UK General Election 2015

[don4l]

JustAnotherLogin said:

It's particularly ironic given that the evidence we have does support the view that Kippers as a whole are below average intelligence,

And you are above average intelligence?

[JustAnotherLogin]

don4l said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

It's particularly ironic given that the evidence we have does support the view that Kippers as a whole are below average intelligence,

And you are above average intelligence?

I am as it happens. But you do realise that it is not a judgement I am making, but independent, objective evidence. For example, in context I was comparing Kippers and Greens

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/27/ukip-greens-a...

Greens are 3x more likely to have a degree

[SlipStream77]

JustAnotherLogin said:

I am as it happens. But you do realise that it is not a judgement I am making, but independent, objective evidence. For example, in context I was comparing Kippers and Greens

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/27/ukip-greens-a...

Greens are 3x more likely to have a degree

Having a degree doesn't necessarily mean that someone is intelligent. Even if they are, it doesn't make them wise, I've known very bright people to make some pretty daft decisions.

I don't think I've ever come across such a collection of ill-thought-out, naive and frankly ridiculous policies as those mentioned in the Telegraph article about the Greens. It's really quite spectacular in some ways.

The fact that Greens are 3x more likely to have a degree is, IMO, a massive indictment of our education system.

[anonymous-user]

JustAnotherLogin said:

I am as it happens. But you do realise that it is not a judgement I am making, but independent, objective evidence. For example, in context I was comparing Kippers and Greens

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/27/ukip-greens-a...

Greens are 3x more likely to have a degree

With your superior intelligence I would have thought you would have realised that is probably a reflection of the ages of the voters. Tenner says the average kipper grew up prior to polytechnics handing out worthless 'degrees' to every idiot that can spell their name. Another tenner says the average Green is one of those idiots.

[JustAnotherLogin]

fblm said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

I am as it happens. But you do realise that it is not a judgement I am making, but independent, objective evidence. For example, in context I was comparing Kippers and Greens

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/27/ukip-greens-a...

Greens are 3x more likely to have a degree

With your superior intelligence I would have thought you would have realised that is probably a reflection of the ages of the voters. Tenner says the average kipper grew up prior to polytechnics handing out worthless 'degrees' to every idiot that can spell their name. Another tenner says the average Green is one of those idiots.

That was just one. How about childhood IQ scores then

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2008/nov/...

Green - 108.3

Liberal Democrat - 108.2

Conservative - 103.7

Labour – 103

Plaid Cymru - 102.5

Scottish National - 102.2

UK Independence - 101.1

British National - 98.4

Did not vote/None of the above - 99.7

And Slipstream: as for making silly decisions, yes intelligent people do. Read what I said, I never suggested that Green policies are more sensible. Just that with the above kind of evidence, I suggested that Kippers casting aspersions on the intelligence of Green voters was probably unjustifiable and a poor line of attack

[anonymous-user]

JustAnotherLogin said:

That was just one. How about childhood IQ scores then

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2008/nov/...

Now that's far more interesting. Certainly a better link than your previous effort on the muslim thread. That said, 166,000 people voted green in 2001 out of an electorate of 40m, so in a data set of 6000 that's an expected sample size of 25 people? Not exactly a statistically valid result then, although still surprising that at least 1 person who voted green has an IQ above 100. Oh and 47,000 voted BNP so there were probably about 7 in that sample size.

guardian link said:

The research was based on a survey involving 6,000 people, so it's obviously pretty authoritative.

Oh dear.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 21st January 11:22

[h8tax]

Whichever way you look at it, GE2015 is really just setting the path for GE2020, which will have to deal with the fallout from GE2015.

If you look back at the 20th century, it appears that every couple of generations or so we get a leader who effectively 'rescues' the UK from the brink of an abyss - those two in 20th century were Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher. We do not (currently) have a politician of ANY colour in this country of comparable abilities - however, one must surely come soon, given that the 2015 election appears to have only three realistically possible outcomes :

Scenario 1 - outright Labour win. Return to massive tax and spend, huge borrowing, ever higher taxes on the "squeezed middle" (PHers in other words), closer EU integration, creation of more non-jobs and big open door immigration policies - Britain in a downward spiral. By the 2020 election we could be in a Greek style financial meltdown of epic proportions. A new leader (of unknown political bias) then emerges and forces the UK to take very radical steps to sort itself out.

Scenario 2 - Labour win, but can only form government with SNP/others support. By far the most frightening prospect. Whether you like it or not, Alex Salmond of the SNP is far and away the most capable, domineering and persuasive politician in the UK today - his appeal in Scotland is enormous. The cost to Milliband of his support will be eye-watering. The money will flow to Scotland like never before, and Milliband will be completely unable to control Salmond - who would almost certainly want to be Deputy PM as part of the deal - taking Labour even further to the left.
It will be Scenario 1 on steroids. Just before the 2020 election, SNP will get another crack at an independence referendum in Scotland (which they will win) with a very long term support package from the rest of the UK. Ironically, this coupled with the disastrous state the rest of the nation will be in by then will leave Labour with no future in England - the country can then move forward from 2020.

Scenario 3 - Cons win but rely on UKIP support with others. UKIP will of course demand an EU referendum as the cost of their support, along with abandonment of the green and foreign aid agendas. Nigel Farage would have enough clout to demand a cabinet seat, but probably not Deputy PM. By the time of the 2020 election we are (maybe) pulling out of the EU, with a lot of associated problems to overcome - and opportunities to exploit. Again it would require that 'new' politician to push the UK forward on the world trade and diplomatic stage.

Given the level of polling support for UKIP, it does not appear that an outright Con win is possible - and even if it was this will probably only give us a Scenario 1 "ultra lite".

So who is this new leader who is going to emerge as our saviour in 2020 ? None of the current crop I'd wager. Much as I admire them both, neither David Davis or Nigel Farage are quite there (close but no cigar). Maybe we will get another Blair-esque figure (shudder) who weaves his own special blend of smoke and mirrors out of the wreckage of Scenario 2?

Personally, and horrifically, at the moment I think we are most likely to end up with scenario 2.

[Gaspode]

fblm said:

Oh dear.

Edited by fblm on Wednesday 21st January 03:24

A sample size of 6000 is sufficient to give a confidence interval of 1.27% in a population of indeterminate size (i.e. large or unknown). Why do you think that an accuracy of pls of minus 1.27% is inadequate in this case?

The way that the mathematics works for statistical sampling is very interesting, and for large populations you can get significant results from tiny samples. Making the samples larger does not have a linear effect on the significance of the result, so having a ten times bigger sample doesn't give you a ten times more accurate answer.

To get a prediction for the entire population of the UK which has a confidence of +/- 10 % (i.e. if the answer is 50% it could be anywhere between 40 and 60%) then the sample size you need is just 96 people. The key is to ensure that they are selected by a genuinely random process.

[Axionknight]

h8tax needs to get with the times, Nicola Sturgeon is first minister of Scotland, not Alex Salmond.

[Axionknight]

JustAnotherLogin said:

I am as it happens. But you do realise that it is not a judgement I am making, but independent, objective evidence. For example, in context I was comparing Kippers and Greens

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/10/27/ukip-greens-a...

Greens are 3x more likely to have a degree

They are more likely to be younger too, so gaining such a qualification would be far easier for them.

[h8tax]

Axionknight said:

h8tax needs to get with the times, Nicola Sturgeon is first minister of Scotland, not Alex Salmond.

But Alex is running for a Westminster seat in GE2015 - his and Sturgeons positions are not relevant for the purposes descibed

[anonymous-user]

Gaspode said:

fblm said:

Oh dear.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 21st January 03:24

A sample size of 6000 is sufficient to give a confidence interval of 1.27% in a population of indeterminate size (i.e. large or unknown). Why do you think that an accuracy of pls of minus 1.27% is inadequate in this case?

The way that the mathematics works for statistical sampling is very interesting, and for large populations you can get significant results from tiny samples. Making the samples larger does not have a linear effect on the significance of the result, so having a ten times bigger sample doesn't give you a ten times more accurate answer.

To get a prediction for the entire population of the UK which has a confidence of +/- 10 % (i.e. if the answer is 50% it could be anywhere between 40 and 60%) then the sample size you need is just 96 people. The key is to ensure that they are selected by a genuinely random process.

I know and all of that would matter if the question was what is the iq of the uk or who did you vote for. Unfortunately if the question is what is the iq of a bnp voter then the statistical sample size is likely only 7 not 6000.

[powerstroke]

Axionknight said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Interesting that some of the Kippers, having raged about being portrayed as "loonies and fruitcakes" or whatever the description was, are using just as strong language to denounce the Greens, without any more justification than the insults about them.

I don't think the Green policies make sense, but then I believe it has been shown that some of the UKIP ones can be picked apart just as much.

It's particularly ironic given that the evidence we have does support the view that Kippers as a whole are below average intelligence, but that Green voters are as a whole, above average intelligence. I don't believe that is a justification to label Kippers as "fruitcakes and loonies" either, but perhaps it should restrain Kippers from calling Greens "cretins", "thick" or "clueless" for example

I look forward to the responses that common sense is more important than intelligence, their own views being those of "common sense" of course.

A lot of those UKIP supporters are ex Toty voters, how far back do you think this supposed lack of intelligence goes?

For me this lack of intelligence goes back about 30 years but in my defence the Tory party was the only centerish party and being pro free enterprise and personal responsibility I did vote for them until the better alternative came along,

[Gaspode]

fblm said:

I know and all of that would matter if the question was what is the iq of the uk or who did you vote for. Unfortunately if the question is what is the iq of a bnp voter then the statistical sample size is likely only 7 not 6000.

Actually, I am a bit surprised that the IQ of the average BNP voter is actually testable, given that the tests currently in use assume an ability to read and write...

[pilchardthecat]

If we'd had the EU referendum this year, the Tories would be a shoe-in.

[Axionknight]

h8tax said:

But Alex is running for a Westminster seat in GE2015 - his and Sturgeons positions are not relevant for the purposes descibed

He's only one man in one seat though so what can he do apart from bleat loudly?

[AJS-]

Here is the abstract for the Guardian study.

Always worth having a look behind the headlines when "authoritative studies" are cited to "prove" something.

The study was based on voting intentions of a cohort of 34 year olds for the 2001 general election, and measured against their childhood IQ in 1970. When they were 3.

First of all I would say that IQ at 3 is not necessarily a good indicator "cleverness" at 34.

Secondly a lot has happened since 2001, so while some of the same people who voted UKIP then will vote UKIP this year, many people from the other major parties and none have switched to UKIP in the intervening years. This tells us nothing about that.

So like so much "research" which claims to prove something convenient, it's nonsense and statistical quirks dressed up as science.

[turbobloke]

AJS- said:

First of all I would say that IQ at 3 is not necessarily a good indicator "cleverness" at 34.

That, and the fact that you need to be a vet to measure IQ at 3

Vets are clever, mind

[turbobloke]

AJS- said:

So like so much "research" which claims to prove something convenient, it's nonsense and statistical quirks dressed up as science.

But even so, if it's left it must be right.

[eccles]

turbobloke said:

AJS- said:

So like so much "research" which claims to prove something convenient, it's nonsense and statistical quirks dressed up as science.

But even so, if it's left it must be right.

That's a cheap shot even for you!

They all mess with the stats to suit their own ends.