UK Politics Thread 18-inch Mark VI: Witty Title Forthcoming

[Alvecia]

For a national referendum, 1500 is a shit sample size anyway.

To be fair it's just focused on a region, and if properly sampled it doesn't need to be. I doubt regional newspaper has time or resources to do that though.

Eh, true.
But you're right. A bit of quick maths shows that is about the same result you would expect if none of the responants had changed their minds

[Alvecia]

For a national referendum, 1500 is a shit sample size anyway.

from what i know one of the weird things about sample size is that the criteria "national referendum" doesn't really affect how big the sample size needs to be

It's true that if the sampling is done right then the data should be accurate. I just don't like small sample sizes in analysese. Too easy for anomalous data to throw out the result.

[The Blaatschapen]

For a national referendum, 1500 is a shit sample size anyway.

from what i know one of the weird things about sample size is that the criteria "national referendum" doesn't really affect how big the sample size needs to be

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

Given a 95% confidence level and a 5% confidence interval and a population of 64.1 million (this number can actually go lower since not everyone is eligible to vote {eg. underage people}), the sample size can be 384.

However, since the sample is tainted in other ways (probably), the point here is moot. But it's surprising (for the ones less knowledgeable about statistics) how small a sample size can indeed be.

[Alvecia]

from what i know one of the weird things about sample size is that the criteria "national referendum" doesn't really affect how big the sample size needs to be

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

Given a 95% confidence level and a 5% confidence interval and a population of 64.1 million (this number can actually go lower since not everyone is eligible to vote {eg. underage people}), the sample size can be 384.

However, since the sample is tainted in other ways (probably), the point here is moot. But it's surprising (for the ones less knowledgeable about statistics) how small a sample size can indeed be.

That's interesting actually. I think I'll bookmark that.

[The Blaatschapen]

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

Given a 95% confidence level and a 5% confidence interval and a population of 64.1 million (this number can actually go lower since not everyone is eligible to vote {eg. underage people}), the sample size can be 384.

However, since the sample is tainted in other ways (probably), the point here is moot. But it's surprising (for the ones less knowledgeable about statistics) how small a sample size can indeed be.

That's interesting actually. I think I'll bookmark that.

Yeah, you can play around a bit with the numbers, fact remains that you only need to sample about 20K people in the end at most. Unless you go for extremely low margins of error (<1%), but for political polls, etc. that's useless since between polling and voting, more than 1% is likely to change their mind (I'd guess).

[Ifreann]

The WWE WWF WWC demographic are delicate little flowers who will vote Tory should their jimmies suffer the slightest rustling, so we mustn't criticise them any more, just pander to their racist, sexist beliefs

There would be something unusual about a self-proclaimed leftist hating on working class people, except it's the new norm.

Fortunately they still have champions like you who'll deport foreigners that are too foreign.

[South Park Labourite]

There would be something unusual about a self-proclaimed leftist hating on working class people, except it's the new norm.

Fortunately they still have champions like you who'll deport foreigners that are too foreign.

Meanwhile you're championing the enabling of homophobic, sexist, racist and misogynistic attitudes in society.

EDIT: I also said nothing about deporting... all I said was that we'd test people to ensure they do not have hateful values when we let them in the country, teach them how to integrate and ensure they can speak English... the only way they'd get deported is if their visa expires, it doesn't get renewed and they stick around, thus making them illegal immigrants, or if you commit a criminal offence (which isn't anything new). You, a white person, are stigmatising me, a brown person, as a racist (effectively whitesplaining), along with the majority of the country (including a majority of BAME people) who want better controls over immigration.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Fortunately they still have champions like you who'll deport foreigners that are too foreign.

Meanwhile you're championing the enabling of homophobic, sexist, racist and misogynistic attitudes in society.

EDIT: I also said nothing about deporting... all I said was that we'd test people to ensure they do not have hateful values when we let them in the country, teach them how to integrate and ensure they can speak English... the only way they'd get deported is if their visa expires, it doesn't get renewed and they stick around, thus making them illegal immigrants, or if you commit a criminal offence (which isn't anything new). You, a white person, are stigmatising me, a brown person, as a racist (effectively whitesplaining), along with the majority of the country (including a majority of BAME people) who want better controls over immigration.

It's almost like the author of that report had a point when she said that people were concerned about speaking up about social issues for fear of being blanket-labelled as racist.

[South Park Labourite]

Meanwhile you're championing the enabling of homophobic, sexist, racist and misogynistic attitudes in society.

EDIT: I also said nothing about deporting... all I said was that we'd test people to ensure they do not have hateful values when we let them in the country, teach them how to integrate and ensure they can speak English... the only way they'd get deported is if their visa expires, it doesn't get renewed and they stick around, thus making them illegal immigrants, or if you commit a criminal offence (which isn't anything new). You, a white person, are stigmatising me, a brown person, as a racist (effectively whitesplaining), along with the majority of the country (including a majority of BAME people) who want better controls over immigration.

It's almost like the author of that report had a point when she said that people were concerned about speaking up about social issues for fear of being blanket-labelled as racist.

It's genuinely ridiculous. People like Maajid Nawaz, Sara Khan or Ed Hussein get labeled as islamophobic for talking about issues in the Muslim community, or even people of colour who think immigration should be reduced (a majority of them), ironically enough often by white liberals. Regressive left is a term that's been misappropriated and gets thrown around a lot at things it shouldn't apply to, but this really is it in action.

[Souseiseki]

i agree. it's a shame so many people have no idea what they're talking about and go on stupid rants about muslims and immigrants constantly, thereby preventing people with real concerns being heard without being conflated with them. :-)

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Whitesplaining? Really?

[South Park Labourite]

i agree. it's a shame so many people have no idea what they're talking about and go on stupid rants about muslims and immigrants constantly, thereby preventing people with real concerns being heard without being conflated with them. :-)

I have more of an idea then the 'oh talking about it is racist and islamophobic'. None of you have tried to engage with my arguments in a way without concluding they're racist. You're the same sort of people who silence people like Maajid Nawaz.

[Olivaero]

It's almost like the author of that report had a point when she said that people were concerned about speaking up about social issues for fear of being blanket-labelled as racist.

It's genuinely ridiculous. People like Maajid Nawaz, Sara Khan or Ed Hussein get labeled as islamophobic for talking about issues in the Muslim community, or even people of colour who think immigration should be reduced (a majority of them), ironically enough often by white liberals. Regressive left is a term that's been misappropriated and gets thrown around a lot at things it shouldn't apply to, but this really is it in action.

This just in, people of different shades of skin can all be equally xenophobic.

[South Park Labourite]

It's genuinely ridiculous. People like Maajid Nawaz, Sara Khan or Ed Hussein get labeled as islamophobic for talking about issues in the Muslim community, or even people of colour who think immigration should be reduced (a majority of them), ironically enough often by white liberals. Regressive left is a term that's been misappropriated and gets thrown around a lot at things it shouldn't apply to, but this really is it in action.

This just in, people of different shades of skin can all be equally xenophobic.

Saying 'I think there should be less immigration' is xenophobic?

[Philjia]

i agree. it's a shame so many people have no idea what they're talking about and go on stupid rants about muslims and immigrants constantly, thereby preventing people with real concerns being heard without being conflated with them. :-)

I have more of an idea then the 'oh talking about it is racist and islamophobic'. None of you have tried to engage with my arguments in a way without concluding they're racist. You're same sort of people who silence people like Maajid Nawaz.

His ideas about how to tackle extremism don't involve extra panic as a core tenant.

[South Park Labourite]

I have more of an idea then the 'oh talking about it is racist and islamophobic'. None of you have tried to engage with my arguments in a way without concluding they're racist. You're same sort of people who silence people like Maajid Nawaz.

His ideas about how to tackle extremism don't involve extra panic as a core tenant.

I haven't pulled anything out of thin air, all the things I'm saying are reflected in the Casey Report, have been raised by numerous left-wingers from Chuka Umunna to Clive Lewis, have evidence to support them etc.

[Souseiseki]

i agree. it's a shame so many people have no idea what they're talking about and go on stupid rants about muslims and immigrants constantly, thereby preventing people with real concerns being heard without being conflated with them. :-)

I have more of an idea then the 'oh talking about it is racist and islamophobic'. None of you have tried to engage with my arguments in a way without concluding they're racist. You're the same sort of people who silence people like Maajid Nawaz.

i don't recall concluding they were racist. if you recall my arguments were the difficulties pinning down what british values actually mean and the hypocrisy involved in letting citizens be as homophobic as they want and applying standards that would have in all likelyhood seen yourselves given the boot if they were applied at the relevant time for you, which again ties into the near meaninglessness of the phrase "british values".

[Olivaero]

This just in, people of different shades of skin can all be equally xenophobic.

Saying 'I think there should be less immigration' is xenophobic?

No it isn't, but someone having foreign heritage does not make some one immune from criticism on issues which deal with foreigners. I don't know the personal stances of the people you referenced nor their specific heritage but they could be equally as xenophobic as any pasty white EDL thug.

I should also note, that you were not arguing in favour of simply less immigration earlier, more so that we should have ethical criteria for accepting people which would cause a short term drop I'm sure but not necessarily stop an increase in the long term as global population grows and also thus statistically increasing the number of eligible applicants.

[Philjia]

His ideas about how to tackle extremism don't involve extra panic as a core tenant.

I haven't pulled anything out of thin air, all the things I'm saying are reflected in the Casey Report, have been raised by numerous left-wingers from Chuka Umunna to Clive Lewis, have evidence to support them etc.

I agree with all of them. I disagree with your response to them, which is largely built on making us look paranoid, which will not exactly help smooth relations between different communities. If we want to stop extremism and discriminatory behaviour, we can't just swoop down from on high and start smiting everyone who deviates from "British Values" because we'll look like we're A) sociopaths and B) hypocrites.

(Is it me, or are you slowly morphing into a One Nation Tory? Not that I mind, the Tories could do with some right about now...)

[Val Halla]

Given the recent news of police and the NHS fucking up, how will fire and coastguard join the shitty emergency service party?

[South Park Labourite]

I have more of an idea then the 'oh talking about it is racist and islamophobic'. None of you have tried to engage with my arguments in a way without concluding they're racist. You're the same sort of people who silence people like Maajid Nawaz.

i don't recall concluding they were racist. if you recall my arguments were the difficulties pinning down what british values actually mean and the hypocrisy involved in letting citizens be as homophobic as they want and applying standards that would have in all likelyhood seen yourselves given the boot if they were applied at the relevant time for you, which again ties into the near meaninglessness of the phrase "british values".

This 'if you're descended from an immigrant you have to be pro-immigration' crap is ridiculous. Plenty of people are descended from immigrants and want to see it reduced, the point is we're British and we have a right to decide who we want to let into the country. It's as much our country as it is some white guy whose lineage goes back to 1066 and in a sense by using this argument you're denying our status as British by implying we're not as British as someone else.

Saying 'I think there should be less immigration' is xenophobic?

No it isn't, but someone having foreign heritage does not make some one immune from criticism on issues which deal with foreigners. I don't know the personal stances of the people you referenced nor their specific heritage but they could be equally as xenophobic as any pasty white EDL thug.

I should also note, that you were not arguing in favour of simply less immigration earlier, more so that we should have ethical criteria for accepting people which would cause a short term drop I'm sure but not necessarily stop an increase in the long term as global population grows and also thus statistically increasing the number of eligible applicants.

I actually envisage it being applied as part of the new work permit system, so the most ethical get let in. The amount of work permits that are given out will supposedly be capped, so in a sense the more ethical you are the better chance you have of getting in. I guess it would apply along side other criteria like what skills and qualifications does an immigrant possess, their language ability etc.

[Ifreann]

Fortunately they still have champions like you who'll deport foreigners that are too foreign.

Meanwhile you're championing the enabling of homophobic, sexist, racist and misogynistic attitudes in society.

Letting people think for themselves does mean that sometimes they'll think things you don't approve of. We can only try to teach them that they are wrong. We can't police their thoughts and beliefs and opinions.

EDIT: I also said nothing about deporting...

"With immigrants it's different - we citizens are letting them into our country, we expect them to fulfill a number of obligations that we set. If they don't, we can kick them out of the country."

all I said was that we'd test people to ensure they do not have hateful values when we let them in the country,

Throwing people out of the country, not letting them in the country, not really a huge difference.

teach them how to integrate and ensure they can speak English... the only way they'd get deported is if their visa expires, it doesn't get renewed and they stick around, thus making them illegal immigrants, or if you commit a criminal offence (which isn't anything new).

Will not integrating be a criminal offence?

You, a white person,

I wonder if you're assuming this.

are stigmatising me, a brown person, as a racist (effectively whitesplaining), along with the majority of the country (including a majority of BAME people) who want better controls over immigration.

Am I calling you racist? When was this? When you were telling me about how corrupt Bangladeshis are? Or when you were explaining how superior British values march forward constantly while inferior Saudi values are stuck in the first millennium?

[Olivaero]

i don't recall concluding they were racist. if you recall my arguments were the difficulties pinning down what british values actually mean and the hypocrisy involved in letting citizens be as homophobic as they want and applying standards that would have in all likelyhood seen yourselves given the boot if they were applied at the relevant time for you, which again ties into the near meaninglessness of the phrase "british values".

This 'if you're descended from an immigrant you have to be pro-immigration' crap is ridiculous. Plenty of people are descended from immigrants and are anti-immigration, the point is we're British and we have a right to decide who we want to let into the country. It's as much our country as it is some white guy whose lineage goes back to 1066 and in a sense by using this argument you're denying our status as British by implying we're not as British as someone else.

No it isn't, but someone having foreign heritage does not make some one immune from criticism on issues which deal with foreigners. I don't know the personal stances of the people you referenced nor their specific heritage but they could be equally as xenophobic as any pasty white EDL thug.

I should also note, that you were not arguing in favour of simply less immigration earlier, more so that we should have ethical criteria for accepting people which would cause a short term drop I'm sure but not necessarily stop an increase in the long term as global population grows and also thus statistically increasing the number of eligible applicants.

I actually envisage it being applied as part of the new work permit system, so the most ethical get let in. The amount of work permits that are given out will supposedly be capped, so in a sense the more ethical you are the better chance you have of getting in. I guess it would apply along side other criteria like what skills and qualifications does an immigrant possess, their language ability etc.

That will just lead to lying in the interview process. Aslo I don't buy that mass immigration needs to be drastically cut in order to focus on improving the lives of current citizens, we just need to engage in an economic strategy that promotes growth, innovation and investment. Immigration it's self generally being a driver of growth.

[South Park Labourite]

This 'if you're descended from an immigrant you have to be pro-immigration' crap is ridiculous. Plenty of people are descended from immigrants and are anti-immigration, the point is we're British and we have a right to decide who we want to let into the country. It's as much our country as it is some white guy whose lineage goes back to 1066 and in a sense by using this argument you're denying our status as British by implying we're not as British as someone else.


I actually envisage it being applied as part of the new work permit system, so the most ethical get let in. The amount of work permits that are given out will supposedly be capped, so in a sense the more ethical you are the better chance you have of getting in. I guess it would apply along side other criteria like what skills and qualifications does an immigrant possess, their language ability etc.

That will just lead to lying in the interview process. Aslo I don't buy that mass immigration needs to be drastically cut in order to focus on improving the lives of current citizens, we just need to engage in an economic strategy that promotes growth, innovation and investment. Immigration it's self generally being a driver of growth.

There are ways to structure the interview or test so as to prevent lying. For instance, asking a question more than once but in different ways - it's more complicated then that I'm sure, but that's one for the psychologists. Someone on the left has to give ideas, otherwise it'll be people like Richard Littlejohn and Nigel Farage providing the intellectual thought as to how we reduce immigration.

Immigration does drive growth, but at the expense of low-skilled people and the working class (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... ekers.html) and it sort of is a stopgap action to addressing the issue concerning a lack of skills among our own people. I personally believe in endogenous growth theory and that the best way to drive growth is investing in human capital, innovation, and knowledge - encouraging firms to skill up our own workers if they want to boost productivity and profits, instead of simply hiring more immigrant workers on the cheap to do this at the expense of the wages of our working class.

I think people misread what is said when people say 'immigrants take jobs'. Firstly, the lump of labour fallacy does apply, but less so to those on lower-skilled jobs - they have less money to spend to create jobs then a more skilled immigrant. Secondly, people like job security and what immigrants do is make people search for employment a lot longer then they otherwise would, thus the guarantee for natives that they'll get the jobs they want is less. It doesn't matter if the immigrants are creating more jobs, it does matter if they aren't the ones people want and it does matter if they're doing jobs people want to do (of course, they also do the ones that people don't want to do and hat's off to them for that; they also do ones people want to do).

Immigrants are also less likely to negotiate with their employer for things and in a sense make things easier for exploitative bosses to stagnate or drive down the rights, conditions and pay of all workers by not bargaining, either on a collective level or on an individual level (essentially the basis of the Labour Party's 2015 manifesto on the section concerning immigration). So tackling immigration whilst coupling it with investment in our workers and launching an assault on exploitative bosses.

Jobs and that aside - with a housing crisis and increased pressure on our transport infrastructure, I think it doesn't help if we take in the same rate of immigrants we do. It is more than economic at the end of the day.

[Great Nepal]

"To celebrate the glorious taking back of control, lets build a metro and beg EU to pay for it!"
-Wales