ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
And the other secret cause of "you get more conservative as you age": wealth corresponds with conservatism, and even in systems with universal health care, if you're wealthy you tend to live longer, so poor people literally die faster.
What would interest me about this data is how they've gone about categorising the surveyed voters into the classes, as described. What makes someone working class as opposed to middle class in this case?
The paper categorizes it as such:
This report uses the conventional definitions of social class, derived from the occupation of the head of each household: A (professional), B (managerial), C1 (other non-manual), C2 (skilled manual), D (semi-skilled manual) and E (unskilled). There is a case for designing a different class scheme but this would make historic comparisons difficult, so we must use the data we have.
Working Class - C2DE
Middle Class - ABC1
Things are fundamentally different today than they were 40 years ago... But lets just ignore that because otherwise we might have to think about things a bit harder.
There isn’t a survey company out there who doesn’t think the class definitions very much need to be reworked. But like the quote says, if you want to make any kind of sensible comparison with prior data, you kind of have to use them.
As soon as you make new definitions, the old data doesn’t work any more, because you don’t know where the respondents in the past would fit into the new system.
(I’m not saying they shouldn’t improve the definitions, but I can totally see why, when you want to track a 50-year trend, you’d use the same standards)
What would interest me about this data is how they've gone about categorising the surveyed voters into the classes, as described. What makes someone working class as opposed to middle class in this case?
The paper categorizes it as such:
This report uses the conventional definitions of social class, derived from the occupation of the head of each household: A (professional), B (managerial), C1 (other non-manual), C2 (skilled manual), D (semi-skilled manual) and E (unskilled). There is a case for designing a different class scheme but this would make historic comparisons difficult, so we must use the data we have.
Working Class - C2DE
Middle Class - ABC1
Things are fundamentally different today than they were 40 years ago... But lets just ignore that because otherwise we might have to think about things a bit harder.
No, not at all. It doesn't make things "a bit harder", it basically makes comparisons extremely difficult and much more error prone because you are now measuring different things. Any analysis would have to try and kludge something together from existing historical data to make it match your modern definition.
shryke on
+2
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
And the other secret cause of "you get more conservative as you age": wealth corresponds with conservatism, and even in systems with universal health care, if you're wealthy you tend to live longer, so poor people literally die faster.
One caution though, the age gap here isn't "you get more conservative as you age" it's "you stop voting Labour as you age".
It may be ideological, it may not, and is probably a load of factors.
What would interest me about this data is how they've gone about categorising the surveyed voters into the classes, as described. What makes someone working class as opposed to middle class in this case?
The paper categorizes it as such:
This report uses the conventional definitions of social class, derived from the occupation of the head of each household: A (professional), B (managerial), C1 (other non-manual), C2 (skilled manual), D (semi-skilled manual) and E (unskilled). There is a case for designing a different class scheme but this would make historic comparisons difficult, so we must use the data we have.
Working Class - C2DE
Middle Class - ABC1
Things are fundamentally different today than they were 40 years ago... But lets just ignore that because otherwise we might have to think about things a bit harder.
No, not at all. It doesn't make things "a bit harder", it basically makes comparisons extremely difficult and much more error prone because you are now measuring different things. Any analysis would have to try and kludge something together from existing historical data to make it match your modern definition.
Yeah, it's almost like trying to do a like for like comparison between two very different scenarios is a bad idea.
I'll restate what I said earlier, that if labour wants to endlessly pretend the last 30 years haven't happened, they're welcome to, but they will never win again.
What would interest me about this data is how they've gone about categorising the surveyed voters into the classes, as described. What makes someone working class as opposed to middle class in this case?
The paper categorizes it as such:
This report uses the conventional definitions of social class, derived from the occupation of the head of each household: A (professional), B (managerial), C1 (other non-manual), C2 (skilled manual), D (semi-skilled manual) and E (unskilled). There is a case for designing a different class scheme but this would make historic comparisons difficult, so we must use the data we have.
Working Class - C2DE
Middle Class - ABC1
Things are fundamentally different today than they were 40 years ago... But lets just ignore that because otherwise we might have to think about things a bit harder.
No, not at all. It doesn't make things "a bit harder", it basically makes comparisons extremely difficult and much more error prone because you are now measuring different things. Any analysis would have to try and kludge something together from existing historical data to make it match your modern definition.
In terms of carrying out surveys, it is only really a bit more difficult
Conventionally, the approach to dealing with this is gathering enough data on any given sample that you can classify it according to both the old and the new scheme, that way you can do two different breakdowns for the same data
The difficulty arises when you don't have enough data points according to one of the classification schemes to achieve proper post weighting significance thresholds
But that in and of itself already tells you that there are features in the data that your old scheme wasn't sensitive to
I think I probably personally receive less value in public service than I pay in tax, but as someone earning above the average wage and not currently suffering a health crisis I also think that’s a good thing and the entire damn point of income based tax.
I think I probably personally receive less value in public service than I pay in tax, but as someone earning above the average wage and not currently suffering a health crisis I also think that’s a good thing and the entire damn point of income based tax.
The richer you are the more you get in return.
The taxes pay for the workers who work in your factories and stores, and the consumers who buy your products in your supermarket.
And even below that level of wealth, it pays for the society that allows your middle class life to exist.
Yes I am well aware. But you know the respondents to that survey weren’t defining ‘value’ any wider than their own immediate bank account with no appreciation of the knock on effects to wider society.
Yes I am well aware. But you know the respondents to that survey weren’t defining ‘value’ any wider than their own immediate bank account with no appreciation of the knock on effects to wider society.
I know you know.
I still think it's helpful to harp on all the good stuff everyone gets from taxes at every opportunity to (try to) counter the false narrative that it's taken from us normal good people and given to "them".
Sic transit gloria mundi.
+4
Options
jaziekBad at everythingAnd mad about it.Registered Userregular
Well... Ideally yes,
But then you look at how openly corrupt the Tories are and who can really blame someone for having the opinion that their taxes are just being given to the rich.
My prediction is that the government will "save" Christmas then bring in some restrictions in the new year.
Ireland has already introduced some restrictions and that was before Omicron was a thing....
Considering their repeated demonstrations of not being able to learn from their mistakes, and considering that's what happened last time, I think that's a reasonable expectation.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein (allegedly)
They'll list all the measures we could/should be taking (working from home, social distancing, wearing a goddamn mask when you're standing way too close to me in a queue and fucking coughing), then say that they won't be requiring any of those because they trust that people can be responsible and be as safe as they feel they should.
If nothing else, this is at least broadening most peoples knowledge of greek letters.
Apparently new Covid regulations are being introduced today. The government's uncharacteristic responsiveness this week is actually making me a little bit concerned about just what the data for Omicron must look like.
+6
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Optimistically, if everyone's stopped listening to Boris, maybe people are just doing their fucking jobs rather than dithering about in hopes of something good happening they can glom onto.
0
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
edited November 2021
From an e-mail by The Good Law Project:
It’s not much fun being a Conservative backbench MP at the moment. No 10 is reportedly threatening them with the withdrawal of funding for their constituencies if they don’t toe the party line in Commons votes.
No 10 reportedly made these threats to force MPs to spare Tory MP Owen Paterson from suspension, after he broke parliamentary rules by lobbying for a private firm that paid him £100,000 a year. One backbencher said MPs were told “they would lose funding for their constituency” if they failed to vote with the Prime Minister.
Not only does this undermine Parliament and weaken MPs’ independence, if the allegations are true, this is in the realms of criminal offence.
Threatening to cut off funding for local communities to save the skin of a disgraced MP also reveals the truth behind what the Government likes to style as ‘levelling up’.
Good Law Project has sent a pre-action protocol letter to Michael Gove inviting him to deny, if he can, that the alleged conduct happened, to turn over any documents evidencing it - and to stop the threats. If you’re able to, you can make a donation to fund the legal challenge here:
The reports suggest a very serious misuse of public money, in the realms of criminal conduct, by or for the Prime Minister. We will not stand by and watch.
It’s not much fun being a Conservative backbench MP at the moment. No 10 is reportedly threatening them with the withdrawal of funding for their constituencies if they don’t toe the party line in Commons votes.
No 10 reportedly made these threats to force MPs to spare Tory MP Owen Paterson from suspension, after he broke parliamentary rules by lobbying for a private firm that paid him £100,000 a year. One backbencher said MPs were told “they would lose funding for their constituency” if they failed to vote with the Prime Minister.
Not only does this undermine Parliament and weaken MPs’ independence, if the allegations are true, this is in the realms of criminal offence.
Threatening to cut off funding for local communities to save the skin of a disgraced MP also reveals the truth behind what the Government likes to style as ‘levelling up’.
Good Law Project has sent a pre-action protocol letter to Michael Gove inviting him to deny, if he can, that the alleged conduct happened, to turn over any documents evidencing it - and to stop the threats. If you’re able to, you can make a donation to fund the legal challenge here:
The reports suggest a very serious misuse of public money, in the realms of criminal conduct, by or for the Prime Minister. We will not stand by and watch.
Thank you,
Jo Maugham
If concrete evidence of this happening were produced it would have to be damaging to the Tories. Who wants to hear the party they voted for is punishing their local services for their MP representing them?
+2
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
I'm going to throw a saucepan at the next politician, journalist, or "commentator" who uses the term "woke"
I'd just ask them to define "woke" on camera then sit back and see how they get out of that one while staying fashionable.
"woke" is anyone critical of Boris, of course
How very "woke" of you.
I'm going to always pronounce "woke" with finger-quotes from now on.
Even if someone asks me what time I "woke" up this morning.
klemming on
Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
+1
Options
CaptainBeyondI've been out walkingRegistered Userregular
I think I first encountered 'woke' on Tumblr like 8-10 years ago. Tumblr is a smoking crater now, so I assume society will follow suit in a decade or so.
0
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
Waste of time. Tories will vote against and Labour will abstain, a largely hostile press will ignore it.
Comments section on there is a cluster as well. A solid 60% saying "you don't speak for me" and most of the rest saying "where is my independence referendum?". It is darkly amusing to see Tories whinging about an electoral system that gives majority power with a minority of the vote though.
Waste of time. Tories will vote against and Labour will abstain, a largely hostile press will ignore it.
Comments section on there is a cluster as well. A solid 60% saying "you don't speak for me" and most of the rest saying "where is my independence referendum?". It is darkly amusing to see Tories whinging about an electoral system that gives majority power with a minority of the vote though.
Waste of time. Tories will vote against and Labour will abstain, a largely hostile press will ignore it.
Comments section on there is a cluster as well. A solid 60% saying "you don't speak for me" and most of the rest saying "where is my independence referendum?". It is darkly amusing to see Tories whinging about an electoral system that gives majority power with a minority of the vote though.
Yeah I'm not sure I understand where they're going with this
I think it might be just to give the SNP a stick with which to beat Tory MPs that criticise Johnson given all the grumbling about letters to the 1922 (in that they had their opportunity to do something about it, so now they're complicit), just in the interests of sowing a bit of chaos and ramping up the pressure
I guess it's worth noting Sturgeon has announced in her conference speech they're looking to move forward with referendum motions in 2023. So we'll either see the Tories pre-emptively attempt something clever to head it off ooooooooorrrrrrrrr wait until the last moment and mount some cack handed challenge in court. Guess which one I'm betting on?
The Tories don't actually have to do anything, though, do they? The SNP Scottish government sets one up, it needs the assent of Westminster to be legally binding, which won't be forthcoming, so they can hold one if they like but it has no power. At that point unionist voters will simply not turn up and claim the referendum has no validity.
To be fair, the stance on a second referendum hasn't changed since the manifesto
There is a really fractious interview with Laura Kuenssberg that the BBC put online in full (in the Podlitical podcast feed) that is basically just LK spending twenty minutes trying to get sturgeon to agree that she's changed her mind
Also going along with this weird spin that is coming out at the moment where the opposition parties keep saying it's time for her to go despite her having won an election mere months ago
Posts
There isn’t a survey company out there who doesn’t think the class definitions very much need to be reworked. But like the quote says, if you want to make any kind of sensible comparison with prior data, you kind of have to use them.
As soon as you make new definitions, the old data doesn’t work any more, because you don’t know where the respondents in the past would fit into the new system.
(I’m not saying they shouldn’t improve the definitions, but I can totally see why, when you want to track a 50-year trend, you’d use the same standards)
No, not at all. It doesn't make things "a bit harder", it basically makes comparisons extremely difficult and much more error prone because you are now measuring different things. Any analysis would have to try and kludge something together from existing historical data to make it match your modern definition.
One caution though, the age gap here isn't "you get more conservative as you age" it's "you stop voting Labour as you age".
It may be ideological, it may not, and is probably a load of factors.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Yeah, it's almost like trying to do a like for like comparison between two very different scenarios is a bad idea.
I'll restate what I said earlier, that if labour wants to endlessly pretend the last 30 years haven't happened, they're welcome to, but they will never win again.
In terms of carrying out surveys, it is only really a bit more difficult
Conventionally, the approach to dealing with this is gathering enough data on any given sample that you can classify it according to both the old and the new scheme, that way you can do two different breakdowns for the same data
The difficulty arises when you don't have enough data points according to one of the classification schemes to achieve proper post weighting significance thresholds
But that in and of itself already tells you that there are features in the data that your old scheme wasn't sensitive to
The richer you are the more you get in return.
The taxes pay for the workers who work in your factories and stores, and the consumers who buy your products in your supermarket.
And even below that level of wealth, it pays for the society that allows your middle class life to exist.
I know you know.
I still think it's helpful to harp on all the good stuff everyone gets from taxes at every opportunity to (try to) counter the false narrative that it's taken from us normal good people and given to "them".
But then you look at how openly corrupt the Tories are and who can really blame someone for having the opinion that their taxes are just being given to the rich.
this_is_fine.jpg
Steam | XBL
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
How long until the WFH order comes through?
I mean, I've still not been back in and given tfl prices....I'd be happy to stay in my kitchen.
But still... mandatory wfh when?
Hahaha, that's a good one.
Steam | XBL
Ireland has already introduced some restrictions and that was before Omicron was a thing....
Considering their repeated demonstrations of not being able to learn from their mistakes, and considering that's what happened last time, I think that's a reasonable expectation.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein (allegedly)
Steam | XBL
If nothing else, this is at least broadening most peoples knowledge of greek letters.
If concrete evidence of this happening were produced it would have to be damaging to the Tories. Who wants to hear the party they voted for is punishing their local services for their MP representing them?
I'd just ask them to define "woke" on camera then sit back and see how they get out of that one while staying fashionable.
"woke" is anyone critical of Boris, of course
How very "woke" of you.
I'm going to always pronounce "woke" with finger-quotes from now on.
Even if someone asks me what time I "woke" up this morning.
Waste of time. Tories will vote against and Labour will abstain, a largely hostile press will ignore it.
Comments section on there is a cluster as well. A solid 60% saying "you don't speak for me" and most of the rest saying "where is my independence referendum?". It is darkly amusing to see Tories whinging about an electoral system that gives majority power with a minority of the vote though.
Self-awareness has never been their strong point.
Steam | XBL
Yeah I'm not sure I understand where they're going with this
I think it might be just to give the SNP a stick with which to beat Tory MPs that criticise Johnson given all the grumbling about letters to the 1922 (in that they had their opportunity to do something about it, so now they're complicit), just in the interests of sowing a bit of chaos and ramping up the pressure
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
There is a really fractious interview with Laura Kuenssberg that the BBC put online in full (in the Podlitical podcast feed) that is basically just LK spending twenty minutes trying to get sturgeon to agree that she's changed her mind
Also going along with this weird spin that is coming out at the moment where the opposition parties keep saying it's time for her to go despite her having won an election mere months ago