yes it does... the other poster highlighted why, in fact you've even acknowledge the reason yourself there older generations had less access to higher education - age is a rather obvious confounder here if you're going to talk about education and voting patterns
Poll: Exit Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Results discussion and OcUK Exit Poll - Closing 8th July
- Thread starter JohnnyG
- Start date
- Status
yes it does... the other poster highlighted why, in fact you've even acknowledge the reason yourself there older generations had less access to higher education - age is a rather obvious confounder here if you're going to talk about education and voting patterns
It is absolutely irrelevant. Access to education is an explanation for the differences in education which has zero significance on the absolute fact that Conservative voter have on average lower education. I never disscussed the reasons for the differences, only the facts. If you want to start a debate about educate and age then start a new thread if you so please.
it isn't irrelevant, no I'm not interested in starting a new thread either - I and the other poster pointed out a rather basic fact... it is significant - if you were to control for age then would you see those same differences?
No, it isn't, because not all else is equal.
Older voters have less formal education, because less people from their generations went to university. Older people are also more likely to own property, substantial pension pots and so on.
Correlation is not causation unless you can isolate the other variables successfully.
I never claimed it was, I just pointed out basic facts.
You all seem to be purposely trying to claim I said something which I didn't.
I don't know, you tell me. You are the one that seems so obsessed by the details of the fact rather than the fact itself.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,313
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I find the peoples reaction to May in regards to this tradegy to be misplaced.
But she's absolutely got to go.
But she's absolutely got to go.
I'm not particularly, I just pointed out the rather obvious confounder...
Your posting approach follows the same pattern as those who try to claim crime is caused by race based on prison statistics.
Cite correlative fact without qualification.
When challenged on causation, claim you were just posting a fact.
Hope you influenced people with the fallacy of the single cause.
It's a technique that relies on implication to the reader and is usually confirmed by the response to a challenge.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,086
- Location
- Berkland
Only if it is in the public's interest, otherwise is goes through appeals. Not sure how this would swing. You would be making people homeless not for infrastructure, but just to do swapsie.
Not to say it would be a total waste of public money as well.
And I agreed there is an obvious cofounder. You seemed to want to imply the cofounder invalided the fact
indeed - average price of property in that area isn't exactly cheap... flats in the tower block itself are likely worth more than the average house in the UK, compulsory purchase of privately owned non-residential property would be massively inefficient here - local housing away from the council estates is way more expensive than the nearly 2 grand a month rent these council flats went for
families with kids in local schools etc.. ought to be the priority for re-housing locally, I don't see an issue with others being housed nearby in neighbouring boroughs
if you've got people such as asylum seekers form Syria who've only been in the country for a year living there I don't think you can claim much re: links to the local community - they can just as well be housed in another borough, and we certainly don't need to compulsory purchase an 800k privately owned flat locally or hand over thousands a month in rent for one for someone who hasn't been here for long
I think you are getting confused. I am well aware of the complexity in looking at different correlates as predictors.
You need to back up and read the thread, the discussion is mostly centered around age and what is defined as a ypung voter since there is a fallacy that only very young people voted labour which is born out by the fact that even middle aged people were more liekly to vote labour. People with a degree and under the age of around 50 or so were more liekly to vote labour. that is all i claimed. I know full well there are reasons why odler people are less liekly to have a dgeree and other factors why they may have voted conservative but that is a far more complex discussion
It only cost them 49 seats because they were terminally incompetent and made almost every possible mistake they could have made. This time they should be seeking to extract key promises from the Tories (a second referendum would be the obvious choice*) in return for a confidence and supply arrangement that they can withdraw at any time.
Also, the people still voting for them are the people who were okay with it last time, so they're unlikely to make further loses.
* - it's something the Tories would hate, but Lib Dem supporters would love. Thus it would make them look strong and deliver something tangible that means a lot to their supporters.
Corbyn's suggestion is not workable but nothing suggested contravenes the ECHR as we already have compulsory purchase orders in this country.
It definitely doesn't contravene the HRA act as the HRA makes it clear that the UK government can override Strasbourg decisions (e.g votes for prisoners).
Compulsory purchase is not seizure or requisitioning, it's an enforced exchange of one type of property for another, at a rate deemed fair by the courts. Seizure occurs without compensation, and corbyn was very specific with his choice of words.
I do wonder however if there is any impact of article 1 on the government in the eyes of the left, it seems to be a token sop that provides very little defence compared to other aspects of the various declarations of human rights.
earlier in the thread @Glaucus was adamant that requisitioning could easily mean simply writing a letter to the property owners...
I don't think it is an unreasonable suggestion that Corbyn and co would have meant compulsory purchase, I'm not sure even they would seize assets without some compensation
Corbyn's exact choice of words was 'requisitioned'. That does not mean permanent seizure.
Private property is often requisitioned during times of disaster.
- Status