What no jeremy cobyn thread?

[Jim_Tod]

she was a deterrent and I didn't need to unleash her

You're making the analogy that someone won't break into your house in case your dog attacks them- it's enough to have it on display as a deterrent. However in the case of nuclear weapons we've agreed that only someone insane would release them as they represent overkill and massive deaths to innocents. That basically means it is no deterrent as with the checks in the system it needs a whole list of nutters prepared to kill the innocent to release the weapons. Once you see that requirement in place then you can't reasonably consider it as a deterrent- a deterrent would have a reasonable chance of being used. Is the UK a terrorist target? Yes! Will nuclear weapon availability change that? NO!

With regard to giving them up unilaterally, I don't see Denmark or Sweden being attacked on a regular basis because they don't have nuclear weapons available to them- this was the same in the middle of the cold war- so what makes it worth spending all that money to rent from America the nuclear toys for the cupboard that no one will ever bring out to play. Even spending some of the money on increasing the resources available and expanding our armed forces would generate more employment and upskill society.

 

[StewartR]

Come on then explain how a sample of less than 1800 people is representative of 45 million.

Are you a statistician? I am. The maths behind this is valid, and I could explain it - I've taught it to enough people. But the they had at least some background in maths, and I don't know anything about you. Are you genuinely interested? I'm up for it if you are. Just give me an indication of how far you took maths at school / college and I'll have a go at explaining it for you.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Double post

Plug those numbers into the sample size calculator, and you need 80 samples to get a similar statistical accuracy. One thing you are assuming that is incorrect is that the small population acts like a large population - it doesn't.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Are you a statistician? I am. The maths behind this is valid, and I could explain it - I've taught it to enough people. But the they had at least some background in maths, and I don't know anything about you. Are you genuinely interested? I'm up for it if you are. Just give me an indication of how far you took maths at school / college and I'll have a go at explaining it for you.

The analogy that most clearly demonstrates sampling that I have heard is the comparison with large saucepan of soup. heres a version of that analogy:-

Let’s say you have one gallon of soup in the pot, and you want to sample it for taste, temperature and ingredients. Intuitively, you’d give the pot a good stir to ensure it’s all mixed together, and take a tablespoon as a sample. Based on that ‘representative sample’ , you’re can decide whether to declare your soup ready for consumption or not. One tablespoon constitutes your ‘representative sample’ and based on the results, further testing is determined to be necessary or unnecessary.

Now suppose you’re making 50 gallons of soup in an extremely huge pot. That’s 50 times more soup than in the previous example. Ready to take the sample? Do you think the sample also needs to be 50 times bigger? After giving the huge pot a stir to make sure it’s all mixed together, what would you grab to take the sample? A tablespoon, a ¼ cup measure, or perhaps a gallon jug? Intuition would tell you that maybe you’d better drink a gallon of soup to be sure it’s ready, since 50 gallons is a big pot of soup. But, this isn’t the case, Just a big tablespoon will do. Sure, for 50 gallons you may use a couple of tablespoons full, but you certainly don’t need a full gallon. The most important detail is that the sample is completely random….like making sure the soup is all stirred up.

Link
http://blog.hcdigital.com/2014/05/02/why-wont-the-sample-sizing-debate-ever-stop/

 

[nilagin]

I think you should be looking at the tone of your own posts before complaining about others.

I do, you clearly inferred that the figures from the DPW were wrong and the real amount of benefit fraud was much higher

I believe that question has been answered in post 614, I'll quote it here for you just in case you missed it

There is no tone that I'm aware of apart from Phil's pathetic attempts to rattle my cage.
I still have no recollection of the DWP post but do you really think they are aware of all the fraudulent claims they receive let alone people assisting in the fraudulent claims. In 2014/15, £1.1BN of £3.2BN overpayments was attributed to fraud, yet they continue to find more claimants, not necessarily people who have just started but have been at it for years. The fact it is an estimate means the real number could go either way.
I did miss that link and it doesn't make sense, why doesn't it change anything if the population size is above the number it suggests.

 

[rjbell]

Germany is not a socialist country. Look at Sweden, Finland for better examples.

P.S. I wouldn't compare Berlin with London. Berlin may be a capital but it is hardly a desirable place to live in the concrete towers. Bristol vs. Frankfurt or similar may be a more direct comparison.

Well that is exactly my point ive been trying to make this whole thread. The majority of corbyns policies are not far left and are already implemented in Germany, who are not ever described as socialist. His favourite sentence is " like the German model".

As for comparisons the top camarison is for the UK and Germany as a whole.

 

[Cobra]

Is the UK a terrorist target? Yes! Will nuclear weapon availability change that? NO!

Of course it won't we agree that boots on the ground is the solution to this I assume from your other post?
But I thought the Nukes were part of the bigger picture ( I hate that expression BTW) in this discussion.

I don't see Denmark or Sweden being attacked on a regular basis because they don't have nuclear weapons available to them

Or several other countries for that matter. Because the world is supposedly civilised .
And anyone deciding to start by attacking these countries would soon find the rest of the free thinking world retaliating.

How does the saying go? speak softly but carry a big stick.

 

[nilagin]

It

Are you a statistician? I am. The maths behind this is valid, and I could explain it - I've taught it to enough people. But the they had at least some background in maths, and I don't know anything about you. Are you genuinely interested? I'm up for it if you are. Just give me an indication of how far you took maths at school / college and I'll have a go at explaining it for you.

It's 36yrs ago since I was at school and did statistics at O level, but I'm truly intrigued to know how 60% of 1736 people who bothered to answer a poll is representative of the majority of the British public wanting something as YOUGOV claim. In my opinion and from what I remember of statistics it is only a hypothetical outcome and due to the small sample size in comparison to the whole it is a poor representation, especially if you consider the example I gave in a subsequent post regarding takers for weekend overtime .

 

[Jim_Tod]

speak softly but carry a big stick.

But a big stick that they might believe you would actually use- otherwise it's just a burden carrying it about

 

[rjbell]

All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?

The labour movement deserves our thanks for its achievements in the early 20th century. However, that is completely irrelevant when it comes to facing the challenges of the 21st century. We should not justify supporting the labour movement on the basis of its past achievements, any more than we should aspire to be ruled by the Romans again.

I think the challenges are still there.

 

[Cobra]

But a big stick that they might believe you would actually use

And back to square one, its a deterrent,
As to whether you actuality use it or not is another matter.
I heard a great expression the other day, a hand gun is like a condom,
you may never need them, but if you aren't carry either, and you need it, you are going to be greatly inconvenienced

 

[Gremlin]

And back to square one, its a deterrent,
As to whether you actuality use it or not is another matter.

Don't know it it still applies but I was once told that with the satellite surveilance in place, the necessary powers would know if a missile was
fired and could take steps to intercept very fast.
I'd hazard a guess that those that need to do know where these things are housed and keep a close watch

 

[ghoti]

We certainly need our nukes but the problem is it is more like a grizzly bear rather than your dog. Keeping one is certainly not cheap for a relatively small country. A Bear is easier to manage for big lads like Putin. I still don't feel like we should give it up but perhaps we should consider a common EU deterrent?

If Corbyn gets his way we will become like Sweden or Denmark - even more irrelevant in the international community with bloody high taxes and heavy handed anti car and anti ownership policies. I say no to all of that.

And, by and large, extremely happy populations and stable societies.
I'm more than happy to pay more tax for fantastic public services and social security.

I actually really like the idea of a citizens income, like the system they are trialling in Denmark. Welfare is abolished and, instead, every citizen gets a basic income of €15,000 per annum from the state. In theory this brings people out of destitution and precarity, increases economic activity and creates a situation where work - any work - will always increase your income.

 

[Kaolin]

We certainly need our nukes but the problem is it is more like a grizzly bear rather than your dog. Keeping one is certainly not cheap for a relatively small country. A Bear is easier to manage for big lads like Putin. I still don't feel like we should give it up but perhaps we should consider a common EU deterrent?

If Corbyn gets his way we will become like Sweden or Denmark - even more irrelevant in the international community with bloody high taxes and heavy handed anti car and anti ownership policies. I say no to all of that.

Like Sweden, what some of the best education and health services in the world and a generally high quality of living - where do I sign...

 

[StewartR]

I think the challenges are still there.

But we've already got the aqueduct, and the roads, and the sanitation, and the public baths, and all that stuff.

Yes of course there are still challenges to our society. But our society isn't the same as it was 100 years ago, and the challenges aren't the same.

I'm just pointing out that, if you want to argue that a particular person or organisation or institution gas the answers, whether or not they had answers 100 years ago isn't terribly relevant.

 

[Jim_Tod]

As to whether you actuality use it or not is another matter.

It isn't another matter- a deterrent is one where your opponent seriously believes it may be used to sanction them. If no one thinks the nuclear toy will come out the cupboard it isn't a deterrent

 

[nilagin]

I actually really like the idea of a citizens income, like the system they are trialling in Denmark. Welfare is abolished and, instead, every citizen gets a basic income of €15,000 per annum from the state. In theory this brings people out of destitution and precarity, increases economic activity and creates a situation where work - any work - will always increase your income.

How do they finance that?

 

[ghoti]

How do they finance that?

Errr...tax receipts?

 

[nilagin]

Errr...tax receipts?

What's the point in giving someone 15,000 euro if you are just taking it back again? Surely it would just be better to give it to those that truly need it rather than everyone.

 

[ghoti]

What's the point in giving someone 15,000 euro if you are just taking it back again? Surely it would just be better to give it to those that truly need it rather than everyone.

You're not "taking it back again" in most cases. You're only taking back a tiny percentage of what is earned over and above the citizens' income. Also, income tax is not the only source of tax in a country. Corporation tax, rates, duty, etc.
A huge chunk comes from the money that currently funds welfare. The system would obviously be much more streamlined and efficient than welfare, because there is next to no admin involved.
It's a great idea. Don't know how it will pan out yet, but the concept is fantastic. Everyone /always/ does better if they earn more from working, yet nobody is left in precarity.

 

[nilagin]

The concept certainly seems good, but it will be interesting to see if it does work.

 

[Phil V]

...
I did miss that link and it doesn't make sense, why doesn't it change anything if the population size is above the number it suggests.

See the tablespoon of soup analogy (except they use intelligent sampling instead of a good stir).

You just have to know enough about your sample, a random sample without any other data wouldn't be 'representative', but enough people, with enough data about them, and you can extrapolate an awful lot of very accurate information. It's all there on their website and easier to digest from Wikipedia.

But on Wiki it gives you some real world numbers to show their accuracy rate at elections (generally close to 1%) which is better than most polling companies.

One if my favourite jokes (I may have shared before)

There are 2 kinds of people in the world; those who can extrapolate information from incomplete data and...

 

[StewartR]

It wouldn't cost anything to take the railways back into public ownership

The contracts are temporary and come to an end - when they do, we could choose not to re tender them.

I think you may not have thought this through fully, Phil, and I suspect Jeremy Corbyn may not have either.

The awkward issue is that there are numerous franchise contracts and they don't all end simultaneously. So once one has ended and the government has announced its policy of not re-tendering, what incentivises the companies running all the other franchises - for potentially a further 20 years or so, in some cases - to do a decent job?

 

[Phil V]

All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?

The labour movement deserves our thanks for its achievements in the early 20th century. However, that is completely irrelevant when it comes to facing the challenges of the 21st century. We should not justify supporting the labour movement on the basis of its past achievements, any more than we should aspire to be ruled by the Romans again.

You're absolutely right, I was responding to comments about 'back to the 70's politics', which is actually irrelevant.

As above, there are many countries using modern left wing ideas and making a good job of it, there are many leading economists who think there's something to be said for an anti austerity agenda, 'left wing doesn't just mean 3 day week', is the point I was making.

 

[boyfalldown]

The awkward issue is that there are numerous franchise contracts and they don't all end simultaneously. So once one has ended and the government has announced its policy of not re-tendering, what incentivises the companies running all the other franchises - for potentially a further 20 years or so, in some cases - to do a decent job?

Presumably they hold the franchise now to make money and wish to continue to do so till any end of contract. I guess the better job they do the more they make?

 

[StewartR]

PS Interesting trivia fact: I am responsible for the privatisation of the railways in the mid 1990s. Not solely responsible, of course. But responsible in the sense that it wouldn't have happened if I hadn't done what I did. Happy to share the story if you're interested or if you just want someone to blame.

 

[Phil V]

I think you may not have thought this through fully, Phil, and I suspect Jeremy Corbyn may not have either.

The awkward issue is that there are numerous franchise contracts and they don't all end simultaneously. So once one has ended and the government has announced its policy of not re-tendering, what incentivises the companies running all the other franchises - for potentially a further 20 years or so, in some cases - to do a decent job?

What's incentivising them now? They're certainly not doing the best they could. They appear to be abusing their position to milk the public purse to give to their shareholders.

 

[StewartR]

What's incentivising them now? They're certainly not doing the best they could. They appear to be abusing their position to milk the public purse to give to their shareholders.

The big incentive is to be allowed to bid for the next round of franchises, so they can continue to milk the public purse. In order to stay in the game, they have to deliver a half decent service. Not as good as they could, of course, because any improvements they could think up have far more value when they're packaged as part of the bid for the next franchise. But it has to look like they're trying. Take away the potential to earn more massive profits in the future, and their logical response is to run the service down to the absolute minimum.

 

[nilagin]

See the tablespoon of soup analogy (except they use intelligent sampling instead of a good stir).

You just have to know enough about your sample, a random sample without any other data wouldn't be 'representative', but enough people, with enough data about them, and you can extrapolate an awful lot of very accurate information. It's all there on their website and easier to digest from Wikipedia.

But how many of the approximate 45million voters in the UK are aware of YOUGOV polls, not many, if all they can get is less than 1800 people to answer the poll. How many of those who answer it, bother to give truthful answers or just tick any old box to get through the poll and increase their points tally to get their £50 or enter a monthly draw? Fact is the take up for the pole is still totally random, regardless of what data they collect and still can't truly represent the whole of the UK, bit the latter is exactly what YOUGOV claims.

 

[nilagin]

I think you may not have thought this through fully, Phil, and I suspect Jeremy Corbyn may not have either.

The awkward issue is that there are numerous franchise contracts and they don't all end simultaneously. So once one has ended and the government has announced its policy of not re-tendering, what incentivises the companies running all the other franchises - for potentially a further 20 years or so, in some cases - to do a decent job?

Also surely the government will need a float to pay initial running costs and wages once they have taken back control.

 

[StewartR]

But how many of the approximate 45million voters in the UK are aware of YOUGOV polls, not many, if all they can get is less than 1800 people to answer the poll. How many of those who answer it, bother to give truthful answers or just tick any old box to get through the poll and increase their points tally to get their £50 or enter a monthly draw? Fact is the take up for the pole is still totally random, regardless of what data they collect and still can't truly represent the whole of the UK, bit the latter is exactly what YOUGOV claims.

Seriously, stop digging. You don't know anything about the subject and you're just making yourself look foolish.

FYI there are techniques to cope with people lying. For example, if you're interested in getting data about how many people have had sexual relations with farm animals, you can do it if you ask the questions carefully, even if nobody would ever admit it to you.

 

[nilagin]

Seriously, stop digging. You don't know anything about the subject and you're just making yourself look foolish.

FYI there are techniques to cope with people lying. For example, if you're interested in getting data about how many people have had sexual relations with farm animals, you can do it if you ask the questions carefully, even if nobody would ever admit it to you.

I'm still waiting for the explanation you promised, everything I have said is based on logic.
As for the last, I know of at least one person guilty of such an act, he tried to deny it but as he was caught in the act it wasn't only the horse that got screwed.

 

[StewartR]

I'm still waiting for the explanation you promised

Give me some time. It's not a 5-minute job to write something like this.

everything I have said is based on logic.

But faulty logic. That's the problem.

Look, I don't have an axe to grind here. Sampling theory is degree level maths. You're wrong, simple as that, but explains why you're wrong in terms that you'll be able to follow isn't straightforward.

 

[StewartR]

Also surely the government will need a float to pay initial running costs and wages once they have taken back control.

Not really. They'd get it automatically from the ticket receipts. One very convenient aspect of the railway's finances is that an awful lot of customers pay an awful lot of money up front for their season tickets. The cash flow is quite healthy.

 

[Phil V]

But how many of the approximate 45million voters in the UK are aware of YOUGOV polls, not many, if all they can get is less than 1800 people to answer the poll. How many of those who answer it, bother to give truthful answers or just tick any old box to get through the poll and increase their points tally to get their £50 or enter a monthly draw? Fact is the take up for the pole is still totally random, regardless of what data they collect and still can't truly represent the whole of the UK, bit the latter is exactly what YOUGOV claims.

It's poll, and they don't attempt to poll 45 million, they don't need to. But we've explained this to you.

Have you read any of the links we've posted or gone to the pages suggested?

Why would they exist if they couldn't do their job well? Your opinion of them and their methods is hilarious. Yougov claim to know because... they are experts, and they have a proven track record of predicting results.

Back to the soup, if you're only tasting a spoonful from the top, how do you know that the next spoonful will be the same, and the next? Only an idiot would guess that the last spoonful of a bowl of tomato soup would taste of beef broth. But what you're suggesting is that if the first spoonful tastes like tomato, the second could be carrot and coriander, the 3rd could be pea and ham, etc etc.

It's not rocket science, it's statistics, I never did it for O level, but I think I have a grasp.

 

[jakeblu]

I think you may not have thought this through fully, Phil, and I suspect Jeremy Corbyn may not have either.

The awkward issue is that there are numerous franchise contracts and they don't all end simultaneously. So once one has ended and the government has announced its policy of not re-tendering, what incentivises the companies running all the other franchises - for potentially a further 20 years or so, in some cases - to do a decent job?

Perhaps we could cut their subsidies if they fail to achieve acceptable standards, and if all else fails and they are not fulfilling contractual obligations then maybe their franchise could be withdrawn without compensation?

 

[StewartR]

Perhaps we could cut their subsidies if they fail to achieve acceptable standards....

You mean, unilaterally change the contract? Good luck with that.

... and if all else fails and they are not fulfilling contractual obligations then maybe their franchise could be withdrawn without compensation?

It probably could in theory. But the contracts will have all sorts of mechanisms for managing poor performance, and termination will be the very last resort.

Have you ever tried to dismiss an employee for poor performance? I have. It's virtually impossible. You put them on a performance management plan, their performance improves by the tiniest amount necessary to meet the specific measures which are being targeted, and then you're back to square one. Trying to terminate a franchise contract would be like that, with the added complication that the franchise operator will have far better negotiators and lawyers at its disposal than the government will.

 

[jakeblu]

@StewartR Seems me and Dave are on the same wavelength

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Cobyn is already showing his true colours and done his first u-turn. He initially said half of the shadow cabinet would be woman in senior positions but has appointed all his mates instead. When challenged by journalists he just walked off in silence refusing to answer the question and complaining to flunkies "these people are bothering me"'

 

[StewartR]

@StewartR Seems me and Dave are on the same wavelength

That's interesting. Doesn't mean it's achievable though.

That piece you linked to was effectively a commuter-friendly soundbite in the run-up to the election. Say something that *sounds* good today, forget about it tomorrow.

The specific context there was the news that the 0729 from Brighton to London has been late every single day last year. Cameron said "if the operators continue to fail they should be at risk of losing their franchise" and in that sense he's right. However "fail" has to be defined by the franchise contract and there are no provisions for cherry picking the performance measures in this way. Of course the contract could be changed to incorporate more specific performance measures, but not unilaterally, and not without cost, and there are many in the industry who think there is too much micro management already.

A lot of people would agree that the operators *should* be at risk of losing their franchises when a specific train is late every single day, but the reality is that they *aren't* at risk. Maybe Cameron was just expressing his frustration.

Incidentally, did you see how the language was mangled by the newspaper? Cameron actually said that a failing operator "should be at risk" of losing their franchise. But the first paragraph of the story reported him as saying that they "risk losing their franchise" and the headline says they "will lose franchises". Fascinating to see how the sense got totally changed there.