RugbyRebels

fivepointer wrote:My understanding is that the YouGov surveys are based on interactions with the general population.

Labours a/s issue is one centred around its membership of course, which I dont think has been polled separately.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but this is the best data we have available to us. It would be great if they polled the membership itself. Maybe something like that will come out of this, if Labour are committed to fighting such a scourge (antisemitism), then they should seek to get a clearer insight into the scale of the problem.

fivepointer wrote:My understanding is that the YouGov surveys are based on interactions with the general population.

Labours a/s issue is one centred around its membership of course, which I dont think has been polled separately.

We also don't know from the You Gov polls how the trends for the various parties simply reflect underlying racism in society (which is to say are the figures about racism toward Jews or Zionism), whether the supposed fall in Labour's racism under the Glorious Leader™ is real or for a poll of this type a movement within the margin for error, we don't know whether those falls might be related to new Labour voters enthused by the supposed offering of something different not knowing or perhaps being indifferent to much of the racism and misogyny in the Corbyn power base, and so on and so on.

Hard to read much into such a limited poll of such a limited number a wise person once said

Digby wrote:

fivepointer wrote:My understanding is that the YouGov surveys are based on interactions with the general population.

Labours a/s issue is one centred around its membership of course, which I dont think has been polled separately.

We also don't know from the You Gov polls how the trends for the various parties simply reflect underlying racism in society (which is to say are the figures about racism toward Jews or Zionism), whether the supposed fall in Labour's racism under the Glorious Leader™ is real or for a poll of this type a movement within the margin for error, we don't know whether those falls might be related to new Labour voters enthused by the supposed offering of something different not knowing or perhaps being indifferent to much of the racism and misogyny in the Corbyn power base, and so on and so on.

Hard to read much into such a limited poll of such a limited number a wise person once said

You're grasping at straws now, it's ridiculous. The poll isn't limited, it's professionally conducted for a prominent antisemitism campaign group.

I get that you want to justify your views despite evidence to the contrary, but you're just going to make yourself look silly with your refusal to face the facts.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

fivepointer wrote:My understanding is that the YouGov surveys are based on interactions with the general population.

Labours a/s issue is one centred around its membership of course, which I dont think has been polled separately.

We also don't know from the You Gov polls how the trends for the various parties simply reflect underlying racism in society (which is to say are the figures about racism toward Jews or Zionism), whether the supposed fall in Labour's racism under the Glorious Leader™ is real or for a poll of this type a movement within the margin for error, we don't know whether those falls might be related to new Labour voters enthused by the supposed offering of something different not knowing or perhaps being indifferent to much of the racism and misogyny in the Corbyn power base, and so on and so on.

Hard to read much into such a limited poll of such a limited number a wise person once said

You're grasping at straws now, it's ridiculous. The poll isn't limited, it's professionally conducted for a prominent antisemitism campaign group.

I get that you want to justify your views despite evidence to the contrary, but you're just going to make yourself look silly with your refusal to face the facts.

The poll seemed to note 1600 odd respondents, which would be approx 0.00002% of the population, which (as with other polls of such a limited sample size) seems limited to me. And then there's the rather limited questions with the somewhat limited responses to consider in addition. So even supposing this represents the cutting edge in the world of polling it's only the results of a limited poll, and it'd be reasonable to take the results with a pinch of salt.

Such thinking would work the other way btw, should the results in next years poll show a 400% growth in Labour's anti-semitism given only recent media coverage I'd think that should be taken with a pinch of salt too

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
We also don't know from the You Gov polls how the trends for the various parties simply reflect underlying racism in society (which is to say are the figures about racism toward Jews or Zionism), whether the supposed fall in Labour's racism under the Glorious Leader™ is real or for a poll of this type a movement within the margin for error, we don't know whether those falls might be related to new Labour voters enthused by the supposed offering of something different not knowing or perhaps being indifferent to much of the racism and misogyny in the Corbyn power base, and so on and so on.

Hard to read much into such a limited poll of such a limited number a wise person once said

You're grasping at straws now, it's ridiculous. The poll isn't limited, it's professionally conducted for a prominent antisemitism campaign group.

I get that you want to justify your views despite evidence to the contrary, but you're just going to make yourself look silly with your refusal to face the facts.

The poll seemed to note 1600 odd respondents, which would be approx 0.00002% of the population, which (as with other polls of such a limited sample size) seems limited to me. And then there's the rather limited questions with the somewhat limited responses to consider in addition. So even supposing this represents the cutting edge in the world of polling it's only the results of a limited poll, and it'd be reasonable to take the results with a pinch of salt.

Such thinking would work the other way btw, should the results in next years poll show a 400% growth in Labour's anti-semitism given only recent media coverage I'd think that should be taken with a pinch of salt too

https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat100/node/16

The sample size is fine. If you don't know what you are on about, educate yourself first. Start with a basic course on inferential statistics.

So with a sample size of 1600, you get approximately a 2.5% margin of error overall, but indeed larger when we segment by groups... for example when we ask 500-600 Labour or Tory voters the MoE is about 4% . Therefore a polling result of 40% for Tories means that there's 95% confidence that it would be between 36% and 44% if repeated. Likewise for the Labour result of 32%, there is a 95% confidence that it would be between 28% and 36% if repeated. Clearly the confidence intervals for Labour vs Tories do not overlap, although are adjacent - therefore you can make a fair inference that Tory voters are statistically more likely to agree with antisemitic statements.

Sandydragon wrote: Zero credibility? Putting to one side the red tops and Daily Mail, most of the rest have highlighted his past fairly. Unless it’s all lies about him meeting terrorists, etc? I think not. His own record speaks for itself, it doesn’t need anyone to embellish it.

And what of the terrorist imperialists the Queen and our arms industry are constantly courting,.....with the use of senior military figures, in uniform, acting as 'guides'......salesmen would be a better term.

Corbyn attends left-wing Jewish dinner and the organisations that the media are describing as 'mainstream Jews' are complaining about that as well.

This story about Corbyn being an anti-Semite is clearly a deliberate ploy to stifle the Cambridge Analytica story.
The ramifications of which are terrifying to the hard right.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
You're grasping at straws now, it's ridiculous. The poll isn't limited, it's professionally conducted for a prominent antisemitism campaign group.

I get that you want to justify your views despite evidence to the contrary, but you're just going to make yourself look silly with your refusal to face the facts.

The poll seemed to note 1600 odd respondents, which would be approx 0.00002% of the population, which (as with other polls of such a limited sample size) seems limited to me. And then there's the rather limited questions with the somewhat limited responses to consider in addition. So even supposing this represents the cutting edge in the world of polling it's only the results of a limited poll, and it'd be reasonable to take the results with a pinch of salt.

Such thinking would work the other way btw, should the results in next years poll show a 400% growth in Labour's anti-semitism given only recent media coverage I'd think that should be taken with a pinch of salt too

https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat100/node/16

The sample size is fine. If you don't know what you are on about, educate yourself first. Start with a basic course on inferential statistics.

So with a sample size of 1600, you get approximately a 2.5% margin of error overall, but indeed larger when we segment by groups... for example when we ask 500-600 Labour or Tory voters the MoE is about 4% . Therefore a polling result of 40% for Tories means that there's 95% confidence that it would be between 36% and 44% if repeated. Likewise for the Labour result of 32%, there is a 95% confidence that it would be between 28% and 36% if repeated. Clearly the confidence intervals for Labour vs Tories do not overlap, although are adjacent - therefore you can make a fair inference that Tory voters are statistically more likely to agree with antisemitic statements.

I hope you didn't waste too much of your day attempting to understand stander error. What a pompous wancher.

morepork wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
The poll seemed to note 1600 odd respondents, which would be approx 0.00002% of the population, which (as with other polls of such a limited sample size) seems limited to me. And then there's the rather limited questions with the somewhat limited responses to consider in addition. So even supposing this represents the cutting edge in the world of polling it's only the results of a limited poll, and it'd be reasonable to take the results with a pinch of salt.

Such thinking would work the other way btw, should the results in next years poll show a 400% growth in Labour's anti-semitism given only recent media coverage I'd think that should be taken with a pinch of salt too

https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat100/node/16

The sample size is fine. If you don't know what you are on about, educate yourself first. Start with a basic course on inferential statistics.

So with a sample size of 1600, you get approximately a 2.5% margin of error overall, but indeed larger when we segment by groups... for example when we ask 500-600 Labour or Tory voters the MoE is about 4% . Therefore a polling result of 40% for Tories means that there's 95% confidence that it would be between 36% and 44% if repeated. Likewise for the Labour result of 32%, there is a 95% confidence that it would be between 28% and 36% if repeated. Clearly the confidence intervals for Labour vs Tories do not overlap, although are adjacent - therefore you can make a fair inference that Tory voters are statistically more likely to agree with antisemitic statements.

I hope you didn't waste too much of your day attempting to understand stander error. What a pompous wancher.

Take a chill pill, mate.

Take a fuckin high school stats course.

morepork wrote:Take a fuckin high school stats course.

Something incorrect?

History will focus on the contribution of Carole Cadwalladr ......
The rest of us will be considered scum.

Zhivago wrote:

morepork wrote:Take a fuckin high school stats course.

Something incorrect?

Didn't think so. Honestly, the nerve of some people...

Zhivago wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

morepork wrote:Take a fuckin high school stats course.

Something incorrect?

Didn't think so. Honestly, the nerve of some people...

What, you gonna lecture on the normal distribution now?

Pretending that the Jews are not capable of hard right politics is an ideology of a moron.

morepork wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Something incorrect?

Didn't think so. Honestly, the nerve of some people...

What, you gonna lecture on the normal distribution now?

How about you fuck off, you have nothing useful to contribute.

Fair enough flounce boy.

Zhivago wrote:

morepork wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Didn't think so. Honestly, the nerve of some people...

What, you gonna lecture on the normal distribution now?

How about you fuck off, you have nothing useful to contribute.

Who the fuck are you to tell people how they can or can't post, you pretentious cunt? Who the fuck do you think are? Why don't you fuck off again in a huff, you melodramatic crybaby.

cashead wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

morepork wrote:

What, you gonna lecture on the normal distribution now?

How about you fuck off, you have nothing useful to contribute.

Who the fuck are you to tell people how they can or can't post, you pretentious cunt? Who the fuck do you think are? Why don't you fuck off again in a huff, you melodramatic crybaby.

I was contributing to the discussion, unlike you two who come in all guns blazing and contribute nothing. Stay off the roids, you aggressive nutter.

Truly shocking

If you want to understand what the “special relationship” between Israel and the United States really means consider the fact that Israeli Army snipers shot dead seventeen unarmed and largely peaceful Gazan demonstrators on Good Friday without a squeak coming out of the White House or State Department. Some of the protesters were shot in the back while running away, while another 1,000 Palestinians were wounded, an estimated 750 by gunfire, the remainder injured by rubber bullets and tear gas.

The offense committed by the Gazan protesters that has earned them a death sentence was coming too close to the Israeli containment fence that has turned the Gaza strip into the world’s largest outdoor prison. President Donald Trump’s chief Middle East negotiator David Greenblatt described the protest as “a hostile march on the Israel-Gaza border…inciting violence against Israel.” And Nikki Haley at the U.N. has also used the U.S. veto to block any independent inquiry into the violence, demonstrating once again that the White House team is little more than Israel’s echo chamber. America’s enabling of the brutal reality that is today’s Israel makes it fully complicit in the war crimes carried out against the helpless and hapless Palestinian people.

Continues here: https://israelpalestinenews.org/a-speci ... n-in-hell/

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
You're grasping at straws now, it's ridiculous. The poll isn't limited, it's professionally conducted for a prominent antisemitism campaign group.

I get that you want to justify your views despite evidence to the contrary, but you're just going to make yourself look silly with your refusal to face the facts.

The poll seemed to note 1600 odd respondents, which would be approx 0.00002% of the population, which (as with other polls of such a limited sample size) seems limited to me. And then there's the rather limited questions with the somewhat limited responses to consider in addition. So even supposing this represents the cutting edge in the world of polling it's only the results of a limited poll, and it'd be reasonable to take the results with a pinch of salt.

Such thinking would work the other way btw, should the results in next years poll show a 400% growth in Labour's anti-semitism given only recent media coverage I'd think that should be taken with a pinch of salt too

https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat100/node/16

The sample size is fine. If you don't know what you are on about, educate yourself first. Start with a basic course on inferential statistics.

So with a sample size of 1600, you get approximately a 2.5% margin of error overall, but indeed larger when we segment by groups... for example when we ask 500-600 Labour or Tory voters the MoE is about 4% . Therefore a polling result of 40% for Tories means that there's 95% confidence that it would be between 36% and 44% if repeated. Likewise for the Labour result of 32%, there is a 95% confidence that it would be between 28% and 36% if repeated. Clearly the confidence intervals for Labour vs Tories do not overlap, although are adjacent - therefore you can make a fair inference that Tory voters are statistically more likely to agree with antisemitic statements.

You do realise that the poll in question is Labour marking its own homework? Ask a racist person if they are racist and they will probably say no. If someone else displays racist behaviour they feel is acceptable, they won't denounce it. A bit pointless to be fair, although the desperation with which left leaning alt news sites are grasping that report tells an interesting story by itself.

kk67 wrote:Pretending that the Jews are not capable of hard right politics is an ideology of a moron.

So is pretending that extreme left wing ideologist are nice people.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
The poll seemed to note 1600 odd respondents, which would be approx 0.00002% of the population, which (as with other polls of such a limited sample size) seems limited to me. And then there's the rather limited questions with the somewhat limited responses to consider in addition. So even supposing this represents the cutting edge in the world of polling it's only the results of a limited poll, and it'd be reasonable to take the results with a pinch of salt.

Such thinking would work the other way btw, should the results in next years poll show a 400% growth in Labour's anti-semitism given only recent media coverage I'd think that should be taken with a pinch of salt too

https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat100/node/16

The sample size is fine. If you don't know what you are on about, educate yourself first. Start with a basic course on inferential statistics.

So with a sample size of 1600, you get approximately a 2.5% margin of error overall, but indeed larger when we segment by groups... for example when we ask 500-600 Labour or Tory voters the MoE is about 4% . Therefore a polling result of 40% for Tories means that there's 95% confidence that it would be between 36% and 44% if repeated. Likewise for the Labour result of 32%, there is a 95% confidence that it would be between 28% and 36% if repeated. Clearly the confidence intervals for Labour vs Tories do not overlap, although are adjacent - therefore you can make a fair inference that Tory voters are statistically more likely to agree with antisemitic statements.

You do realise that the poll in question is Labour marking its own homework? Ask a racist person if they are racist and they will probably say no. If someone else displays racist behaviour they feel is acceptable, they won't denounce it. A bit pointless to be fair, although the desperation with which left leaning alt news sites are grasping that report tells an interesting story by itself.

CAA is not linked to the Labour leadership.

The Labour leadership seems under the impression the CAA is a conspiratorial Jewish right-wing organisation ‘exploiting’ antisemitism

Digby wrote:The Labour leadership seems under the impression the CAA is a conspiratorial Jewish right-wing organisation ‘exploiting’ antisemitism

Hope you have a quote for that...