Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 113
Like Tree14Likes

Thread: The European Politics Thread

  1. #46
    International Regular Stapel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    3,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Niall View Post
    Over 80% from all accounts.

    Its another election where the betting industry and to a lesser extent polling has somewhat failed.

    Hopefully it should be a reality check to those who rather naively assumed anyone that you could define as hard right is not a cert to win power because "Brexit and Trump~"
    year turnout

    2017 80,8
    2012 74,6
    2010 75,3
    2006 80,4
    2003 79,9
    2002 78,9
    1998 73,3
    1994 78,7
    1989 80,3
    1986 85,8
    1982 81,0
    1981 87,0
    1977 88,0
    1972 83,5
    1971 79,1

    So, nothing really special on turnouts....
    Madness. Exhilarating. Magical. Netherlands have crossed the line in an unbelievable 13.5 overs.
    It's like watching a Gayle from each end. And when one Gayle gets out.. Another Gayle comes in...

  2. #47
    Evil Scotsman Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    506
    Posts
    28,989
    Bucks a recent trent, but not majorly so.
    ​63*

    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    Come on Lancashire!
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Let it be known for the record that the font in the top of the picture noted that Kohli was wearing Jimmy Choo shoes and Happy Socks

  3. #48
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Samuel_Vimes's Avatar
    Defend Your Castle Champion! Monkey Diving Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Holland/North Zealand
    Posts
    25,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Stapel View Post
    So, nothing really special on turnouts....
    Got to wonder how Nijmegen managed to run out of ballots then...

    Anyway, looking forward to VVD further hiking health insurance co-payments ahead of my imminent move to the low country.
    A follower of the schools of Machiavelli, Bentham, Locke, Hobbes, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Hassett and Benaud
    Member of ESAS, JMAS, DMAS, FRAS and RTDAS

  4. #49
    Cricketer Of The Year watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    9,469
    Erdogan's grip on power can't be that tenuous that he has to do this sort of stuff. One can can only assume that he has an irrational dislike of Europeans or non-Muslims.

    Which just goes to show - having a significantly large diaspora in your country in generally a bad idea as some foreign despot will eventually exploit it to gain political leverage, destabilise the target society, enact revenge etc.

    Erdogan accuses EU of 'crusade' against Islam

    The Turkish president has also said Europe is regressing to the pre-World War II era. German Chancellor Angel Merkel called for an end to the exchange of "insults."

    In a speech given to supporters in the western Turkish city of Sakarya, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan invoked the medieval religious wars between Christian Europe*and the Islamic Middle East*in the context of*present-day escalating tensions between the European Union and Turkey.

    "My dear brothers, a battle has started between the cross and the half moon. There can be no other explanation," Erdogan*said on Thursday.

    The Turkish president*also stated the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) Tuesday ruling, which*permits companies to ban the Islamic headscarf as part of policies barring religious symbols in*the workplace, was the start of a "crusade" by Europe.....

    Erdogan accuses EU of ?crusade? against Islam | News | DW.COM | 17.03.2017
    Last edited by watson; 17-03-2017 at 03:00 PM.
    1. Len Hutton 2. Jack Hobbs 3. Walter Hammond 4. Peter May 5. Ken Barrington 6. Denis Compton 7. Alan Knott 8. Hedley Verity 9. John Snow 10. Fred Trueman 11. Sydney Barnes


  5. #50
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    SWA
    Posts
    57,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    I don't think polling has "failed" in any of the last few elections, except possibly in the 2015 UK general election. Miles off in the French primary too, although that's a really tough one to forecast. Public polls are usually pretty frank about what constitutes a reasonable margin of error, and they've generally been within it.

    There's no way of telling whether a political betting market is failing or not. The favourite losing definitely isn't a betting market failure.

    Political gambling is quite a small market so I wouldn't expect it to be efficient, it's definitely possible to give it too much respect. I like them being reported anyway, purely because they're probabilistic, which is always better than random pundits saying "this will happen" then keeping their jobs when it doesn't.
    Surely it failed in the US election?

  6. #51
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    27,160
    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    Surely it failed in the US election?
    No not at all. The polls showed a close race, but were filtered through some perceived wisdom about blue walls into 'Hillary has this'. Hence the pre-election media consisted largely of poll aggregators (especially 538) insisting that Trump had a reasonable chance, and every other outlet relentlessly abusing them and questioning their integrity for not 'admitting' Hillary had it in the bag.

    Similar to what happened with Brexit. Although with Brexit some of the, uh, political socialisers called it better than the polls, so it wasn't as big a victory relative to other means of political prediction.

  7. #52
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    SWA
    Posts
    57,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    No not at all. The polls showed a close race, but were filtered through some perceived wisdom about blue walls into 'Hillary has this'. Hence the pre-election media consisted largely of poll aggregators (especially 538) insisting that Trump had a reasonable chance, and every other outlet relentlessly abusing them and questioning their integrity for not 'admitting' Hillary had it in the bag.

    Similar to what happened with Brexit. Although with Brexit some of the, uh, political socialisers called it better than the polls, so it wasn't as big a victory relative to other means of political prediction.
    Fair enough. I guess the main things hat spring to mind are the 'Hillary has a 92% chance of winning' style pieces

  8. #53
    Hall of Fame Member Pothas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Brum
    Posts
    15,510
    2015 British election was definitely the most obvious one and it warped the whole campaign. There was almost nobody talking about a Tory Majority, although I think some less known polling had them doing much better, and yet it seemed so obvious once the result came. Matthew Parris wrote an article a couple of weeks before the election saying that everything he knew about politics suggested that the Tories should win but that the polls were just not saying it.

  9. #54
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    SWA
    Posts
    57,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Pothas View Post
    2015 British election was definitely the most obvious one and it warped the whole campaign. There was almost nobody talking about a Tory Majority, although I think some less known polling had them doing much better, and yet it seemed so obvious once the result came. Matthew Parris wrote an article a couple of weeks before the election saying that everything he knew about politics suggested that the Tories should win but that the polls were just not saying it.
    As you say, it made a difference. The polls enabled the Tories to go on the 'well you don't want an SNP coalition do you?' offensive

  10. #55
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,647
    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    Fair enough. I guess the main things hat spring to mind are the 'Hillary has a 92% chance of winning' style pieces
    This is missing the key point. Saying something has a 92% chance of winning doesn't make you wrong if the 8% chance comes in.

    You can argue polling is or is not wrong based on methodology or whatever, but not based off the result (unless, hypothetically, something happens that the pollsters had as a literally 0% chance).
    Last edited by Tom Halsey; 17-03-2017 at 06:03 PM.
    MSN - tomhalsey123@hotmail.com

    Manchester United FC: 20 Times

    R.I.P. Sledger's Signature, 2004-2008

  11. #56
    Evil Scotsman Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    506
    Posts
    28,989
    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    Fair enough. I guess the main things hat spring to mind are the 'Hillary has a 92% chance of winning' style pieces
    Which still isn't wrong. That would only be wrong if they said Hilary had a 100% chance of winning.

  12. #57
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    SWA
    Posts
    57,356
    Of course I get the point the two posts above are making, but would challenge the assertion that Hillary was ever actually a 92% chance, as would sugggest the percentage was based upon flawed data to begin with.

  13. #58
    Cricketer Of The Year watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    9,469
    Only the pollsters at the LA Times and Fox predicted a Trump win - the LA Times on 9 separate occasions and Fox once.

    What set the LA Times apart was that it gathered its data on-line rather than by telephone conversation.

    So it appears that two emotional needs skewed the results for the telephone pollsters - the need to be polite and the need not to feel shame when interacting with another person.

    Which just to show that politics is a process driven primarily by the irrationality of human emotion. And so the anonymity of the the LA Times on-line survey, and the anonymity of the ballot box, allowed the people to vote according to their deeper feelings of patriotism and nationalism over and against their superficial feelings of politeness and shame.

    Overall conclusion: The psychological warfare that the PC propaganda machine wages on the inner feelings of people is a blight on the process of democracy as it stifles the freedom of expression. So what maybe useful in day-to-day social intereactions is not very useful during the political process which exists not to make us feel comfortable emotionally, but rather to guide the nation in the right direction by formulatiing coherent long term policy.
    Last edited by watson; 20-03-2017 at 06:25 AM.

  14. #59
    Cricketer Of The Year watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    9,469
    The diplomatic row between Turkey and Germany is not going away just yet after another angry exchange.

    Erdogan Warns Europeans on Their Safety as Tensions Rise With West

    KASTAMONU, Turkey — President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey warned Europeans on Wednesday that they would no longer be able to walk safely in the street if Western politicians continued with perceived provocations against Turkish leaders.

    Mr. Erdogan’s warning turned out to be awkwardly timed, coming hours before a deadly attack outside the British Parliament.....

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/w...rope.html?_r=0




    It appears that Europe itself is now part of the Middle Eastern conflict, and is unlikely to escape its general insanity for generations to come.

  15. #60
    Cricketer Of The Year watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    9,469
    Why would you want to belong to an organisation run by Vogons?


    EU to fine countries 'hundreds of millions of pounds' for refusing to take refugees

    The European Commission will impose fines of hundreds of millions*of pounds on countries that do not take in refugees.

    Jean-Claude Junker is tomorrow expected to unveil plans to impose a penalty of around €250,000 euros per rejected refugee, in a bid to salvage his botched*migration quota scheme.....

    Eastern European states opposed the scheme for two reasons: because they said refugee admissions should be a sovereign national decision; and because many of their voters are virulently opposed to Muslim immigration. Britain is exempt due to its historic opt-out on justice matters.

    The Commission has blamed*national governments for failing to offer enough places for migrants.* But the statistics back up the testimony of aid workers and EU officials who say the scheme has flopped migrants have no desire to be “relocated” to poor eastern European states when they would rather go to Germany or Sweden.

    Indeed, under current offers of places, there are 5,989 spaces unused, including *40 in Slovenia, 480 in Romania, 1,298 in Bulgaria and 100 in Poland.....

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...uota/matters.*

    Last edited by watson; 23-03-2017 at 03:50 PM.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Australian politics thread
    By Slow Love™ in forum News and Politics
    Replies: 18034
    Last Post: Yesterday, 06:11 PM
  2. *Official* European Football Thread 2008-09
    By Pratters in forum General Sports Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 13-09-2009, 06:57 AM
  3. The Indian Politics Thread
    By Pratters in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-09-2009, 02:33 AM
  4. US politics thread
    By silentstriker in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 26-01-2009, 02:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •