...
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    There are actually a lot of people queuing up to be the new leader. Not the case with May. They know what they are getting into. It is ok their own head
  • Schroedingers CatSchroedingers Cat Shipmate, Waving not Drowning Host
    And surprise surprise, the candidates are all claiming that the EU election results are an indication they should push harder for a quick Brexit.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    And surprise surprise, the candidates are all claiming that the EU election results are an indication they should push harder for a quick Brexit.

    What they mean is that the election results are an indication that their normal supporters want a quick Brexit and they want to deliver one to get them back from Farage.
  • Or, more succinctly, the EP election results show that Conservative Party members and would-be members want a hard Brexit. And, what Tory Party members want is the only thing that matters, keep them happy and the country can go to hell in a handbasket.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Or, more succinctly, the EP election results show that Conservative Party members and would-be members want a hard Brexit. And, what Tory Party members want is the only thing that matters, keep them happy and the country can go to hell in a handbasket.

    Rather like the way Labour supporters elected Jeremy Corbyn who has turned out to be a disappointing leader. OK with the rank and file, less so to those outside the Party.
  • sionisais wrote: »
    Or, more succinctly, the EP election results show that Conservative Party members and would-be members want a hard Brexit. And, what Tory Party members want is the only thing that matters, keep them happy and the country can go to hell in a handbasket.

    Rather like the way Labour supporters elected Jeremy Corbyn who has turned out to be a disappointing leader. OK with the rank and file, less so to those outside the Party.

    I don't see any of the tory candidates causing hundreds of thousands of people to join the conservative party. Nor do I see any of them likely to get the same level of abuse from the press. Gove and Boris seem to have a national newspaper apiece in their pockets.
  • And we have the Deep Joy™ next week of seeing Our Glorious Soon-to-be-Former Leader cosying up to the Orange Oaf, doubtless paddling paws with him again.

    When's the next spaceship due to leave for Mars?

  • As a fitting epitaph, the latest Private Eye has one of their classic front covers:

    Theresa May Memorial Issue
    The Prime Minister's Legacy in Full


    ...followed by a completely blank and empty space...
  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    As a fitting epitaph, the latest Private Eye has one of their classic front covers:

    Theresa May Memorial Issue
    The Prime Minister's Legacy in Full


    ...followed by a completely blank and empty space...

    Some might say Private Eye is being generous. Her legacy might include three wasted years of national life, political disintegration, community and family conflict and division, and God knows how much neglect of other vital politically related issues (eg, health, transport, economy, welfare etc) because of the effort and time wasted.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    edited June 4
    Anselmina wrote: »
    Some might say Private Eye is being generous. Her legacy might include [...] God knows how much neglect of other vital politically related issues [...], effort and time wasted.
    Not to mention money.
  • AndrasAndras Shipmate
    Terza Rima is an interesting verse-form, apparently conceived by Dante for the Divine Comedy; the three-line stanzas have the first and third line rhyming, while the middle line provides the rhyme for the following stanza, and the whole thing concludes with a couplet.

    Here's my take on it, called Treeza Rima:

    She showed at last that she had tears to shed –
    a human touch we had not thought to see –
    but for herself, and not the countless dead

    and dispossessed, wrecked by austerity,
    dying in high-rise flats and on the streets,
    the sick, the hungry and the refugee.

    Her stock-in-trade the easy lie that treats
    the hackneyed phrase as substitute for thought,
    and you and I less than the rich elites

    that cheered her on. Today let no one sing
    encomiums to that bedraggled thing.

    And yes, it is © I'm afraid!
  • Good luck with the copyright after posting it on the Ship - this post discussed copyright and the Ship a couple of months ago
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    @Andras - while you are free to try and take your poem to other publishers, Ship's Crew thank you for giving us World First Publication rights in perpetuity.

    DT
    HH
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Anselmina wrote: »
    As a fitting epitaph, the latest Private Eye has one of their classic front covers:

    Theresa May Memorial Issue
    The Prime Minister's Legacy in Full


    ...followed by a completely blank and empty space...

    Some might say Private Eye is being generous. Her legacy might include three wasted years of national life, political disintegration, community and family conflict and division, and God knows how much neglect of other vital politically related issues (eg, health, transport, economy, welfare etc) because of the effort and time wasted.

    Let's be clear about it. Because of this government's policies, some thousands of people are dead that need not have been. 17,000 have died while waiting for PIP claims to be decided. Over ten thousand have died within six months of having PIP claims rejected. That's about three times more than died in "The Troubles". To that we have to add those who have died as a consequence of the faults in the Universal Credit system (How much will I get this month? Who can tel? Only the computer knows). The delays and meanness are entirely due to government policy. All that adds to the stress on would-be benefits recipients, who don't need stress-induced mental illnness on top of poverty.
  • AndrasAndras Shipmate
    Good luck with the copyright after posting it on the Ship - this post discussed copyright and the Ship a couple of months ago

    It's all right - I know! I'm happy for anyone to reprint or repost, but I do ask for the Ship to be acknowledged if they do so.
  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    edited June 4
    Her dress at the royal banquet was awful - not only unadorned black but sleeveless with a very strange, sharply angles, v-neck-line and some weird cut-out at the shoulder (and continuing down the back perhaps. And dull-red shoes!

    signed, Galilit (Ship's fashionista, barefoot in pale denim cut-offs and a navy henley t-shirt)
  • I have said this before - I am convinced that poor Melancholia has somehow been ensorcelled...and cannot help herself...
    :cold_sweat:
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    sionisais wrote: »
    Let's be clear about it. Because of this government's policies, some thousands of people are dead that need not have been. 17,000 have died while waiting for PIP claims to be decided. Over ten thousand have died within six months of having PIP claims rejected. That's about three times more than died in "The Troubles". To that we have to add those who have died as a consequence of the faults in the Universal Credit system (How much will I get this month? Who can tel? Only the computer knows). The delays and meanness are entirely due to government policy. All that adds to the stress on would-be benefits recipients, who don't need stress-induced mental illnness on top of poverty.

    But milkshakes, right?
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »

    But milkshakes, right?

    I'm waiting for a Tory "Death by Milkshake".
  • sionisais wrote: »
    Anselmina wrote: »
    As a fitting epitaph, the latest Private Eye has one of their classic front covers:

    Theresa May Memorial Issue
    The Prime Minister's Legacy in Full


    ...followed by a completely blank and empty space...

    Some might say Private Eye is being generous. Her legacy might include three wasted years of national life, political disintegration, community and family conflict and division, and God knows how much neglect of other vital politically related issues (eg, health, transport, economy, welfare etc) because of the effort and time wasted.

    Let's be clear about it. Because of this government's policies, some thousands of people are dead that need not have been. 17,000 have died while waiting for PIP claims to be decided. Over ten thousand have died within six months of having PIP claims rejected. That's about three times more than died in "The Troubles". To that we have to add those who have died as a consequence of the faults in the Universal Credit system (How much will I get this month? Who can tel? Only the computer knows). The delays and meanness are entirely due to government policy. All that adds to the stress on would-be benefits recipients, who don't need stress-induced mental illnness on top of poverty.
    Ah, but those are the policies the government managed to work through despite the time and money spent on their Brexit ego-trip. Imagine what they could have manged if they hadn't spent so much effort on Brexit.

    Maybe we should be offering thanks to Cameron for bringing government to a near stand-still for three years.
  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    sionisais wrote: »
    Anselmina wrote: »
    As a fitting epitaph, the latest Private Eye has one of their classic front covers:

    Theresa May Memorial Issue
    The Prime Minister's Legacy in Full


    ...followed by a completely blank and empty space...

    Some might say Private Eye is being generous. Her legacy might include three wasted years of national life, political disintegration, community and family conflict and division, and God knows how much neglect of other vital politically related issues (eg, health, transport, economy, welfare etc) because of the effort and time wasted.

    Let's be clear about it. Because of this government's policies, some thousands of people are dead that need not have been. 17,000 have died while waiting for PIP claims to be decided. Over ten thousand have died within six months of having PIP claims rejected. That's about three times more than died in "The Troubles". To that we have to add those who have died as a consequence of the faults in the Universal Credit system (How much will I get this month? Who can tel? Only the computer knows). The delays and meanness are entirely due to government policy. All that adds to the stress on would-be benefits recipients, who don't need stress-induced mental illnness on top of poverty.
    Ah, but those are the policies the government managed to work through despite the time and money spent on their Brexit ego-trip. Imagine what they could have manged if they hadn't spent so much effort on Brexit.

    Maybe we should be offering thanks to Cameron for bringing government to a near stand-still for three years.

    That is a very good point.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    I all started with the Cameron government didn’t it?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    I all started with the Cameron government didn’t it?

    2016 - I'm starting to come around to the theory that a weasel got into the Large Hadron Collider and knocked us into a parallel universe.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited June 4
    KarlLB wrote: »
    2016 - I'm starting to come around to the theory that a weasel got into the Large Hadron Collider and knocked us into a parallel universe.
    Cameron got re-elected with an actual majority in 2015. My theory is that some time traveller went off with the Mind stone and decided to look up an old girlfriend instead of putting it back.

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited June 4
    They were trying to change history to save us from the chaos under Ed Miliband.
Sign In or Register to comment.