Cameron/Gove Live Questions Thread

Announcements Posted on
Four things that unis think matter more than league tables 08-12-2016
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Oh i agree with all those sentiments, the difference is that i feel no emotional attachment to Europe and am not willing to be a state of the federation. I'm sure the federation will be a great ally of ours though.
    I'm disturbed that no one on the Leave side has had the bravery to say this. The Nigel Farage position (the EU is un democratic and evil etc)

    The disinflationary benefits to the consumer are almost always worth the localised job losses. For every 10p we cut from the price of milk, that's another supermarket job ect.. (figure is not real but you get my point). The agricultural industry according to the treasury is one of the least productive parts of the economy and we see a chronic oversupply of production of things like milk (hence selling it at a loss). I have no desire to put these people out of work but the entire agricultural industry needs restructuring and competition is one way to force that. At any rate, it's a small portion of the labour force.
    Where would you say the limit is? I know you're willing for the state to intervene- where should the state step in?

    Germany took 1.1m third worlders last year, current immigration to Germany suggests another 1.2m this year. I don't much care about immigration levels but i do care about polluting the continent with the poorest and most deprived people on the planet, especially when they represent an ethno-cultural threat.
    Fair enough on the figures, but are they taking them as refugees or immigrants?
    If they don't get passports and plan on returning it may not be that much of a problem. Also considering Germany's demographic time bomb, I'm not sure if it's s big deal.


    We should indeed have more native children and i strongly support government policies to encourage that.
    What form should this take? I can't see people being prepared to pay extra taxes subsidising other people's kids just because they're British.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I'm disturbed that no one on the Leave side has had the bravery to say this. The Nigel Farage position (the EU is un democratic and evil etc) .
    Not quite sure what you're looking at if you think leave isn't saying this given it's well, kinda the line...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Not quite sure what you're looking at if you think leave isn't saying this given it's well, kinda the line...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The line, or the implication is that the EU is a sinister conspiracy by evil bureaucrats who hate Britons and want to bend our bananas and that the EU is to blame for Russia invading Ukraine. Not an outdated but ultimately benign political project of member states.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    the EU is to blame for Russia invading Ukraine
    You can't mix a truth in with some non-truths to try and disguise it
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    You can't mix a truth in with some non-truths to try and disguise it
    http://www.aecr.eu/daniel-hannan-eur...n-sovereignty/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Not actually a refutation. At all. This article is just about not supporting Putin.
    Do you know what Euromaidan was?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    Not actually a refutation. At all. This article is just about not supporting Putin.
    Do you know what Euromaidan was?
    Yep. All those activists were CIA weren't they?

    This guy was there, he passionately hates the EU and he has the decency to say the truth. There are some things worse than the EU. Grow up.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Yep. All those activists were CIA weren't they?

    This guy was there, he passionately hates the EU and he has the decency to say the truth. There are some things worse than the EU. Grow up.
    What are you actually trying to say lmao

    Do you know what Euromaidan was?
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I'm disturbed that no one on the Leave side has had the bravery to say this. The Nigel Farage position (the EU is un democratic and evil etc)

    Where would you say the limit is? I know you're willing for the state to intervene- where should the state step in?

    Fair enough on the figures, but are they taking them as refugees or immigrants?
    If they don't get passports and plan on returning it may not be that much of a problem. Also considering Germany's demographic time bomb, I'm not sure if it's s big deal.

    What form should this take? I can't see people being prepared to pay extra taxes subsidising other people's kids just because they're British.
    The Leave side as a whole is made up of a large coalition in which those with fringe positions (i don't believe most Tory MP's or the people really desire a Euro collapse) have greater prominence that on many other issues.. Unfortunately this means that those more moderate positions are crowded out.

    With the agricultural industry i'm a fan of conscription for the long term unemployed when young however for the old i'd put in place retraining and expand the number of agricultural apprenticeships while making funds available from a productivity fund to automate the industry..On the wider point of state intervention i would not be willing to save a service sector firm on the basis that the sector is one of the worlds strongest and we have a significant surplus in service trade however i am open to intervention in the primary and secondary sectors so long as a credible plan to automate the crap out of these firms is on the table. Saving things like steel should involve saving the production, not the labour force. I'm also open to splitting ownership and control so that foreign ownership above a certain threshold is not permitted although i would imagine the EU and TTIP would effect this.

    Those were just refugees and in several years they'll gain citizenship, especially since the alternative to Merkel is the left. You don't cure a demographic time bomb by destroying the demographic makeup of your country.

    Limiting abortions to one per woman is an option. Mainly though reducing the cost of living and rewarding those who have 3 children is what needs to happen though.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    The line, or the implication is that the EU is a sinister conspiracy by evil bureaucrats who hate Britons and want to bend our bananas and that the EU is to blame for Russia invading Ukraine. Not an outdated but ultimately benign political project of member states.
    You're selective hearing is seriously so bad that you have not heard anybody saying that we do not want to be part of a federal Europe but want to work with one if/when it does come along?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Unfortunately most of the polls showing for Out are online polls which after 2015 i don't trust (phone polls had the wrong amplitude but at least they had the right answer) which means that for the most part the current polls are meaningless to me. There are also still several going for Remain.

    We can say that Leave have made some progress though. In April Remain-Leave telephone polls averaged 48-39 while in May they averaged 48-40. Most recent polls are better for Leave though.

    Despite being for Out myself the polling is even more important to me than you'd think. I plan to put £30 on the result next weekend so i need the result and a margin of victory.
    Ah, the real reason has come out at last

    In all seriousness though, I would argue that telephone polls are more unreliable that online polls for the following reasons:

    1. People are not willing to tell someone random stranger who they will vote for.
    2. Due to number 1, they will most likely say undecided or just pick a random answer that they think the other person will agree with.
    3. It costs money being on the phone, so most (particularly the elderly) will want to get off the phone as soon as possible and thus will answer any question as quickly as possible (instead of giving it much thought)
    4. The people at the other end of the phone tend to me biased (without knowing).

    Online polling is much more reliable because people can stay anonymous (and are likely to say what they really think).You also say you don't trust polls but use them to say vote leave has made progress and to suggest someones electorate percentage and personality

    Most polls are biased and are funded by either the government or the EU. Every poll is only a sample anyway and does not always reflect public opinion.

    (Original post by tomlam)
    I don't reckon it's a matter of perspective, I think the arguments of all of these economists bears at least some weight. As for the mass immigration issue, we clearly need to be investing in infrastructure to support the population. Everyone's telling us that the NHS is under pressure but of course it is, we need new hospitals. Can't get your child into primary school? Get more built.

    What didn't surprise me is this:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7074311.html
    Hmm maybe, but there are economists that say we are better off outside the EU so its kind of open air on that issue as there are too many variables that could change.

    I agree we need to put more into infrastructure, but there is only so many houses etc you can build on a island and this problem is better to be solved now rather than later. The fact, if you look locally at the statistics, you will see that we are the 3rd overcrowded country in Europe and the 5th in the world.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrITguy)
    Ah, the real reason has come out at last

    In all seriousness though, I would argue that telephone polls are more unreliable that online polls for the following reasons:

    1. People are not willing to tell someone random stranger who they will vote for.
    2. Due to number 1, they will most likely say undecided or just pick a random answer that they think the other person will agree with.
    3. It costs money being on the phone, so most (particularly the elderly) will want to get off the phone as soon as possible and thus will answer any question as quickly as possible (instead of giving it much thought)
    4. The people at the other end of the phone tend to me biased (without knowing).

    Online polling is much more reliable because people can stay anonymous (and are likely to say what they really think).You also say you don't trust polls but use them to say vote leave has made progress and to suggest someones electorate percentage and personality

    Most polls are biased and are funded by either the government or the EU. Every poll is only a sample anyway and does not always reflect public opinion.
    All polls have their positives and negatives (online polls often have a more politically interested sample for example which creates a bias) however in recent years we have seen that telephone polls on aggregate have been more accurate than online polls, especially in 2015 and that's why i'm backing them.

    Most polls that we see publicly are paid for by the newspapers rather than government, there is plenty of private polling though.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    All polls have their positives and negatives (online polls often have a more politically interested sample for example which creates a bias) however in recent years we have seen that telephone polls on aggregate have been more accurate than online polls, especially in 2015 and that's why i'm backing them.

    Most polls that we see publicly are paid for by the newspapers rather than government, there is plenty of private polling though.
    Fair enough. I think most will agree that polls are unreliable as a whole though and do not reflect the populations opinion. Whether one is slightly more accurate than another really doesn't matter to us the electorate, as they both a wrong. This defeats the purpose of the polls in the first place.

    Ye you are right but those newspapers in turn are paid by the government/Eu and generally have their own political biased.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrITguy)
    Hmm maybe, but there are economists that say we are better off outside the EU so its kind of open air on that issue as there are too many variables that could change.

    I agree we need to put more into infrastructure, but there is only so many houses etc you can build on a island and this problem is better to be solved now rather than later. The fact, if you look locally at the statistics, you will see that we are the 3rd overcrowded country in Europe and the 5th in the world.
    I'm not too convinced, it's a bit like global warming, the vast majority of scientists think climate change is a result of CO2 produced by humans, but the ones who don't are the ones that justify people's viewpoints thus, they are listened to more.

    About the whole overcrowding thing, I'm not sure that we are genuinely that overcrowded, we have so much farm land that we could build on that's just sitting there at the moment. On top of this, we don't even have to expend the borders of our cities to fit more people in, London isn't very dense compared to other major cities of the world. Theoretically, all we need to do is build buildings that are taller or more tightly packed together to achieve housing goals. Infrastructure investment quells overcrowding after all so I think it would be a great shame to miss out on this opportunity of migration because we were underinvesting.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrITguy)
    Fair enough. I think most will agree that polls are unreliable as a whole though and do not reflect the populations opinion. Whether one is slightly more accurate than another really doesn't matter to us the electorate, as they both a wrong. This defeats the purpose of the polls in the first place.

    Ye you are right but those newspapers in turn are paid by the government/Eu and generally have their own political biased.
    I disagree about polling, polling is incredibly accurate.

    It doesn't matter if the sample that you interview is representative of the population, as long as you have a large enough sample from each group, it is statistically accurate. All polls are weighted to represent all groups.

    So why were polls so inaccurate in the 2015 general election then?
    Well, despite all of the polls being statistically accurate, it was concluded that it was the way that the questions were being asked that was the culprit. Rather than asking people how they were going to vote, pollsters should have asked people how they felt on certain issues too. This is far more accurate than polling just the intentions. The error from this could be up to 10%
    There is of course the shy Tory factor too, where Conservatives don't let their intentions be known especially on telephone polls because they are scared that others may judge them for their opinions. The error from this though is only estimated to be about 2%.
    So, the error does stack up. Again, it wasn't because of statistical inaccuracies in the polls but instead because of the way the poll was conducted.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomlam)
    I disagree about polling, polling is incredibly accurate.

    It doesn't matter if the sample that you interview is representative of the population, as long as you have a large enough sample from each group, it is statistically accurate. All polls are weighted to represent all groups.

    So why were polls so inaccurate in the 2015 general election then?
    Well, despite all of the polls being statistically accurate, it was concluded that it was the way that the questions were being asked that was the culprit. Rather than asking people how they were going to vote, pollsters should have asked people how they felt on certain issues too. This is far more accurate than polling just the intentions. The error from this could be up to 10%
    There is of course the shy Tory factor too, where Conservatives don't let their intentions be known especially on telephone polls because they are scared that others may judge them for their opinions. The error from this though is only estimated to be about 2%.
    So, the error does stack up. Again, it wasn't because of statistical inaccuracies in the polls but instead because of the way the poll was conducted.
    LOL, statistically accurate? HOW?

    Granted the way in which the questions were asked were not very reflective. But even so none of the polls predicted a Tory majority....Furthermore, it predicted ukip would have a few seats and instead they decreased to one. Only thing they got right was the lib-dems

    Also how do you explain the 2010 elections which was also inaccurate?

    Its because only certain people will answer and a large chunk of the electorate will not answer polling questions. This makes the polling inaccurate, plus the fact that most polls as mentioned above are funded by political organisations and have their own agenda instead of representing the public as accurately (They do this by asking biased questions for example.).

    Furthermore, they only have a certain sized sample which is decided before the conduct it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrITguy)
    LOL, statistically accurate? HOW?

    Granted the way in which the questions were asked were not very reflective. But even so none of the polls predicted a Tory majority....Furthermore, it predicted ukip would have a few seats and instead they decreased to one. Only thing they got right was the lib-dems

    Also how do you explain the 2010 elections which was also inaccurate?

    Its because only certain people will answer and a large chunk of the electorate will not answer polling questions. This makes the polling inaccurate, plus the fact that most polls as mentioned above are funded by political organisations and have their own agenda instead of representing the public as accurately (They do this by asking biased questions for example.).
    I know it may not seem like it given the results of various elections and the polling beforehand, but the methodology is accepted amongst statisticians as the most accurate way to conduct polling. If you think you can do a better job, all of the raw data collected is published so perhaps you should d the analysis.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrITguy)
    Fair enough. I think most will agree that polls are unreliable as a whole though and do not reflect the populations opinion. Whether one is slightly more accurate than another really doesn't matter to us the electorate, as they both a wrong. This defeats the purpose of the polls in the first place.

    Ye you are right but those newspapers in turn are paid by the government/Eu and generally have their own political biased.
    Oh i agree that people who use a single poll to make their claim are stupid but you can usually find an average or trend over time in the right direction. It's about having the ability to read into them as opposed to declaring a headline figure like a lot of papers do. In 2015 for example telephone polls averaged a 3% Tory lead (the winning margin was 6%) and in 2012 although national polls had Obama and Romney close, all swing state polling suggested Obama had a relatively easy win coming.

    In essence, you have to be willing to look at the detail of polling to be able to use them. Sadly, papers and a lot of people don't.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomlam)
    I know it may not seem like it given the results of various elections and the polling beforehand, but the methodology is accepted amongst statisticians as the most accurate way to conduct polling. If you think you can do a better job, all of the raw data collected is published so perhaps you should d the analysis.
    What is the most accurate way of conducting polling? and yes I bet I could as I would be independent and free of political agenda's.

    Furthermore, I would randomly target area's of people from a list and do more than one mini poll's at the same time before analysing the results. I would then take out all anomaly's and proceed to look at trends.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Oh i agree that people who use a single poll to make their claim are stupid but you can usually find an average or trend over time in the right direction. It's about having the ability to read into them as opposed to declaring a headline figure like a lot of papers do. In 2015 for example telephone polls averaged a 3% Tory lead (the winning margin was 6%) and in 2012 although national polls had Obama and Romney close, all swing state polling suggested Obama had a relatively easy win coming.

    In essence, you have to be willing to look at the detail of polling to be able to use them. Sadly, papers and a lot of people don't.
    Right, now I understand.

    Yes, I completely agree that data is useful to us and if we can find a trend that we can use it to help predict the future.

    However, if that data if so distort, that no clear trend can be found within a sample. Then the data is meaningless, if outside the sample there is a clear trend.

    Sadly opinions and politics get in the way of polling as this is the reason why I think they are very unreliable (regardless of trends). For example, say if one polling company is in favour of the Tory's and not labour, to distort the data, they will only go to well know Tory's area's, instead of selecting random locations or targeting locations that are neither present.

    The trend you see if that poll will clearly show a favour towards the Tory's and will thus create the impression that Tory's have a lot of support or is growing if they did the same to a past poll.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 12, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Do you think you'll achieve your predicted A Level grades?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.