Updated: Boris resigns as party leader

Originally Posted by Carth

Brexit was just an example, many more have been wrong too . . whether that was down to polling the wrong people, poor 'pundit' interpretation, or simply bad wording in the poll itself who knows.

Suffice to say some people view polls as acceptable data, others see them as manipulation devices . . each to their own

Generally they’re seen as acceptable to those whose views are confirmed by them, and manipulative by those who don’t like it when the polls contradict them.

In fact, the statistical process underpinning opinion polls is very robust and their results are always delivered with caveats. It’s those who then take the results and use them for campaigning that add the veneer of either acceptability or manipulation.

For starters, there is always a margin of error. On a properly weighted sample of 1,000 this is typically +/- 3 percentage points, which from the outset should show very clearly that no poll can accurately forecast an outcome that is determined by a gap smaller than that. The Brexit referendum result was well within the polling margin of error.

Secondly, there’s the issue of properly weighting the sample. You can’t get an accurate result from interviewing the first 1,000 people you meet on the high street on a Saturday morning.* You have to have a sample that reflects the demographics of the electorate. So you have to know age/social background of your respondents. You also have to know something about their voting record on the issue at hand. That’s easier for a general election poll but next to impossible for a one-off vote like Brexit.

Again, polling experts like Prof John Curtice at Strathclyde University, who often pops up on the BBC when major voting events are afoot, are always candid about these issues. Whether they make it into the popular consciousness is another matter.

* This, incidentally, is why the “they never asked me, so they can’t be accurate in any way” objection is nonsense. You may feel like a unique individual, but at the population level you really are just a series of fairly predictable responses to major issues.

"The first duty of Government is to uphold the law. If it tries to bob and weave and duck around that duty when its inconvenient, if government does that, then so will the governed, and then nothing is safe—not home, not liberty, not life itself."

This generation isn’t worthy to lick her boots.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Chris

This generation isn’t worthy to lick her boots.

I don't think any generation should aspire to be subservient enough to want to link anyone's boots!

Originally Posted by Chris

This generation isn’t worthy to lick her boots.

Pretty sure Dorries would do it if it was a challenge on a reality TV programme…

That’s a thought - Nadine could be our next PM, if Johnson resigns (and his machinations have made sure Sunak won’t be).

Go Nads!!!

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

First it was 10 minutes, now it's 9 - by the time of the Local Elections, OLD BOY will be saying that it was a couple of seconds, and if we could all just wait for the Sue Gray report, that would confirm this...

(and when it doesn't, it will be a litany of cake/Starmer/fluff/trivia/get on with the job/whatever the latest line he gets from the Whips' WhatsApp feed)

Remember all those day/weeks/months ago when OLD BOY said we shouldn't make up our minds before we knew what the outcome of the Police investigation was, because he was keeping an open mind, and we should too - his comment above shows he was as economical with the actualite as Johnson was...



He was obviously keeping an "open mind" as long as the Police verdict agreed with his preconceived outcomes...

I was keeping an open mind because I didn’t know all the facts. I knew about this one, but didn’t consider it a breach of the rules, particularly when Starmer was not fined for having a beer with colleagues on his break. I say again, how is this any different? Is a cake more of a Covid risk than a beer?

The 10minutes has been widely quoted, but it has been clarified now that it was actually 9 minutes. Not that it makes much difference, but I like to keep up.

---------- Post added at 13:51 ---------- Previous post was at 13:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Have to disagree - I know lots of people who couldn't visit relatives in care homes, didn't visit friends/families..

Yes, if only Boris didn’t see that cake. But wait….would that really have meant those families could have visited their relatives?

It is a ridiculous argument.

---------- Post added at 13:54 ---------- Previous post was at 13:51 ----------

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

The difference is Borris broke the law and Kier didn't.

You seem very keen to give us what you try to pass as absolute facts when it backs up your beliefs but when others try and do the same and you don't like it you want them to wait for the report etc.

Just accept you backed a loser, something most of us have known since the early pages of the thread.

So what was the difference between what Kier did and what Boris did? The only difference I can make out is that one was a beer and the other a cake. You don’t need to answer. I know that you cannot. You just want to get Boris out of office, and that’s all that matters to you.

Well, he’s going nowhere. Sorry to disappoint.

---------- Post added at 13:56 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

All you need to know:
[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

They weren’t sorry because they were not aware they did anything wrong until all this erupted.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I was keeping an open mind because I didn’t know all the facts. I knew about this one, but didn’t consider it a breach of the rules, particularly when Starmer was not fined for having a beer with colleagues on his break. I say again, how is this any different? Is a cake more of a Covid risk than a beer?

The 10minutes has been widely quoted, but it has been clarified now that it was actually 9 minutes. Not that it makes much difference, but I like to keep up.

---------- Post added at 13:51 ---------- Previous post was at 13:47 ----------



Yes, if only Boris didn’t see that cake. But wait….would that really have meant those families could have visited their relatives?

It is a ridiculous argument.

---------- Post added at 13:54 ---------- Previous post was at 13:51 ----------



So what was the difference between what Kier did and what Boris did? The only difference I can make out is that one was a beer and the other a cake. You don’t need to answer. I know that you cannot. You just want to get Boris out of office, and that’s all that matters to you.

Well, he’s going nowhere. Sorry to disappoint.

---------- Post added at 13:56 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ----------



They weren’t sorry because they were not aware they did anything wrong until all this erupted.

I know you are only repeating the CCHQ party line, but repeating that argument (cake) only makes you look as shallow & callous as they are…

It’s irrelevant whether there was cake - it’s relevant that they repeatedly broke the rules and laws that they repeatedly insisted that everyone should followed, then denied/lied that they had ever done so…

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

They weren’t sorry because they were not aware they did anything wrong until all this erupted.

Just for the sake of transparency, are you actually engaging with a discussion here or are you simply feeding approved CCHQ “lines to take” into the thread?

Because I’m increasingly under the impression that I’m just talking to a press release and it’s getting a bit tedious.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Pretty sure Dorries would do it if it was a challenge on a reality TV programme

If it was Boris's boots I'm sure she would be on the case. She might face some tough competition though.

---------- Post added at 16:11 ---------- Previous post was at 16:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Just for the sake of transparency, are you actually engaging with a discussion here or are you simply feeding approved CCHQ “lines to take” into the thread?

Because I’m increasingly under the impression that I’m just talking to a press release and it’s getting a bit tedious.

The only rational answer is that Old Boy is on a Forum wind-up.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I know you are only repeating the CCHQ party line, but repeating that argument (cake) only makes you look as shallow & callous as they are…

It’s irrelevant whether there was cake - it’s relevant that they repeatedly broke the rules and laws that they repeatedly insisted that everyone should followed, then denied/lied that they had ever done so…

Deliberately avoiding that difficult question - what was the difference between what Boris did and what Kier did? It was essentially the cake wot did it. Somehow, that makes it a party.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Deliberately avoiding that difficult question - what was the difference between what Boris did and what Kier did? It was essentially the cake wot did it. Somehow, that makes it a party.

The difference is that the evidence the Police gathered showed that one broke the rules, and the other didn't.

You seem to have difficulty accepting the fact that the Police believe the evidence shows the rules were broken - wonder why?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Just for the sake of transparency, are you actually engaging with a discussion here or are you simply feeding approved CCHQ “lines to take” into the thread?

Because I’m increasingly under the impression that I’m just talking to a press release and it’s getting a bit tedious.

H’mm. Maybe that’s because you are ignoring the elephant in the room.

Cake/beer. His colleagues definitely should have stuck with the beer.

[jonbxx]

I like the line that they didn't know what they were doing was against the rules. Boris Johnson was educated at Eton and Oxford, while Rishi Sunak was educated at Winchester, Oxford and Stanford. If they didn't understand the rules in place at the time, what hope did people who went to their local comprehensive and left at 16?

At the very least, you would think shrewd political operators would never put themselves in a position where there was even the possibility of looking like you did something wrong, even if it is within the rules