Tony Blair to give all profits to British Legion

[llcoolphil]

About right...

[llcoolphil]

The point I am really making is you can't claim x millions gave a shit when you have no way of measuring it...

[oafc0000]

But you are equally claiming that x millions didnt give a shit with no way of measuring it

[llcoolphil]

Look at the evidence supporting my side... Tony Blair got re-elected for a start...

[oafc0000]

And that is evidence how?

[llcoolphil]

Well its a dam sight more than your finger in the air and fantasies

[oafc0000]

How is it evidence and what is it evidence of?

[llcoolphil]

oh shut up... Your boring me now

[markeee]

Yet soldiers aren't machines. They have their own opinions, however little they chose to make them public. They all say the right things which is fair enough

[eFestivals]

The only people you can measure...

so the 60%+ of people against the war as measured in opinion polls at the time weren't having their opinions 'measured'?

[eFestivals]

Look at the evidence supporting my side... Tony Blair got re-elected for a start...

Yep. Because too many of the electorate are as stupid as you.

That's the only valid evidence from his re-election.

[oafc0000]

Yep. Because too many of the electorate are as stupid as you.

That's the only valid evidence from his re-election.

[oafc0000]

so the 60%+ of people against the war as measured in opinion polls at the time weren't having their opinions 'measured'?

Edited August 18, 2010 by oafc0000

[eFestivals]

Link ?

I remember the vast majority supporting action in opinion polls pre invasion... With that then changing post invasion....

Why do you need a link when you say you have memory of it?

As for the change within those polls post-invasion, it's very easily explained - and in fact was done in comments from the people polled alongside those poll results. Many people (rather stupidly, IMO) believe that to be against a war when it is actually happening and people from your country's military are dying in that conflict is unpatriotic, and the only thing that is right to do is to support those military forces.

It is best summarised by the familiar expression "My country, right or wrong".

It doesn't take a genius to realise that the change in those poll results pre and post invasion simply comes down to that (rather simple-minded) idea.

edit: I've now realised that oaf has things totally arse about face, and my reply was written on the mis-apprehension that he'd got something right for once.

Edited August 18, 2010 by eFestivals

[llcoolphil]

I remember the vast majority supporting action in opinion polls pre invasion... With that then changing post invasion....

[sifi]

Here you go Oaf.

The first link returned suggests that around 50% of the population were against the war at one point - and that 85% of the population would not support action unless there was a UN resolution.

I fully expect you to now tell me that polls of such nature are misleading, because it doesn't support your argument. I actually have some sympathy for arguments against polls - not because of any issue with the quantative measuring - 1,000 people is enough people for a decent sample to show any underlying trends - but because of sometimes the way things are questioned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo

Forty seven seconds in. Utter genius.

Edited August 18, 2010 by sifimaster

[Cardboard Box City]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo

Forty seven seconds in. Utter genius.

[sifi]

The best thing about Yes, Minister is that its still relevant now. I've probably only seen a third of them but the ones I've seen are excellent.

[oafc0000]

Here you go Oaf.

The first link returned suggests that around 50% of the population were against the war at one point - and that 85% of the population would not support action unless there was a UN resolution.

I fully expect you to now tell me that polls of such nature are misleading, because it doesn't support your argument. I actually have some sympathy for arguments against polls - not because of any issue with the quantative measuring - 1,000 people is enough people for a decent sample to show any underlying trends - but because of sometimes the way things are questioned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo

Forty seven seconds in. Utter genius.

[Uncle Liam]

How do you think other polls read ? So you get the ICM phoning 1000 people randomly and thats it ? Other papers ran other polls and they came back with strong suport...

Edited August 18, 2010 by Uncle Liam

[llcoolphil]

Evidently, Oaf knows PRECISELY NOTHING AT ALL about how polling is carried out.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

oaf - proper official opinion polls are rigoursly checked to make sure the question isn't loaded. For instance...

"do you believe it is right to jail someone who carries a knife and could cause harm" is loaded

"what should the punishment be for someone carrying a knife" is not loaded (I hope)

Newspapers tend to use loaded questions. They are not legitimate sources therefore.

ETA - Therefore, a loaded questions pushes the wanted outcome onto the person being interviewed, it 9 times out of ten will get them to agree.

Edited August 18, 2010 by TheJobbyJabber

[The Nal]

ETA - Therefore, a loaded questions pushes the wanted outcome onto the person being interviewed, it 9 times out of ten will get them to agree.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.

[The Nal]

Some people know what is being meant but still want to act the smart arse anyway.