|
How will you be voting in the UKEU Referendum? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Remain - Keep Britane Strong! |
|
328 | 15.40% |
| Leave - Take Are Sovreignity Back! |
|
115 | 5.40% |
| Remain - But only because Brexit are crazy |
|
506 | 23.76% |
| Leave - But only because the EU is terrible |
|
157 | 7.37% |
| Spoiled Ballot - This whole thing is an awful idea |
|
61 | 2.86% |
| I'm not going to vote |
|
19 | 0.89% |
| I'm not allowed to vote |
|
411 | 19.30% |
| Pissflaps |
|
533 | 25.02% |
| Total: | 2130 votes | ||
|
Extreme0 posted:Everyone take guess on who it is. Anyone on the Labour right. Maybe even all of them; Baron Corbyn posted:I'm pretty sure the Labour right have just decided that if they don't get to run the Labour Party then no-one does, and they're just going to sabotage the party from here on out. e: 5 is the % of tory child abusers will actually get punished for it, and that's being optimistic. a glitch fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Jun 1, 2016 |
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
Extreme0 posted:Everyone take guess on who it is. GCHQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Pissflaps is right, 55-45 is not generally regarded as a close election result. Syriza's referendum was 60-40 and was regarded as 'close'. It all depends on the vote in question's relation to the status quo narrative.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Syriza's referendum was 60-40 and was regarded as 'close'. It all depends on the vote in question's relation to the status quo narrative. Pretty much, also whether the winner is said to have a mandate from the public or just happened to get more votes than anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Syriza's referendum was 60-40 and was regarded as 'close'. It all depends on the vote in question's relation to the status quo narrative. That doesn't necessarily mean that challenging the status quo is the best option right here though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
i think remain will win on the basis of people actually going to vote and realising they're rather the status quo that or people really hate immigrants
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Well the status quo narrative is Remain. It has the backing of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and the largest capitalist trading bloc that the world has ever seen. And it actually is the current state things are. "Narratives" are the result of social, political, and civic institutions, not just political and economic ones. You could effectively argue that the main narrative is pro-Leave because bashing the EU as a source of benefit and job stealing migrants has been so heavily pushed the past few years that it's now firmly established, regardless of what Cameron, Osbourne and the EU say.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:44.7% to 50.1% to win is 5.4%, If Yes lost by 10% that would mean the vote total for Yes is 39.7% The difference between 45 and 55 is 10. I haven't the foggiest what you're talking about in this post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Syriza's referendum was 60-40 and was regarded as 'close'. By who? I think you've made this up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
I'd say anything from 50% to 65% is a marginal win. In the real world. Not politics land.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:44.7% to 50.1% to win is 5.4%, If Yes lost by 10% that would mean the vote total for Yes is 39.7% This is not how people measure points gaps in politics. Extreme0 posted:It's decisive because it actually has one side having more then the other. For one thing, people don't use "decisive" to mean "a decision was reached". For another thing, I was suggesting they were antonyms whereas you're implying I was suggesting they were synonyms. In summation, you are doing a poo poo impression of Pissflaps being obtusely pendantic and I claim my five poonds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:The problem with the Peace Convoy types is that they're full of pacifists. That isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself, it just makes them easy targets. Yeah, but not really. The "Peace Convoy" was just as much a piece of misinformation theatre created to give the press something to talk about and focus attention on the Stonehenge Campaign's objectives as it was a genuine movement. It was never really highly organised. iirc the 'Peace Convoy' name was coined by a group heading to Greenham but I may be misrecalling. When I joined a Stonehenge camp during the worlds largest game of Cowboys and Indians in 1987 one of the first things that happened (immediately after being told not to set up a tent since we were getting evicted in a few hours) was a small group of women and a young boy coming over and saying, "This is Starshine, remember to tell the media we are Starshine's Convoy. But really his name is Tim *wink*" Discalimer: real name may not have been Tim, it was a while ago, but you get the point. The convoy was also known as the "Gun Convoy" and could certainly have accessed guns if wanted. Not to mention many traveller sites would have the odd one for rabbiting and so forth anyway. One of my good friends, now sadly deceased, was one of the Convoy Crazies an (even more) underground group that would scope out potential sites/squats and steal the occasional vehicle and who had no problems with beating up people/police if it came to it. He was also involved peripherally in what I'm gonna call the 'forced retirement' of a particularly nasty piece of work copper in '84. The festival had never been just a 'Peace and Love' "Hippy" thing, punks, bikers and angry disaffected/disenfranchised youth escaping the urban shite that was 80s unemployment were always a large part of it. Prince John posted:I don't care about the landowners' hurt feelings, but loving up an archeological site is not cool. Prince John posted:Wikipedia references the academic journal World Archeology for these particular allegations though, so I'm assuming they're bang to rights on this, although I don't have my login details to hand at work to check the article in detail. The article is okay, Chippindale tends to be pretty good. The relevant quote from it is: C. Chippindale, Stoned Henge, p.45 posted:The festival lingered on into July, as its numbers dwindled from a peak estimated at around 30,000 or more. The festival field and its surroundings looked as shabby as you might expect after six weeks of unordered camping without much sanitation or firewood supplies. Holes had been dug in Bronze Age barrows for latrines and as bread ovens, motorcycles had been ridden over them, churning the surface. Fences had been torn down, and 1000 young trees cut down for firewood. Clearing up cost upwards of ?20,000. A year later, the field was green again and looking quite restored, but of course archaeological damage doesn't mend so easily. I was at the festival in '84 and saw the bread oven mentioned. Yes it did dig into a barrow, but only at the edge and not penetrating very far into the actual mound. If it had happened a few hundred years before it would have been an exciting piece of evidence for site reuse. As an archaeologist I have far bigger problems with the MOD who have been (are still being? not sure what the curent situation is) responsible for far more archaeological damage on Salisbury Plain than the festival ever was. Back in the late 70s/early 80s they even made a marvelous Catch-22 offer to archaeologists, "Tell us what sites are important and we will try and leave them alone. No you can't make any exploratory excavations to check which ones are actually important, just give us a list." The archaeologist Barbara Bender did some good work in the 80s and 90s putting across the perspective that the festival goers had every right to gather at Stonehenge, framing them as another example of a disenfranchised indigenous group. I saw her lecture in the late 80s to an audience that included many senior figures of the Scottish archaeological establishment and the sudden intake of breath when after running through slides of Australian aborigines, Maori, Native Americans, etc. she segued into images of British travellers was fantastic. This book Stonehenge: Making Space (Materializing Culture) is all I'm finding online by her at present that's directly relevant and I haven't read it but it should be a reasonable starting point if you're interested in some of the wider issues she brought up. Chippindale's Who Owns Stonehenge? is good too. Serotonin posted:Police and landowners also claimed the travellers had firearms and petrol bombs, so personaly Id take what was said by them with a pinch of salt Again, many of the festival goers were biker groups who were certainly tooled up and happy to rumble, and some members of the convoy were not that different. People I camped by in '84 were leather workers with a thriving line in personalised axe and machete covers for the bikers, not the sort of customers you'd say No to really. There was also admittedly violence on site but never quite what was presented by the press - there was a story in several papers about a poor tourist who was beaten and had his car torched in '84, what they failed to mention was that this 'tourist' was camped up on site and publically displaying the sale of smack (the one real rule in '84 was that smack use had to be relatively covert in an attempt to clean up the festival's image, there was even a completely drug free zone), he was asked to stop a few times, basically said "gently caress You", so someone stopped him. The owner of a local icecream van profiteering off the festival goers (we are talking 50p per packet of skins, £1+ a loaf of bread in '84, a lot of this crap went on) who pulled a knife on a tripped out woman who'd complained about his prices had his van taken off him and driven around site on fire by a bunch of bikers who saw the whole thing. Yeah, interesting planet to visit but you wouldn't want to live there full time. Remember: Everyone's a Wally, Everyday is Sunday, Everywhere is Stonehenge. The Beanfield was a hate crime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:The difference between 45 and 55 is 10. He's confusing required swing with margin of victory because he probably smoked too much crack or something idk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:The difference between 45 and 55 is 10. they're trying to pretend it wasn't a 10% victory for some reason
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Cerv posted:from the previous thread Nah, you're thinking of the later seasons Walt, at the beginning he was far more of a coward, too afraid to act on that resentment and letting his superiority complex simmer away inside. You can tell straight away in the first episode that Hank had been goading him on and off for years, but he just puts up with it along with the humiliation of the second job at the carwash. It wasn't until he learnt of the cancer that he went on the ridealong with the intent of getting more info on cooking meth and discovered the connection to Jesse, all of which stemmed from desperation due to lack of insurance and the financial effect his death would have on his family. Though that arrogance and resentment did certainly lead to him staying in the business after he was given the possibility of support from his former business associates and turned them down. Would another event have set Walt off on that path? Possibly, however remember the series begins with Walt under heavy financial pressure already and with Skyler pregnant, and babies are pretty expensive, yet he doesn't try cooking meth until he knows he's dying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
I think the thing extremo is confused about relates to the fact that in a strictly binary choice the percentage of the options always add up to 100, so for option 1 to be 55 option 2 has to be 45, which he thinks is a difference of only 5% of the electorate as a result or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Except that also assumes that the voting population is constant and some people are just changing their minds, which is clearly not how it works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:The difference between 45 and 55 is 10. The amount of votes for Yes to win would of been 50.1% which is 5.1% to win which is 5% rounded. MrL_JaKiri posted:This is not how people measure points gaps in politics. People don''t realise that in order to win a referendum based on getting 50.1% when a side has 45% of the votes is to gain 5.1% more? Yea I know I've talked with the average Brit. MrL_JaKiri posted:For one thing, people don't use "decisive" to mean "a decision was reached". http://www.dictionary.com/browse/decisive quote:adjective: decisive Actually yes it is. MrL_JaKiri posted:For another thing, I was suggesting they were antonyms whereas you're implying I was suggesting they were synonyms. So you were being sarcastic in text. MrL_JaKiri posted:In summation, you are doing a poo poo impression of Pissflaps being obtusely pendantic and I claim my five poonds. I didn't realise that disagreeing with someone is preety much up there with being a poo poo pissflaps clone. Also you can have your five poonds but it's all in Marx and are equally worthless. Namtab posted:I think the thing extremo is confused about relates to the fact that in a strictly binary choice the percentage of the options always add up to 100, so for option 1 to be 55 option 2 has to be 45, which he thinks is a difference of only 5% of the electorate as a result or something. That's because a strictly binary choice is more logical then whatever the hell you guys are suggesting. Bloody humans. MrL_JaKiri posted:Except that also assumes that the voting population is constant and some people are just changing their minds, which is clearly not how it works. How the hell can you change your mind and change the result after the vote happened. Extreme0 fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Jun 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
I sense you feel you're making a coherent argument. You're not. This is nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:The amount of votes for Yes to win would of been 50.1% which is 5.1% to win which is 5% rounded. Tell me the truth, is this a performance art piece?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:24
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Pissflaps is right, 55-45 is not generally regarded as a close election result. Not sure this comparison works when US commentary of the results mainly focuses on the electoral college result which was not close in the slightest.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/man-slashes-throat-front-horrified-7362109#vitukBo7SVqWMZiz.97 That's some hardcore temper tantrum. Pissflaps posted:I sense you feel you're making a coherent argument. Nuh uh you are nonsense. MrL_JaKiri posted:Tell me the truth, is this a performance art piece? It's in the works Along with creating an AI with the mind of Pissflaps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Fifty five minus forty five is ten.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
What's weird about saying if 5% of voters had said Yes instead of No then Scotland would be independent?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Fifty five minus forty five is ten. It's still in the works as you can see. Seems to be repeating the same function over again like a broken record. baka kaba posted:What's weird about saying if 5% of voters had said Yes instead of No then Scotland would be independent? Because that would mean it's "decisive".
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:What's weird about saying if 5% of voters had said Yes instead of No then Scotland would be independent? Nothing. The problem is then concluding that the gap between the two votes was this lower number, rather than the ten it was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:What's weird about saying if 5% of voters had said Yes instead of No then Scotland would be independent? It's literally weird, in that stating it in that way is very unusual and not how it's done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
a bunch of cool people who are not covered in faeces converge in a room hmmm is this number big enough to warrant a subjective term *the faeces covered people argue pointlessly for hours*
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
The figure in question isn't the difference between the two, but the swing necessary for a different result. It's really quite simple.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
I don't think it was meant to be a standard election calculation or whatever, just a simple observation that 5% of people changing their minds would have had a huge impact. Nobody can really tell how close that came to happening, but as far as buffers go for a major decision with dramatic consequences, it seems pretty small
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
The swing was five, but the difference in the percentage of the electorate who voted for "no" rather than "yes" is 10.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Acaila posted:The figure in question isn't the difference between the two, but the swing necessary for a different result. It's really quite simple. What do you consider to be the figure 'in question'?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:The problem is then concluding that the gap between the two votes was this lower number, rather than the ten it was. The gap between the two sides is 10% yes but the gap for Yes to have won was 5.1% so Yes lost by 5.1% MrL_JaKiri posted:It's literally weird, in that stating it in that way is very unusual and not how it's done. But it's still correct regardless. Namtab posted:The swing was five, but the difference in the percentage of the electorate who voted for "no" rather than "yes" is 10. My god Einstein's alive!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
If the difference in percentage of the electorate who voted for yes rather than no had been 5%, the result would have been 47.5-52.5
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:The gap between the two sides is 10% yes but the gap for Yes to have won was 5.1% so Yes lost by 5.1% No. They lost by 10%.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Fellow posters, I have discovered a piece of string, we must determine its length, for once this is decided, all else can be rendered important!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Looks like we successfully put these numbers in order, good job team! Next on the agenda is... I can't make it out, Full something
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Fellow posters, I have discovered a piece of string, we must determine its length, for once this is decided, all else can be rendered important! Whatever the length of the string is, divide by two to divine it's true length.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Looks like we successfully put these numbers in order, good job team! Next on the agenda is... I can't make it out, Full something glasses!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
I cannot tell if this cloud passing by my eyeline is #7E7E7E or #7D7D7D let's work together to get to the bottom of this
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:54
|
|