British Queen doing Nazi salute.

[Kalis]

Jesus. You people still don't get it. Not the brightest race are you?

Is it really necessary to insult the Jocks?

[Deleted]

From your own source:



Ummm, your own source disagrees with your analysis?

For those of you who, like Mikesglory, have trouble with basic reading comprehension, that quote comes from the early part of the article which dismisses claims that up to a third of the electorate might change their vote because of the possibility of a Labour/SNP government.

The article goes on to state

Take away all those groups and YouGov were left with 8% of the electorate who think a Lab/SNP deal of some sort is likely AND think this would be a bad thing AND think a Tory government would be preferable BUT are not already voting Tory. That’s actually a significant chunk of people and is presumably the voters who the Conservative party are targetting with their current campaign

That is even adjusting for the fact that it simply didn't matter what Labour and Tory loyalists thought, there was still 8% of the electorate who were likely to change their vote. 8% is huge, it would have made the difference between a Labour Majority and the Tory one that transpired.

Btw This is like the thirtieth time in a few months Mikesglory has tried to twist a source out of all recognition. He is either too incompetent to know what words mean, or is being deliberately deceptive in the hope that no one could be bothered to call him on his bullshit. Bear this in mind when reading his posts.

- - - Updated - - -

Is it really necessary to insult the Jocks?

Please. Have you listened to the amount of racist bullshit they've directed at the English over the years? They can take it if they dish it out.

They sold out the working class in the rest of the UK. I have very little interest in the tender feelings of class traitors.

[Deleted]

Btw This is like the thirtieth time in a few months Mikesglory has tried to twist a source out of all recognition. He is either too incompetent to know what words mean, or is being deliberately deceptive in the hope that no one could be bothered to call him on his bullshit. Bear this in mind when reading his posts.

That's because your posts usually make no sense, it's fairly hard to poke holes in nonsense... You cannot use data from a source to back up a claim when your own source has a disclaimer saying that "this data is worthless".

I'd be very surprised if you can come up with a SINGLE article post-election that says the only reason Labour don't have a majority is the "SNP Scare"

Here's a selection of media outlets (both left and right wing) with their interpretations of why Labour lost:

Telegraph - It's all down to the leaders
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gene...to-win-it.html

Guardian - Ed Milliband + Balls were just too weak as leaders and had a poor economic record
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...liband-economy

New Statesman - Weak Leadership + eocnomic record
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...-lose-so-badly

Independent - Economic record
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-10240286.html

Huh, look at that. Almost every media outlet puts it down to poor leadership + bad economic record, no-one claims SNP scare was the reason they lost.

[Kalis]

Please. Have you listened to the amount of racist bullshit they've directed at the English over the years? They can take it if they dish it out.

So, in response to racism, you're racist?

Yes. They sold out the working class in the rest of the UK. I have very little interest in the tender feelings of class traitors.

Are you a parody account?

[Deleted]

That's because your posts usually make no sense... You cannot use data from a source to back up a claim when your own source says that "this data is worthless".

I'd be very surprised if you can come up with a SINGLE article post-election that says the only reason Labour don't have a majority is the "SNP Scare"

The article does not say "this data is worthless". It explains why the methodology used by newspapers is usually inaccurate. It then goes into meticulous detail, which was apparently lost on you, as to how analyze the effect correctly. Read the thing properly before attempting to muddy the waters again, I'm really losing patience with you.

What journalists think is irrelevant, they completely fucked up the election prediction universally predicting losses of 50-60 Tory seats which never happened. They have consistently called elections wrong since 1990. They have no more idea what happened than you do.

[Deleted]

The article does not say "this data is worthless". It explains why the methodology used by newspapers is usually inaccurate. It then goes into meticulous detail, which was apparently lost on you, as to how analyze the effect correctly. Read the thing properly before attempting to muddy the waters again, I'm really losing patience with you.

What journalists think is irrelevant, they completely fucked up the election prediction. They have no more idea what happened than you do.

Journalists reported the polls in the run up - which are where the errors were in the prediction. You've linked direct poll data and claimed it the holy truth...

You're just digging a hole for yourself here, I'd advise throwing away the shovel.

[Deleted]

Journalists reported the polls - which are where the errors were in the prediction. You've linked direct poll data and claimed it the holy truth...

You're just digging a hole for yourself here, I'd advise throwing away the shovel.

The polling data was accurate. It is the job of the journalist to interpret that data.

It wasn't difficult to predict the result of the election and I did to within 10-20 seats on this very forum. Journalists know nothing about anything, that is why they are journalists.

And you've got a fucking nerve talking about shovels, your thirty miles under after the massive display of cluelessness above.

[Deleted]

The polling data was accurate. It is the job of the journalist to interpret that data.

It wasn't difficult to predict the result of the election and I did to within 10-20 seats on this very forum. Journalists know nothing about anything, that is why they are journalists.

The polling data was ridiculously wrong... that's why there's currently a massive investigation into polling methodology to try and make sure it doesn't happen again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32751993

*dig dig dig*

I monitored 92 polls over that period and the table below divides them into various percentage leads, ranging from 17 dead heats to three polls where the gap was 6% between Conservative and Labour.
None of the 92 polls accurately predicted the 7% lead the Conservatives would actually achieve.

Excluding the dead heats, we are left with 75 polls where one party was ahead of the other and, among these, 42 (56%) suggested Labour leads.
Among the full tally of 92 campaign polls, 81 registered leads for one party or another of between 0% and 3%.

Not only was EVERY poll wrong (not a single one predicted this much of a Tory win), but the majority actually suggested LABOUR would win!

It's clear there were major issues in UK polling prior to Gen Election 2015.

- - - Updated - - -

It wasn't difficult to predict the result of the election and I did to within 10-20 seats on this very forum. Journalists know nothing about anything, that is why they are journalists..

Because I'm bored and because pointing out how foolish you can be is so much fun, I've gone back through every single post you made for the 2 weeks prior to the General Election 2015.

You didn't actually call a prediction in a single one of them.

[Deleted]

Because I'm bored and because pointing out how foolish you can be is so much fun, I've gone back through every single post you made for the 2 weeks prior to the General Election 2015.

You didn't actually call a prediction in a single one of them.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post33670507


"That's basically what the polls say.

I think people are underestimating incumbency, the strength of the conservative party machine, and the "shy tory" factor in the polling. 300+ for the conservatives seems likely to me. "

That wasn't difficult to find, the day before the election. I suspect you did find it, and pretended you hadn't in the hope that I had just got completely sick and tired of your repeated attempts at deception and misdirection, which I have.

You may have the last word. Try and make it truthful for once.

[Allybeboba]

Day in day out EU has a fascination with Hitler...
No wonder you all were so easily mesmerized by his speeches.

/cheers

[Deleted]

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post33670507


"That's basically what the polls say.

I think people are underestimating incumbency, the strength of the conservative party machine, and the "shy tory" factor in the polling. 300+ for the conservatives seems likely to me. "

That wasn't difficult to find, the day before the election. I suspect you did find it, and pretended you hadn't in the hope that I had just got completely sick and tired of your repeated attempts at deception and misdirection, which I have.

You may have the last word. Try and make it truthful for once.

Huh you're correct. My apologies, I managed to miss that while going through your posts.

The main point of our discussion is still outstanding though: Polling prior to the election was clearly flawed and no-one post-election has assigned the "blame" to being exclusively SNP scare. The majority of pundits put the 2015 results down to a strong economic recovery during Con/Lib government for 2010-2015 and poor leadership from the two Ed's in Labour.

[Kalis]

Day in day out EU has a fascination with Hitler...
No wonder you all were so easily mesmerized by his speeches.

/cheers

So mesmerised that Britain, France, Poland, Greece and others, fought against him

[Tds]

Doesn't mean much. In 1933 you had no idea what 6 years into the future would have brought. We can't foresee the future so how would she have known what it was going to mean after 1939. Regardless its just something for mass media to go and point fingers and add more scrutiny for the old monarch.

Even to this day many countries around the world in their armed forces use similiar flag salutes, or when you swear the oath to defend the country. Just because the Nazi's adopted it, doesn't necessarily mean that you're a nazi for doing it. It's like the swastika, its an ancient chinese symbol, just it's now associated with evil.

[TwoNineMarine]

The fact that people care about this amazes me.

She was a little girl. War hadn't broke out yet. No one knew his plan to exterminate millions.

It was probably the cool thing to do at the time. The "fad" if you will.

[Bryntrollian]

Known as the Bellamy salute, it was used during the American pledge of allegiance before it was adpoted by the Nazis and subsequently replaced in 1941 by congress.


* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute

[Kalis]

Known as the Bellamy salute, it was used during the American pledge of allegiance before it was adpoted by the Nazis and subsequently replaced in 1941 by congress.


* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute

[Ghostpanther]

Known as the Bellamy salute, it was used during the American pledge of allegiance before it was adpoted by the Nazis and subsequently replaced in 1941 by congress.


* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute

And congress more than likely replaced it because the Nazi's were using it for their salute of allegiance.

But this ruckus all over what the Queen did as a child more than 80 years ago before WW2 even came out is silly. Move on, nothing exciting about this.

[Sam the Wiser]

Of all the threads not to get instant locked...

[Skandulous]

The modern gesture consists of stiffly extending the right arm frontally and raising it roughly 135 degrees from the body's vertical axis, with the palm of the hand facing down and the fingers stretched out and touching each other.[1] According to common perceptions, this salute was based on an ancient Roman custom.[1] However, this description is unknown in Roman literature and is never mentioned by ancient historians of Rome.[1] Not a single Roman work of art, be it sculpture, coinage, or painting, displays a salute of this kind.[1] The gesture of the raised right arm or hand in Roman and other ancient cultures that does exist in surviving literature and art generally had a significantly different function and is never identical with the modern straight-arm salute.[1]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...land-1938.html