Jump to content

The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)


blandy

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Wonder what the chickens think the Villa score will be tomorrow :)

 

Seriously though, do you think canvass returns are a good way of parties assessing the prospects of other parties?  They are good for judging whether support for the party itself is changing over time, but quite broad brush.  I gather the Labour Party locally weren't optimistic, based on their own canvass information about how their usual supporters were responding.  That's quite different from getting accurate views of the degree of support for other parties.

The polling organisations spend a great deal of time and money trying to get accurate assessments of voting intention, but are sometimes embarrassed by having called it wrong.  The parties are making big efforts to get better information - the Lib Dems are using a system that Obama used, and see it as an improvement on what they had before - but there are all sorts of limitations.  Problems include having the phoning round done by lots of volunteers (so you introduce a lot of variation in how answers are assessed, because very often it's a judgement call about how you categorise an answer), the "honesty" problem when people are talking to an identified party member rather than an independent pollster, the possibility that respondents answer honestly but then do something different (some discussion of that in this piece about inaccurate polling at the last election - "Scientifically selected people, representing the population as a whole, said they were going to behave in a certain way.  But the population as a whole behaved in a slightly different way").

I exaggerate in comparing canvass returns with chicken entrails.  But I do think they are likely to be less accurate than professional polls, especially when it comes to predicting the support for other parties than the one the canvassers are mainly asking about and on behalf of.  Useful in assessing mood music, useful in testing the likelihood of previous supporters to stick with the party and to come out to vote, but often overstated.  Also, a party commenting about their canvass returns is normally a political act rather than an objective report, something designed to sway opinion or influence the agenda rather than communicate entirely factual information.

And the chickens say 2-1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, peterms said:

do you think canvass returns are a good way of parties assessing the prospects of other parties?...I do think they are likely to be less accurate than professional polls, especially when it comes to predicting the support for other parties than the one the canvassers are mainly asking about and on behalf of

They're the best way they've got, aren't they? - and as it happened they were correct.

Talking directly to lots of people in [Copeland] is surey the most accurate way of finding out which way people were going to vote. In a race between tories and Labour, then Lib Dems would be more likely, I'd think, to get accurate responses on whether more or fewer people would vote tory than labour.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

They're the best way they've got, aren't they? - and as it happened they were correct.

Talking directly to lots of people in [Copeland] is surey the most accurate way of finding out which way people were going to vote. In a race between tories and Labour, then Lib Dems would be more likely, I'd think, to get accurate responses on whether more or fewer people would vote tory than labour.  

 

Ladbrokes were giving odds of 1-3 on a tory win, and it was hardly an unexpected result.  If the canvass returns were saying something different to the bookies and the polls and then turned out to be right, that might say something.

I would think the people most likely to get an accurate view from voters would be people with no stated affiliation.  The very fact of stating that you're calling on behalf of a particular party will colour the responses given.  Not for everyone, but for lots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, peterms said:

Seriously though, do you think canvass returns are a good way of parties assessing the prospects of other parties?  They are good for judging whether support for the party itself is changing over time, but quite broad brush.  I gather the Labour Party locally weren't optimistic, based on their own canvass information about how their usual supporters were responding.  That's quite different from getting accurate views of the degree of support for other parties.

The polling organisations spend a great deal of time and money trying to get accurate assessments of voting intention, but are sometimes embarrassed by having called it wrong.  The parties are making big efforts to get better information - the Lib Dems are using a system that Obama used, and see it as an improvement on what they had before - but there are all sorts of limitations.  Problems include having the phoning round done by lots of volunteers (so you introduce a lot of variation in how answers are assessed, because very often it's a judgement call about how you categorise an answer), the "honesty" problem when people are talking to an identified party member rather than an independent pollster, the possibility that respondents answer honestly but then do something different (some discussion of that in this piece about inaccurate polling at the last election - "Scientifically selected people, representing the population as a whole, said they were going to behave in a certain way.  But the population as a whole behaved in a slightly different way").

I exaggerate in comparing canvass returns with chicken entrails.  But I do think they are likely to be less accurate than professional polls, especially when it comes to predicting the support for other parties than the one the canvassers are mainly asking about and on behalf of.  Useful in assessing mood music, useful in testing the likelihood of previous supporters to stick with the party and to come out to vote, but often overstated.  Also, a party commenting about their canvass returns is normally a political act rather than an objective report, something designed to sway opinion or influence the agenda rather than communicate entirely factual information.

And the chickens say 2-1.

tbh I don't know how the Lib Dems came up with their prediction ... for Stoke people were calling it based on a snap shot of looking at the piles of paper in the various trays  , it maybe the libs did something similar in Copeland rather than canvasing ?

On QT around 10:30 a labour win was kinda being predicted for both constituencies , and even on-line people started to call it as a Labour victory initially , seems they were calling it based on the ward they were in and not the rural wards ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another day, another example of Philip Davies 'filibustering' to try and stop a bill passing. The speaker should be able to just tell someone to sit down and shut the **** up when it's clear they're speaking with no purpose other than obstructing debate.

This time it was a bill to prevent domestic violence. Here are some other bills he's tried to stop:

  • Free hospital car parking for carers
  •  Making homes fit for human habitation
  •  First aid training for children in schools
  • Banning wild animal use in circuses
  • Reversing NHS privatisation progress

I genuinely hope that someone punches this word removed in the face and breaks his nose.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/domestic-violence-istanbul-convention-bill-philip-davies-filibuster-parliament-snp-a7597686.html

Quote

 

A backbench Conservative MP has been accused of trying to block a parliamentary bill that would force the Government to sign up to the international Istanbul Convention on preventing domestic violence.

Philip Davies, a veteran of long so-called “filibusters”, gave a 91-minute long speech, using up a large chunk of the time allocated to debate backbench laws on Friday. 

Mr Davies and his allies on the Tory backbenches also tabled more than 50 “wrecking” amendments to the legislation, which was proposed by the SNP with cross-party support, with the aim of obliging the Government to tackle sexual violence and domestic abuse.

READ MORE

Anti-feminist Tory MP Philip Davies elected to women issue committee

“We’ve actually got quite a large group of new clauses and amendments to go through this morning,” the MP said, beginning his elongated speech.

The bill passed its third reading after MPs turned out en masse to force a vote on it, an unusual occurrence on a Friday because most work from their constituencies at the end of the week and are not available for votes.

The Commons rejected Mr Davis’s amendments but accepted a number put forward by the Government; the bill was ultimately passed by 138 votes to 1. Mr Davies was the only MP present to ultimately vote against the bill.

The Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill is the latest bill apparently targeted by Mr Davies. He has previously made a name for himself blocking free hospital car parking for carers, a law to make homes fit for human habitation, mandatory first aid training in schools, and the use of wild animals in circuses.

The MP spoke from 9.42 am until 11.13am, after which the proposer of the bill SNP MP Dr Eilidh Whiteford gave her speech. She said that MPs from nine parties had backed the bill.

Tory MP says 'women and equalities committee' should be renamed

Here are some of the bills Tory MP Philip Davies has filibustered

Tory MP elected to equalities committee think its shouldn't exist

Tory MP says he'd vote for Donald Trump 'in a heartbeat'

Tory MP Philip Davies says more women should be sent to prison

“Grown-up politics is about compromise. Frankly, if there was less grandstanding on our hind legs in this place and more constructive discussion and real work I think we’d all be much better off,” she said.

Addressing Mr Davies directly she said the MP was letting down his own constituents who had experienced “horrific” domestic violence.

“I do need to respond to some of what we’ve heard this morning. I’m aware that the member opposite enjoys being the pantomime villain in this very public theatre and that he genuinely opposes the principles of the Bill,” she said.

“But I have to say that the way that he’s gone about tabling wrecking amendments and talking about them at length this morning does nothing to enhance his reputation or the reputation of the democratic process.”

Mr Davies said the proposals would not make a “blind bit of difference” and that they were “discriminatory” against men.

The bill was proposed by SNP MP Dr Eilidh Whiteford

“It seems to me that the last thing we need here is another group from a super-national body set up to make it look like they are doing something on issues but just becomes a talking shop when actually its not the implementation of the Istanbul Convention that will actually make any real difference to levels of violence generally, and certainly to levels of violence against women,” he said

“It's harsher sentencing of perpetrators that will make a big difference. The idea that having this group of experts pontificating about how well or badly something has been implemented will make any material difference to the levels of violence in the UK is for the birds.”

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Davies is a collossal clearing in the woods and his constituents should be ashamed he represents them.

He seems to do it just to be a word removed. Some of the stuff he's fillibustered is mindboggling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, V01 said:

Why is it only targeted toward women? pretty shoddy gender equality there.

It's a fair question, to which there are some reasonable answers, namely, the relative frequency of which gender is most likely to be victim to domestic violence. Having said that, I'm not sure that's a good reason for the bill to target women  - if men were massively more likely to be victims of murder, it wouldn't be ok to just criminalise murdering men.

Even if that were the reason for objecting, I can't help but feel that the most reasonable response is to propose amendments to the bill to make it gender neutral, not to obstruct parliament by talking bollocks for hours on end as this odious prick enjoys doing.

Edited by Davkaus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, V01 said:

Why is it only targeted toward women? pretty shoddy gender equality there.

The title of the Legislation is:

Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence.

Quote

Because it is not only women and girls who suffer domestic violence, parties to the convention are encouraged to apply the protective framework it creates to men who are exposed to violence within the family or domestic unit.

boring reading beyond newspaper headlines

Newspapers are great, the Independent website is great. They offer a gateway to a subject. They are not the definitive font of all truth and knowledge.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lose interest after 12 words, ooh a butterfly.

 

It's a good bill, glad the thunder word removed didn't manage to block it.

Edited by V01
swear filter didn't work
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, V01 said:

Why is it only targeted toward women? pretty shoddy gender equality there.

Because other laws against violence have generally proved adequate to deal with violence against men, but violence "in the home" plays to an old idea that men are allowed to beat up women who are in a relationship with them.  And so often the police have failed to act, and courts have failed to convict, and people have felt constrained in bringing charges.  Passing legislation is a way of pushing social norms along, rather than waiting for evolution to do its work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, peterms said:

May has made a big deal of her support for tackling assaults on women.

She will be judged on how she deals with this undermining of her professed concern.  Slap him down?  Or look the other way?

Absolutely. A question was asked - a very fawning question, I might add - by an SNP MP at PMQ's which specifically asked if May would be discouraging members from using delaying tactics to derail the vote (the target of this comment was very, very obviously Mr Davies) and she stated how much she hoped that wouldn't happen. 

This guy is out of control. Frankly he should have the whip withdrawn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

The title of the Legislation is:

Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence.

boring reading beyond newspaper headlines

Newspapers are great, the Independent website is great. They offer a gateway to a subject. They are not the definitive font of all truth and knowledge.

I will definitely give this a read. Thanks.

I don't know Davies full position/agenda (I'm updating myself with Hansard) but I have a friend with a criminal record for domestic violence after getting beaten up by his girlfriend. Policies to shift social norm put him at a disadvantage and he will suffer for the rest of his life for being a great guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloody hell he did go on a bit. 

Obviously an important piece of legislation but perhaps with some holes? 
Correct me if I'm wrong but is this an agreement that mostly pulls other nations up to accepted standards? (I accept it strengthens some of our legislation/responsibilities too)

And if so, should it have done more to protect the more modern circumstances of violence such as transgender or revenge porn?
I could think of a few ratifying nations which would fail that tolerance test.

I understand the focus on women and it's absolutely necessary but in our modern society some social norms have shifted; men are only just accepting that violence against them is violence. 
Signing helps strengthen the Council of Europe's ambitions and that's vital. And it helps victims/women here too; but I hope after ratification that the conversation can progress to understanding some of the newer ways domestic violence can exist, and how we deal with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday he also filibustered a bill to increase the maximum sentence that can be given for criminal cases of animal cruelty, an area of law for which the UK already has among the more lenient sentences in the developed world (no matter how horrendous the cruelty, the maximum sentence is 6 months). He's just a bit of a word removed.

Edited by Davkaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair to Philip Davies, his objection to the bill in question was not an opposition to the aim of the bill itself, only that it excluded men.

He claimed that as 25% of victims of honour killing and honour violence are men, the bill should be gender neutral.

He said in his previous speech that in the case where men represent the majority of victims, such as homelessness, suicide and premature death, it would be unthinkable that any legislation would be passed which excluded female victims of the same.

Not an unreasonable point.

The hit-piece in the Independent followed the general prejudice to condemn all appeals on behalf of male victims, as being automatically misogynistic.

Davies describes himself as anti-feminist but pro-equality, which is exactly how the vast majority of women describe themselves when responding to surveys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â