The Post General Election Thread

[urmston]

I'm not going to comment on his wider 'performance'.

In relation to me, he asked a question that was ill-considered. It's no big deal. We all make mistakes.

Yes we do.

What matters is what we do with ourselves when we do.

It's only an internet forum.

Let's just carry on being nice or horrible to each other.

 

[hilts]

Yes we do.

What matters is what we do with ourselves when we do.

It's only an internet forum.

Let's just carry on being nice or horrible to each other.

Fuck off

 

[Damocles]

Seeing as you asked, the personal knowledge I have on this subject would probably considerably surprise you. It is significant and I'm happy to wager that £1,000 that Fetlocks owes me that I speak with sufficient authority on this topic, discernibly and demonstrably beyond the pejorative quotes you've offered. My knowledge is real, meaningful and worthwhile.

I'll provide the proof, face to face, at the last game of the season, at which I'll expect you'll be present.

Are you up for it?

Hahahahaha, no I'm absolutely not.

I prefer that sort of thing like explaining your point and citing your sources than I'll meet you round the back of the bike sheds when it comes to these type of debates.

What are you even thinking here? Extremely beneath you that GDM.

You decided to escalate this debate by questioning the basis for me forming my views. Anyone who has properly arrived at a conclusion (as I have) which is then subject to any such challenge would respond in the way I have.

You asked a question; I responded to it robustly. Rather than being beneath me, it is very typical of me. I never pick a fight unless I'm sure I can win. Choose your battles.

I respect you declining my offer of a bet and I'll leave it there. Whenever we meet up I'll buy you a beer and explain why what you asked was so open to ridicule :-)

Let me say this as clearly as I can:

You have absolutely no ability to determine the accuracy of that figure.

Literally, unless you work for the ONS and are the one guy in charge of the statistical analysis that results in that figure who also has the ability to check data collection practices.

None. Not even a bit.

Your knowledge on this specific figure, unless you happen to be that one guy who I'm almost certain given your past posts that you're not, is imaginary and subjective.

You picked the wrong fight here, I can only imagine that you got a bit drunk and a little over-confident of how your immaculate knowledge of this area somehow gives you the ability to judge the accuracy of figures which they don't. I don't care if you're the Director of the Fraud Squad; unless you actually know how that specific statistic was derived, how the data was collated and know about the reliability or the mistakes made in the weighting systems and the like then your ability to determine accuracy is a figment of your imagination.

And even then there's an argument about it.

And the "meet me irl m8" stuff was sad as fuck which you should hopefully be suitably embarrassed by

 

[Bill]

i want to know what all these cadgers do with their day. i'd be bored shitless. all for the sake of free money.

you dont suppose any of them have jobs and dont let on do you?

 

[The perfect fumble]

You decided to escalate this debate by questioning the basis for me forming my views. Anyone who has properly arrived at a conclusion (as I have) which is then subject to any such challenge would respond in the way I have.

You asked a question; I responded to it robustly. Rather than being beneath me, it is very typical of me. I never pick a fight unless I'm sure I can win. Choose your battles.

I respect you declining my offer of a bet and I'll leave it there. Whenever we meet up I'll buy you a beer and explain why what you asked was so open to ridicule :-)

Damocles is a highly respected mod.

Tonight is not his best night.

Like I said to him, choose your battles.

He's a bit bruised after losing it over the bedroom tax.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Hahahahaha, no I'm absolutely not.

I prefer that sort of thing like explaining your point and citing your sources than I'll meet you round the back of the bike sheds when it comes to these type of debates.

What are you even thinking here? Extremely beneath you that GDM.

You decided to escalate this debate by questioning the basis for me forming my views. Anyone who has properly arrived at a conclusion (as I have) which is then subject to any such challenge would respond in the way I have.

You asked a question; I responded to it robustly. Rather than being beneath me, it is very typical of me. I never pick a fight unless I'm sure I can win. Choose your battles.

I respect you declining my offer of a bet and I'll leave it there. Whenever we meet up I'll buy you a beer and explain why what you asked was so open to ridicule :-)

Let me say this as clearly as I can:

You have absolutely no ability to determine the accuracy of that figure.

Literally, unless you work for the ONS and are the one guy in charge of the statistical analysis that results in that figure who also has the ability to check data collection practices.

None. Not even a bit.

Your knowledge on this specific figure, unless you happen to be that one guy who I'm almost certain given your past posts that you're not, is imaginary and subjective.

You picked the wrong fight here, I can only imagine that you got a bit drunk and a little over-confident of how your immaculate knowledge of this area somehow gives you the ability to judge the accuracy of figures which they don't. I don't care if you're the Director of the Fraud Squad; unless you actually know how that specific statistic was derived, how the data was collated and know about the reliability or the mistakes made in the weighting systems and the like then your ability to determine accuracy is a figment of your imagination.

And even then there's an argument about it.

And the "meet me irl m8" stuff was sad as fuck which you should hopefully be suitably embarrassed by

Not embarrassed at all. I very rarely embarrass. I was prepared to put my money where my mouth was; which you discernibly were not.

It is frankly quite comical for you to suggest that unless I am responsible for collating the data myself that I am not entitled to hold a view on the statistics or comment upon them, however well informed that view is. This is particularly surprising given the firm views you hold on a number of subjects without, presumably, you being in a similar position. Opinion polls leading up to the general election spring to mind.

Fuck me, what sort of country would we live in where people weren't entitled, based on their own experiences, to question government statistics, as I have? Not one you'd be comfortable living in, I'd hazard.

I question the figure, because based on my experience of human nature and my frequent encounters with the system it is a figure which I am simply struggling to accept, not least because all parties involved in its collation have a vested interest in it being as low, not least claimants.

I would suggest that to blindly accept such a figure, without question, as you seem to be doing, is more than a little naive and a greater source for embarrassment than any bet I may have laid.

You questioned my authority to speak on a subject by asking what personal knowledge I had, expecting, no doubt, for me to have none. I have reflected on my experience of this subject and I stand by what I said last night. The figure is wholly wrong.

Furthermore your suggestion that I am not entitled to hold a view and comment on these figures is just as wrong.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I can't put into words the fear I have regarding the Public Service over the next 5 years. This lot were reined in by the Lib Dems but now they have carte blanche.

I work in a company that works along side the International department of BIS (Department of Business Innovation and Skills) and the FCO (Foreign and Commonwealth office). These departments are utterly demoralised and barely function, as any Brit trapped in Nepal will testify.

Yesterday it was announced that Francis Maude was the new Trade Minister, a post made famous by Lord Green.

Lawyer and ex banker

People's heads just dropped at the Maude announcement. No sense of optimism, to start afresh, renew and promote this country abroad, no, the prevailing mood was "we're fucked".

And the man to spear head our industrial renewal at BIS.....

The Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP....

An ex banker.

Because these departments are not high profile, (though they should be) their failing performance goes unnoticed, but every now and then, like the FCO failure in Russia, because we don't have enough Russian speakers, or our failure to get our people out of Libya, or the fact the Yanks, Germans and French got their folks out of Nepal within a few days while we dragged our feet, shows just how shabby and threadbare things have become across so many government departments.

The phrase I keep hearing is that Ministers pull levers in Whitehall only to find that nothing is attached to them any more.

 

[Rascal]

i want to know what all these cadgers do with their day. i'd be bored shitless. all for the sake of free money.

you dont suppose any of them have jobs and dont let on do you?

It isnt free money, you earn it for me :))

All that hard graft for me to just waste it on booze fags and City.

Cheers mate. Its appreciated but could you work harder i need a holiday this year.


BTW on the side im a lion tamer at a local circus. But dont tell anyone ....Shhhh||||

 

[kas_tippler]

I can't grasp the concept of the state paying you for having children, the more you have the more you get paid. Ludicrous

 

[SWP's back]

You decided to escalate this debate by questioning the basis for me forming my views. Anyone who has properly arrived at a conclusion (as I have) which is then subject to any such challenge would respond in the way I have.

You asked a question; I responded to it robustly. Rather than being beneath me, it is very typical of me. I never pick a fight unless I'm sure I can win. Choose your battles.

I respect you declining my offer of a bet and I'll leave it there. Whenever we meet up I'll buy you a beer and explain why what you asked was so open to ridicule :-)

Let me say this as clearly as I can:

You have absolutely no ability to determine the accuracy of that figure.

Literally, unless you work for the ONS and are the one guy in charge of the statistical analysis that results in that figure who also has the ability to check data collection practices.

None. Not even a bit.

Your knowledge on this specific figure, unless you happen to be that one guy who I'm almost certain given your past posts that you're not, is imaginary and subjective.

You picked the wrong fight here, I can only imagine that you got a bit drunk and a little over-confident of how your immaculate knowledge of this area somehow gives you the ability to judge the accuracy of figures which they don't. I don't care if you're the Director of the Fraud Squad; unless you actually know how that specific statistic was derived, how the data was collated and know about the reliability or the mistakes made in the weighting systems and the like then your ability to determine accuracy is a figment of your imagination.

And even then there's an argument about it.

And the "meet me irl m8" stuff was sad as fuck which you should hopefully be suitably embarrassed by

Not embarrassed at all. I very rarely embarrass. I was prepared to put my money where my mouth was; which you discernibly were not.

It is frankly quite comical for you to suggest that unless I am responsible for collating the data myself that I am not entitled to hold a view on the statistics or comment upon them, however well informed that view is. This is particularly surprising given the firm views you hold on a number of subjects without, presumably, you being in a similar position. Opinion polls leading up to the general election spring to mind.

Fuck me, what sort of country would we live in where people weren't entitled, based on their own experiences, to question government statistics, as I have? Not one you'd be comfortable living in, I'd hazard.

I question the figure, because based on my experience of human nature and my frequent encounters with the system it is a figure which I am simply struggling to accept, not least because all parties involved in its collation have a vested interest in it being as low, not least claimants.

I would suggest that to blindly accept such a figure, without question, as you seem to be doing, is more than a little naive and a greater source for embarrassment than any bet I may have laid.

You questioned my authority to speak on a subject by asking what personal knowledge I had, expecting, no doubt, for me to have none. I have reflected on my experience of this subject and I stand by what I said last night. The figure is wholly wrong.

Furthermore your suggestion that I am not entitled to hold a view and comment on these figures is just as wrong.

I hate it when mum and dad fight :-(