While we are on about the feelgood factor, how do the ukip voters on here feel about the messiah turning down the chance to be a proper mp, in a place he could do his party some good?
Dave, like all the others, especially Blair his metaphorical dad, has already proved himself a liar.
Prior to the last election he gave his infamous Cast Iron Guarantee that he would give us a referendum on the EU if he won the last election…well arguably he didn’t win it cos he needed the turncoat limp dumps to form a majority so he gets a sort of excuse…he went back on his word-which-means-nothing…once someones proves themselves wide boy, spiv, con man, whatever you want to call them, you don’t ever trust them again as long as they live.
While we are on about the feelgood factor, how do the ukip voters on here feel about the messiah turning down the chance to be a proper mp, in a place he could do his party some good?
wether it’s true or not, he said (and it’s true) he has no links there, so why should he be their MP?
perhaps if the major parties took note and didn’t parachute their candidates into safe constituencies we would all benefit
turbot:
Rhythm Thief:
Provide me with some verifiable figures and conclusions drawn from them and we can talk about this further.
OK, thanks for that. Now let’s have a look at them.
The Express piece is not worth the bother of commenting on (although I will anyway). It’s an opinion piece, no more than that. It cherrypicks data which support the point it wants to make and ignores anything which might undermine that point. It is, in short, a newspaper article, not by any stretch of the imagination a scientific report. There’s no opportunity to examine the original data, no references, no peer review … nothing. Not worth the bother of you posting it and certainly not worth the twelve seconds I spent skim reading it. If you can have a good guess at the content and tone of an article merely from the publication it appears in, that’s a good indication that the source might not be entirely impartial.
To a lesser extent, the same criticisms apply to the Migration Watch article on which the Express piece is based. Migration Watch is known as an anti - immigration think tank: any research they present which supports their position needs to be read with this in mind. In the case of this report, again there’s no peer review, no presentation of the complete raw data and only one reference - migrationobservatory.ox.ac.u … our-market - which repays a read, since it very quickly becomes apparent that Migration Watch has cherrypicked certain statistics from it which support its case, and ignored others which don’t, just like the Express did.
Both articles (I’m not going to call them “papers” or “pieces of research”, because they are neither of these things) fall into the same trap. They’ve started with a point of view and gone out looking for data which support that point of view, suppressing, distorting or simply ignoring anything which undermines it. I can’t stress this enough: THIS IS NOT HOW SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH WORKS. Proper scientific papers - such as, dare I suggest, the 48 - page Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration paper which I originally linked to from oatcake1967’s post - not only approach a given subject with an open mind, reporting any conclusions they can legitimately draw from the data without reference to a preconceived viewpoint, they also present the raw data upon which those conclusions are based, thereby allowing readers to interpret it for themselves and see how those conclusions might have been reached.
Neither of these points apply to either of the articles you’ve linked to. The Migration Watch piece is worse because it attempts to pass itself off as a piece of research, cynically adopting the sketchy outlines of a real scientific paper in order to trap credulous people into believing that its contents carry some scientific weight. But the most cursory examination of either - you have only to see the word “express” in the link to your first article to know roughly what it’s going to say - reveals that the Migration Watch piece is a flawed presentation of some of the facts concerning immigration, while ignoring others, and the Express piece is nothing more than an opinion piece which is built on the foundations of sand provided by the Migration Watch report.
I’m well aware, by the way, that you won’t read this, and that if you do you’ll simply dismiss it as pinkoleftybollocks. That’s fine, I’ve enjoyed writing it, and however you dismiss it, it’s no less true.
Don’t vote UKIP … thedailymash.co.uk/politics/ … 4042586028 
BillyHunt:
While we are on about the feelgood factor, how do the ukip voters on here feel about the messiah turning down the chance to be a proper mp, in a place he could do his party some good?
Is that what this is all about?
Rhythm Thief:
BillyHunt:
While we are on about the feelgood factor, how do the ukip voters on here feel about the messiah turning down the chance to be a proper mp, in a place he could do his party some good?Is that what this is all about?
This is a quiz to see which party most closely matches your opinions.
UKIP apparently does have some policies according to this quiz.
I most closely matched UKIP at 92% then Conservatives at 87%
Is it true that Conservative voters only voted that way because Ukip hadn’t been formed yet? 
BillyHunt:
While we are on about the feelgood factor, how do the ukip voters on here feel about the messiah turning down the chance to be a proper mp, in a place he could do his party some good?
Given that the European elections are coming up it seems a perfectly logical decision to focus on them, rather than a by-election in an area with which Farage has no connection.
You are aware that the whole reason a by-election is taking place is because the Conservative incumbent had to resign because of corruption? Strange how the Tory press are keeping rather quiet about that…
Juddian:
Dave, like all the others, especially Blair his metaphorical dad, has already proved himself a liar.Prior to the last election he gave his infamous Cast Iron Guarantee that he would give us a referendum on the EU if he won the last election…well arguably he didn’t win it cos he needed the turncoat limp dumps to form a majority so he gets a sort of excuse…he went back on his word-which-means-nothing…once someones proves themselves wide boy, spiv, con man, whatever you want to call them, you don’t ever trust them again as long as they live.
This is not news, they aren’t all just liars but, as politicians, professional liars. That’s the way it works, they tell us what we want to hear, we buy into it and vote for them, then they do what they wanted to do in the first place. Lots of posters on here are going through this process at the moment, hoping that ukip will be different, believing they will turn this country into some sort of non eu utopia, but probably knowing deep down that, like the rest, they will flip them over & do them dry.
They are called politicians because lying fn bstards is a bit rude.
Big Jon’s dad:
http://uk.isidewith.com/This is a quiz to see which party most closely matches your opinions.
UKIP apparently does have some policies according to this quiz.
I most closely matched UKIP at 92% then Conservatives at 87%
Sweet, I’m 94% matched with conservatives.
What are those policies then?"… Just kidding, I know you don’t know or care 
BillyHunt:
Juddian:
Dave, like all the others, especially Blair his metaphorical dad, has already proved himself a liar.Prior to the last election he gave his infamous Cast Iron Guarantee that he would give us a referendum on the EU if he won the last election…well arguably he didn’t win it cos he needed the turncoat limp dumps to form a majority so he gets a sort of excuse…he went back on his word-which-means-nothing…once someones proves themselves wide boy, spiv, con man, whatever you want to call them, you don’t ever trust them again as long as they live.
This is not news, they aren’t all just liars but, as politicians, professional liars. That’s the way it works, they tell us what we want to hear, we buy into it and vote for them, then they do what they wanted to do in the first place. Lots of posters on here are going through this process at the moment, hoping that ukip will be different, believing they will turn this country into some sort of non eu utopia, but probably knowing deep down that, like the rest, they will flip them over & do them dry.
They are called politicians because lying fn bstards is a bit rude.
Hi Billy, We finally agree on something.
All the politicians we normally elect can’t be trusted. They lie to us, just as you said.
Why the hell should we vote for them again then?
We don’t know for sure whether UKIP are any better, but they haven’t had the opportunity to demonstrate their trustworthiness yet.
I for one am willing to give them that chance, knowing that none of the others can be trusted. UKIP can’t be any worse and they may be better.
I’m voting UKIP.
I really can’t see any UKIP candidate having a problem trouncing the Conservative candidate, a 32 year old Oxbridge lawyer and director of Christies isn’t really going to understand the problems the people of Newark face.
The really do look like actors in a very bad satire. And what’s up with her? Looks like 30, dresses like 80.
Rhythm Thief:
turbot:
Rhythm Thief:
Provide me with some verifiable figures and conclusions drawn from them and we can talk about this further.OK, thanks for that. Now let’s have a look at them.
The Express piece is not worth the bother of commenting on (although I will anyway). It’s an opinion piece, no more than that. It cherrypicks data which support the point it wants to make and ignores anything which might undermine that point. It is, in short, a newspaper article, not by any stretch of the imagination a scientific report. There’s no opportunity to examine the original data, no references, no peer review … nothing. Not worth the bother of you posting it and certainly not worth the twelve seconds I spent skim reading it. If you can have a good guess at the content and tone of an article merely from the publication it appears in, that’s a good indication that the source might not be entirely impartial.
To a lesser extent, the same criticisms apply to the Migration Watch article on which the Express piece is based. Migration Watch is known as an anti - immigration think tank: any research they present which supports their position needs to be read with this in mind. In the case of this report, again there’s no peer review, no presentation of the complete raw data and only one reference - migrationobservatory.ox.ac.u … our-market - which repays a read, since it very quickly becomes apparent that Migration Watch has cherrypicked certain statistics from it which support its case, and ignored others which don’t, just like the Express did.
Both articles (I’m not going to call them “papers” or “pieces of research”, because they are neither of these things) fall into the same trap. They’ve started with a point of view and gone out looking for data which support that point of view, suppressing, distorting or simply ignoring anything which undermines it. I can’t stress this enough: THIS IS NOT HOW SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH WORKS. Proper scientific papers - such as, dare I suggest, the 48 - page Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration paper which I originally linked to from oatcake1967’s post - not only approach a given subject with an open mind, reporting any conclusions they can legitimately draw from the data without reference to a preconceived viewpoint, they also present the raw data upon which those conclusions are based, thereby allowing readers to interpret it for themselves and see how those conclusions might have been reached.
Neither of these points apply to either of the articles you’ve linked to. The Migration Watch piece is worse because it attempts to pass itself off as a piece of research, cynically adopting the sketchy outlines of a real scientific paper in order to trap credulous people into believing that its contents carry some scientific weight. But the most cursory examination of either - you have only to see the word “express” in the link to your first article to know roughly what it’s going to say - reveals that the Migration Watch piece is a flawed presentation of some of the facts concerning immigration, while ignoring others, and the Express piece is nothing more than an opinion piece which is built on the foundations of sand provided by the Migration Watch report.
I’m well aware, by the way, that you won’t read this, and that if you do you’ll simply dismiss it as pinkoleftybollocks. That’s fine, I’ve enjoyed writing it, and however you dismiss it, it’s no less true.Don’t vote UKIP … thedailymash.co.uk/politics/ … 4042586028
I’ve read it, I don’t know how you can use the dailymash as a credible source compared to the express.As you conceded previously, a survey of 60.000 households in a country of 26 million households can draw no safe conclusions for extrapolating. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I look forward to your comments after the 22nd of May, when the people of this once great country have had their say.
I will be voting for UKIP along with most people. Why? because they are offering an alternative to the status quo that I want. I have been mislead by other parties over the years, saying one thing and then doing something quite different. UKIP might well be a one trick pony at the minute, but the support for that trick is massive and justified.
BillyHunt:
Big Jon’s dad:
http://uk.isidewith.com/This is a quiz to see which party most closely matches your opinions.
UKIP apparently does have some policies according to this quiz.
I most closely matched UKIP at 92% then Conservatives at 87%Sweet, I’m 94% matched with conservatives.
What are those policies then?"… Just kidding, I know you don’t know or care
That’s nice Billy. Did you answer all the questions? If so, you must be really quick at quizzes.
How closely did UKIP match your opinions?
The site will tell you what UKIP policies are if you really want to know.
I don’t need to know, so long as they promise to take us out of the EU.
Harry Monk:
I really can’t see any UKIP candidate having a problem trouncing the Conservative candidate, a 32 year old Oxbridge lawyer and director of Christies isn’t really going to understand the problems the people of Newark face.
The really do look like actors in a very bad satire. And what’s up with her? Looks like 30, dresses like 80.
Is it me or does he look like George Osbourne?
Both of them look like the photo has been stretched to make their foreheads bigger
turbot:
I look forward to your comments after the 22nd of May, when the people of this once great country have had their say.I will be voting for UKIP along with most people. Why? because they are offering an alternative to the status quo that I want. I have been mislead by other parties over the years, saying one thing and then doing something quite different. UKIP might well be a one trick pony at the minute, but the support for that trick is massive and justified.
Spot on, I wish I had said that.
turbot:
I’ve read it, I don’t know how you can use the dailymash as a credible source compared to the express.As you conceded previously, a survey of 60.000 households in a country of 26 million households can draw no safe conclusions for extrapolating. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Well, I agree with your last point, but I certainly never conceded anything of the sort suggested in your second point. As for your first point, that’s not what I was doing at all, and if that’s really the only criticism you can make of my admittedly rather long post, I must have been spot on with the rest of it.
turbot:
I look forward to your comments after the 22nd of May, when the people of this once great country have had their say.I will be voting for UKIP along with most people. Why? because they are offering an alternative to the status quo that I want. I have been mislead by other parties over the years, saying one thing and then doing something quite different. UKIP might well be a one trick pony at the minute, but the support for that trick is massive and justified.
And we’re back to square one again. You’ve been sucked in, like most of the rest of the UKIP supporters. They’re not offering an alternative to anything, they just happen to be in a stronger position than any other party to convince you that they are. Much like the Lib Dems used to be in the same position until they went into the coalition and suddenly had to either deliver on their promises or shut up.
Meanwhile, in other news … twitpic.com/e2f5ip
Oxbridge…tick…Lawyer…tick…Stepford wife…tick.
Oh yes, another potential leader of the Tories there.
Harry Monk:
I really can’t see any UKIP candidate having a problem trouncing the Conservative candidate, a 32 year old Oxbridge lawyer and director of Christies isn’t really going to understand the problems the people of Newark face.
The really do look like actors in a very bad satire. And what’s up with her? Looks like 30, dresses like 80.
Spot on. Very odd looking people, both of them.