Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not! VOL 2
Discussion
Deptford Draylons said:
chrispmartha said:
Deptford Draylons said:
chrispmartha said:
What was interesting about last nights show was that the leave people on it all seemed to think immigration was the main reason people voted to leave, i thought the consensus on here that it wasn't?
We already know it was sovereignty. I'd also suggest it was already long decided for a great many on this issue alone, long before the referendum was even given. jjlynn27 said:
Deptford Draylons said:
chrispmartha said:
Deptford Draylons said:
chrispmartha said:
What was interesting about last nights show was that the leave people on it all seemed to think immigration was the main reason people voted to leave, i thought the consensus on here that it wasn't?
We already know it was sovereignty. I'd also suggest it was already long decided for a great many on this issue alone, long before the referendum was even given. Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”.
One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.”
Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.”
Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
don'tbesilly said:
Ashroft Polls:
Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”.
One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.”
Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.”
Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
Ashcroft polling sample was 12,400 from a total of over 35,000,000 voters.Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”.
One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.”
Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.”
Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
That's a sample size of 0.035%.
To extrapolate statistics from those results and suggest that they are in any way accurate is nonsense.
sparkythecat said:
don'tbesilly said:
Ashroft Polls:
Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”.
One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.”
Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.”
Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
Ashcroft polling sample was 12,400 from a total of over 35,000,000 voters.Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”.
One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.”
Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.”
Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
That's a sample size of 0.035%.
To extrapolate statistics from those results and suggest that they are in any way accurate is nonsense.
Strange isn't it.
It's of little consequence anyway, and for the most obvious of reasons.
jjlynn27 said:
Deptford Draylons said:
chrispmartha said:
Deptford Draylons said:
chrispmartha said:
What was interesting about last nights show was that the leave people on it all seemed to think immigration was the main reason people voted to leave, i thought the consensus on here that it wasn't?
We already know it was sovereignty. I'd also suggest it was already long decided for a great many on this issue alone, long before the referendum was even given. I'd say for most people that answer was already known long before even a referendum was on offer. I think enough wanted out on the sovereignty issue on this alone and didn't even need to hear an argument or claims made on the side of a bus, they just wanted out.
Immigration just served to highlight the given up right to control.
Aaron Banks said:
The Conservatives are now trying to rewrite the campaign that immigration wasn’t important, but boy was immigration important ....The first thing we did was poll everybody and we found that if immigration wasn’t the issue, the issue was schools or education, proxies for immigration. It was the number one issue by a country mile.”
It was taking an American-style media approach. What they said early on was ‘facts don’t work’ and that’s it. The remain campaign featured fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. It just doesn’t work. You have got to connect with people emotionally.
It was taking an American-style media approach. What they said early on was ‘facts don’t work’ and that’s it. The remain campaign featured fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. It just doesn’t work. You have got to connect with people emotionally.
That's great, but don't we actually need to see the polling data of his claim ? If we take what you've quoted, sovereignty wasn't even an issue then seemingly according to Banks. As I said, you are kinda half correct, the immigration part just kept highlighting the sovereignty issue.
jjlynn27 said:
Aaron Banks said:
The Conservatives are now trying to rewrite the campaign that immigration wasn’t important, but boy was immigration important ....The first thing we did was poll everybody and we found that if immigration wasn’t the issue, the issue was schools or education, proxies for immigration. It was the number one issue by a country mile.”
It was taking an American-style media approach. What they said early on was ‘facts don’t work’ and that’s it. The remain campaign featured fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. It just doesn’t work. You have got to connect with people emotionally.
It was taking an American-style media approach. What they said early on was ‘facts don’t work’ and that’s it. The remain campaign featured fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. It just doesn’t work. You have got to connect with people emotionally.
Aaron Banks said:
The first thing we did was poll everybody..........................
Impressive claim from Mr Banks, I wonder how many 'everybody' actually means in reality.The Ashcroft polls were debunked by a Remain supporter a short while ago based on an actual number, here all we have is 'everybody' as a number and for some reason it's the gospel truth.
Oh well, it matters not really.
sparkythecat said:
Ashcroft polling sample was 12,400 from a total of over 35,000,000 voters.
That's a sample size of 0.035%.
To extrapolate statistics from those results and suggest that they are in any way accurate is nonsense.
Hooey. Ashcroft's polls are much larger than most in the polling industry (for context see http://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/performance-o...That's a sample size of 0.035%.
To extrapolate statistics from those results and suggest that they are in any way accurate is nonsense.
His methodology appears to be to buy in and aggregate other polling company data.
More to the point he forecast a leave back in Dec 2015.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/20...
Nothing which has been conducted since suggests that Ashcroft's analysis is incorrect. Can you point to stastically significant surveys that show otherwise?
Edited by Ridgemont on Friday 2nd December 23:41
jjlynn27 said:
Banks was the one financing the campaign, not sure that he had anything to gain by highlighting the immigration as no 1 issue, especially after the ref. And if he's right, there seems to be many easily scared people around.
The scared people....Can you give a figure for the 'many' scared people?
Banks used the word 'everybody', you've used the word 'many', so is it 10's of thousands, 100's of thousands, more?
What are they scared of do you think?
You say it's easily, can you say how or why it's easy.
don'tbesilly said:
The scared people....
What are they scared of do you think?
You say it's easily, can you say how or why it's easy.
He means that people scared of immigrants voted leave because of posters. I wonder how he gets his head around a lead for leave probably since 2007. and probably caused by the signing of Lisbon as both Tim Shipman and Craig Oliver acknowledge in their Brexit books..What are they scared of do you think?
You say it's easily, can you say how or why it's easy.
superlightr said:
B'stard Child said:
I've been close to mental breakdown - I've been on the 27th floor and looked over the edge and it was a very tempting solution to what I couldn't solve - it's a seriously dark place and I don't recommend it
pleased you didn't leave the 27th floor the fast way - enjoy your writing style and comments ! 
///ajd said:
How the fck wasn't that his point?
That was exactly his point. It was his only corroboration for his point.
Parents at school talking foreign was the driver for his temple throbbing anger & bile.
Should not be near kids.
I'd agree - you should not be near kidsThat was exactly his point. It was his only corroboration for his point.
Parents at school talking foreign was the driver for his temple throbbing anger & bile.
Should not be near kids.
///ajd said:
He might have explained it, but it doesn't make it acceptable - at least to me.
Imagine you lived abroad, and had kids at a local school in say Spain. You also knew some other brits who had kids at the school. You spoke English to these other English families during pick up and drop off.
Then you heard the teacher of your kids saying he was fed up the foreign English parents talking English at the playground - and talked about how they were non-integrating scumbags - and clearly it seems he would rather they went back home or had never come in the first place.
How do you think the foreign parents at his school feel now?
well you seem to have picked a poor example there - the Spanish (from what I can gather) are non to happy at the Brit community living over there, TBH on the whole I tend to agree with them. I think that if you live in a country that you should try and speak the language, fair enough if you have a thick accent - at least you're trying. The thing is though by talking in English (as in this particular example) you are setting yourself apart from the rest of the parents at the school you are failing to (and here is the magic word!) integrate.Imagine you lived abroad, and had kids at a local school in say Spain. You also knew some other brits who had kids at the school. You spoke English to these other English families during pick up and drop off.
Then you heard the teacher of your kids saying he was fed up the foreign English parents talking English at the playground - and talked about how they were non-integrating scumbags - and clearly it seems he would rather they went back home or had never come in the first place.
How do you think the foreign parents at his school feel now?
s2art said:
williamp said:
5% more of anything could be very noicable: road at 97% capacity, road flows well. Busy but well. An additioal 5% would mean gridlock.
97% capacity in local hospital: busy but everyone can be seen. An additional 5% and it couldnt cope.
School at 97% capacit,y again busy but fine. The aditional 5% means understaffed, classroom sizes too big etc etc
5% additional in pay packet is more then inflation so you've got a payrise.
So yes, 5% **CAN** make all the difference.
Never mind 95%. In any system once utilisation rises above approx 70%, queueing goes non-linear. (assuming random/quasi random arrivals). Something might be just coping at 80%, add an additional 5% and the queue will skyrocket. (all this is standard queuing theory)97% capacity in local hospital: busy but everyone can be seen. An additional 5% and it couldnt cope.
School at 97% capacit,y again busy but fine. The aditional 5% means understaffed, classroom sizes too big etc etc
5% additional in pay packet is more then inflation so you've got a payrise.
So yes, 5% **CAN** make all the difference.
Camoradi said:
chrispmartha said:
Well quite but just saying its because of immigrants is a far too simplistic answer
Of course you are right, it's not simple, but give this some thought.In the current situation, if a family decide today to travel from another EU country and start a new life in the UK, we get no notice of that and cannot plan for it. Tomorrow they will be here, needing somewhere to live, a doctor to look after their healthcare, school places for the children.
Compare with a child born in the UK today. The NHS will have between 6 and 9 months notice of their birth, 5 years to find them a school place, 16-20 years before they will need a home of their own. Time to plan.
The worst aspect of the current situation in the inability to plan because we have no real knowledge of the numbers, and cannot do anything about them if they are above our expectations. This creates a bad situation for newly arrived immigrants and existing UK residents alike.
irocfan said:
///ajd said:
How the fck wasn't that his point?
That was exactly his point. It was his only corroboration for his point.
Parents at school talking foreign was the driver for his temple throbbing anger & bile.
Should not be near kids.
I'd agree - you should not be near kidsThat was exactly his point. It was his only corroboration for his point.
Parents at school talking foreign was the driver for his temple throbbing anger & bile.
Should not be near kids.
///ajd said:
He might have explained it, but it doesn't make it acceptable - at least to me.
Imagine you lived abroad, and had kids at a local school in say Spain. You also knew some other brits who had kids at the school. You spoke English to these other English families during pick up and drop off.
Then you heard the teacher of your kids saying he was fed up the foreign English parents talking English at the playground - and talked about how they were non-integrating scumbags - and clearly it seems he would rather they went back home or had never come in the first place.
How do you think the foreign parents at his school feel now?
well you seem to have picked a poor example there - the Spanish (from what I can gather) are non to happy at the Brit community living over there, TBH on the whole I tend to agree with them. I think that if you live in a country that you should try and speak the language, fair enough if you have a thick accent - at least you're trying. The thing is though by talking in English (as in this particular example) you are setting yourself apart from the rest of the parents at the school you are failing to (and here is the magic word!) integrate.Imagine you lived abroad, and had kids at a local school in say Spain. You also knew some other brits who had kids at the school. You spoke English to these other English families during pick up and drop off.
Then you heard the teacher of your kids saying he was fed up the foreign English parents talking English at the playground - and talked about how they were non-integrating scumbags - and clearly it seems he would rather they went back home or had never come in the first place.
How do you think the foreign parents at his school feel now?
s2art said:
williamp said:
5% more of anything could be very noicable: road at 97% capacity, road flows well. Busy but well. An additioal 5% would mean gridlock.
97% capacity in local hospital: busy but everyone can be seen. An additional 5% and it couldnt cope.
School at 97% capacit,y again busy but fine. The aditional 5% means understaffed, classroom sizes too big etc etc
5% additional in pay packet is more then inflation so you've got a payrise.
So yes, 5% **CAN** make all the difference.
Never mind 95%. In any system once utilisation rises above approx 70%, queueing goes non-linear. (assuming random/quasi random arrivals). Something might be just coping at 80%, add an additional 5% and the queue will skyrocket. (all this is standard queuing theory)97% capacity in local hospital: busy but everyone can be seen. An additional 5% and it couldnt cope.
School at 97% capacit,y again busy but fine. The aditional 5% means understaffed, classroom sizes too big etc etc
5% additional in pay packet is more then inflation so you've got a payrise.
So yes, 5% **CAN** make all the difference.
covmutley said:
i didnt agree at all with his view that immigration causes problems in the nhs, housing etc. Well, it must have some impact, but it is not the main problem by far. However, he can have a wrong opinion.
He seemed to voice concerns about lack of integration between parents and this causing tensions, not that 'the sounds of foreign voices upsets him'.
Who knows what type of school he is at, but I can well imagine that schools exist where there is multiple languages and struggle in some regards and frustrated teachers are left to try to sort these issues.
AJD, you are entitled to your view of course, but I think you should watch this, then come back and say what he actully said was wrong, rather than saying you would get him sacked for having a different view to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs
That video makes some valid points.He seemed to voice concerns about lack of integration between parents and this causing tensions, not that 'the sounds of foreign voices upsets him'.
Who knows what type of school he is at, but I can well imagine that schools exist where there is multiple languages and struggle in some regards and frustrated teachers are left to try to sort these issues.
AJD, you are entitled to your view of course, but I think you should watch this, then come back and say what he actully said was wrong, rather than saying you would get him sacked for having a different view to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs
When it comes to immigration - it is true there needs to be a debate.
This was avoided by the remain side which was a mistake.
The 5% debate above is a case in point.
Is it material? Intuitively, it didn't sound material to me, which I think is why it was raised to demonstrate a fallacy.
What we really need is the debate as to:
- is it a material or a fallacy?
- what is the real impact?
- can the impact be planned for/addressed through normal population growth?
- what is the net benefit in tax take on the economy?
Both sides should be demanding answers.
///ajd said:
covmutley said:
i didnt agree at all with his view that immigration causes problems in the nhs, housing etc. Well, it must have some impact, but it is not the main problem by far. However, he can have a wrong opinion.
He seemed to voice concerns about lack of integration between parents and this causing tensions, not that 'the sounds of foreign voices upsets him'.
Who knows what type of school he is at, but I can well imagine that schools exist where there is multiple languages and struggle in some regards and frustrated teachers are left to try to sort these issues.
AJD, you are entitled to your view of course, but I think you should watch this, then come back and say what he actully said was wrong, rather than saying you would get him sacked for having a different view to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs
That video makes some valid points.He seemed to voice concerns about lack of integration between parents and this causing tensions, not that 'the sounds of foreign voices upsets him'.
Who knows what type of school he is at, but I can well imagine that schools exist where there is multiple languages and struggle in some regards and frustrated teachers are left to try to sort these issues.
AJD, you are entitled to your view of course, but I think you should watch this, then come back and say what he actully said was wrong, rather than saying you would get him sacked for having a different view to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs
When it comes to immigration - it is true there needs to be a debate.
This was avoided by the remain side which was a mistake.
The 5% debate above is a case in point.
Is it material? Intuitively, it didn't sound material to me, which I think is why it was raised to demonstrate a fallacy.
What we really need is the debate as to:
- is it a material or a fallacy?
- what is the real impact?
- can the impact be planned for/addressed through normal population growth?
- what is the net benefit in tax take on the economy?
Both sides should be demanding answers.
There was an opportunity to discuss and examine all those things before a binary vote - unfortunately in many areas concern was ridiculed and people got shouted down called racist, xenophobic, little Englanders and what was it again from DC "quitters"
Terribly damaging for debate..... I am waiting for you to recognise that - I fear it may take some time
B'stard Child said:
That ship sailed on the 24th June
There was an opportunity to discuss and examine all those things before a binary vote - unfortunately in many areas concern was ridiculed and people got shouted down called racist, xenophobic, little Englanders and what was it again from DC "quitters"
Terribly damaging for debate..... I am waiting for you to recognise that - I fear it may take some time
I see it slightly differentlyThere was an opportunity to discuss and examine all those things before a binary vote - unfortunately in many areas concern was ridiculed and people got shouted down called racist, xenophobic, little Englanders and what was it again from DC "quitters"
Terribly damaging for debate..... I am waiting for you to recognise that - I fear it may take some time
You may recall Ihave tried to debate the actual impacts of immigration to inform a debate, but all too often the other party screams "you are calling me racist!" before actually having any debate.
When are we going to start talking, and not insulting?
I remain ready to debate whether immigration control is a bigger issue than trading access during the forthcoming debate on what sort of brexit we need.
Wasn't on the ballot paper, both sides lied, so need for a fresh debate.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff