Hundreds of ULEZ cameras being disabled

[FlyingJesus]

Yeah weirdly when the sample size is massive or the polling is done right before the election, the results are closer, what a shock : o

Imagine absolutely everyone's surprise when you scroll down a bit and see major discrepancies when polling is much lower or further away instead of just cherrypicking the results you like and pretending that's the same thing for every poll ever made. Sunday Times, who you've quoted as being the full truth and nothing but the truth because it fits your narrow view, consistently polled results for the last GE at wiiiiiiiiildly different figures to the end numbers, often even predicting Labour wins and sometimes even by the same margins that they eventually lost by. When hundreds of groups undertake these surveys, of course you can find ones that fit what you want them to, and if you do them a few days before it happens then yeah people aren't so likely to change their minds. Considering the elections for London Mayor aren't going to happen until May, polls right now are totally entirely absolutely pointless.

To claim that EVERY poll has been more or less right is not only untrue, but DANGEROUSLY untrue. Your own links disprove you, and it's very important for people to not be sucked into the hatred and nonsense that you spout under the guise of intelligence

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yeah weirdly when the sample size is massive or the polling is done right before the election, the results are closer, what a shock : o

Imagine absolutely everyone's surprise when you scroll down a bit and see major discrepancies when polling is much lower or further away instead of just cherrypicking the results you like and pretending that's the same thing for every poll ever made.

You're starting to realise that polls are a snapshot of opinion at any given time and are not intended to be a prediction 3 weeks before an election? Good.

Sunday Times, who you've quoted as being the full truth and nothing but the truth because it fits your narrow view, consistently polled results for the last GE at wiiiiiiiiildly different figures to the end numbers

The Sunday Times is behind a paywall so I can't and don't read it, you're literally making it up as you go along.

The Sunday Times also isn't a pollster, it only commissions polls which again shows you have no idea what you're even talking about. It commissioned pollster YouGov 6 days before the 2019 General Election and it came back with: CON 43% LAB 33% LDEM 13%

The actual election results 6 days later were: CON 44% LAB 33% LDEM 11% which is a good indicator 6 days out from an election and within the MoE.

..often even predicting Labour wins and sometimes even by the same margins that they eventually lost by. When hundreds of groups undertake these surveys, of course you can find ones that fit what you want them to, and if you do them a few days before it happens then yeah people aren't so likely to change their minds. Considering the elections for London Mayor aren't going to happen until May, polls right now are totally entirely absolutely pointless.

To claim that EVERY poll has been more or less right is not only untrue, but DANGEROUSLY untrue. Your own links disprove you, and it's very important for people to not be sucked into the hatred and nonsense that you spout under the guise of intelligence

Anyone reading this can literally click on the links I provided showing various polls all correlated around the eventual result and see that you are a dirty liar.

[FlyingJesus]

You're not comparing like for like, you're bending results to fit your narrative. We're nowhere near the mayoral election, so the polling at the moment isn't indicative of what will actually happen - as is clear by how drastically different the poll results are when done long before the elections on your very own links. If you can't properly read the content of what you're posting and instead choose to change what the argument is, that's not my fault.

And no I'm not making anything up by mentioning the Sunday Times, again you're just failing to read THINGS THAT YOU'VE POSTED YOURSELF.


Imagine being so hell bent on being abusive and fauxtellectual that you don't even look at your own sources as long as the numbers fit what you want to claim.

Don't you dare call me a "dirty liar" for being correct just because you've moved the goalposts. If you want to spread nonsense hatred and fear you can do that somewhere else, had more than enough of it from you here and that's not what we're about.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Worth remembering that the drop in Khan's re-election chances comes after Labour failed to win the Uxbridge constituency by-election.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66264893

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has defended expanding a tax on polluting vehicles, despite his party leader blaming it for a disappointing by-election result.

Sir Keir Starmer told the BBC the Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) had cost Labour victory in Uxbridge and South Ruislip.

He called on Mr Khan to "reflect" on his plan to expand it to outer London.

Even the leader of the Labour Party can see the damage it's causing in the capital, particularly outer London.

You're not comparing like for like, you're bending results to fit your narrative. We're nowhere near the mayoral election, so the polling at the moment isn't indicative of what will actually happen - as is clear by how drastically different the poll results are when done long before the elections on your very own links. If you can't properly read the content of what you're posting and instead choose to change what the argument is, that's not my fault.

So you've worked out that - as I said earlier - polls are a snapshot of opinion at any one time and are used to observe trends. Glad you've learnt something today.

And no I'm not making anything up by mentioning the Sunday Times, again you're just failing to read THINGS THAT YOU'VE POSTED YOURSELF.

Imagine being so hell bent on being abusive and fauxtellectual that you don't even look at your own sources as long as the numbers fit what you want to claim.

You claimed I go by The Sunday Times as some kind of scripture when I don't even read it given it's behind a paywall lol. You don't have the decency to admit you made it up.

Don't you dare call me a "dirty liar" for being correct just because you've moved the goalposts. If you want to spread nonsense hatred and fear you can do that somewhere else, had more than enough of it from you here and that's not what we're about.

No you don't get to threaten people into submission Tom just because you can't handle disagreement. You have a reputation as a bully on here for instances like that stretching back over the years and rounding on people for daring to cross you, even if no one other than myself is prepared to say it to your face.

[FlyingJesus]

So you've worked out that - as I said earlier - polls are a snapshot of opinion at any one time and are used to observe trends. Glad you've learnt something today.

Moving the goalposts. You tried to claim that polls are totally correct when you absolutely cannot prove such a thing for events where a poll and a vote are so far apart - in these cases, it's almost always NOT close to the end result. Your own links show that. Thank you for your sad attempt at talking down to me, but no.

You claimed I go by The Sunday Times as some kind of scripture when I don't even read it given it's behind a paywall lol. You don't have the decency to admit you made it up.

Straw man. I claimed absolutely nothing of the sort, you're flat out lying here... again. You posted a picture, as above, that was using them as the source of your claim, which I quite rightly pointed out. Twice. Nowhere did I ever at any point say that you always use them, or even that you read that paper - it's pretty clear that you don't read your own sources. I made up nothing, and that claim is ironic since you're putting words in my mouth.

No you don't get to threaten people into submission Tom just because you can't handle disagreement. You have a reputation as a bully on here for instances like that stretching back over the years and rounding on people for daring to cross you, even if no one other than myself is prepared to say it to your face.

Ad hominem. This is not about disagreeing, this is about you constantly pushing negativity and hatred with personal attacks in a place that's intended to be a safe and caring community - you have the whole rest of the internet to spew nonsense if you choose to. You absolutely cannot just insult people (while being wrong) and then claim that you're some hero of the people for doing it.


We're so far away from the original points now that it's laughable. Congratulations on, as usual, derailing massively in order to obfuscate the actual point of a discussion.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Moving the goalposts. You tried to claim that polls are totally correct when you absolutely cannot prove such a thing for events where a poll and a vote are so far apart - in these cases, it's almost always NOT close to the end result. Your own links show that. Thank you for your sad attempt at talking down to me, but no.

I've never claimed polls are totally correct, indeed if you had any ability within you to see nuance in a discussion instead of jumping down my throat I would quite happily point out circumstances where the polls were completely off, such as the 1992 General Election. In most of the examples I quoted from the last two decades, the polls were pretty close and within the 3% +/- margin of error which is completely standard for the normal sample size of 1,000 people.

Straw man. I claimed absolutely nothing of the sort, you're flat out lying here... again. You posted a picture, as above, that was using them as the source of your claim, which I quite rightly pointed out. Twice. Nowhere did I ever at any point say that you always use them, or even that you read that paper - it's pretty clear that you don't read your own sources. I made up nothing, and that claim is ironic since you're putting words in my mouth.

And like I said The Sunday Times don't do polls but you tried bashing me over the head as if I am committed to one particular paper. "UH DAILY MAIL" type argument.

The YouGov commissioned by The Sunday Times for the last election (which you brought up) was pretty much spot on.

Ad hominem. This is not about disagreeing, this is about you constantly pushing negativity and hatred with personal attacks in a place that's intended to be a safe and caring community - you have the whole rest of the internet to spew nonsense if you choose to. You absolutely cannot just insult people (while being wrong) and then claim that you're some hero of the people for doing it.

We're so far away from the original points now that it's laughable. Congratulations on, as usual, derailing massively in order to obfuscate the actual point of a discussion.

No that's your typical trick though Tom. Someone is debating with you, you're losing it and so you somehow jump from discussing political polling to claiming that I'm spewing hatred when all I am doing is saying that political polling is pretty accurate as a tool to measure public opinion.

Anyway I agree it has gone off topic and I would suggest if you don't like polls then don't pay attention to them. Simple as that really.

[Seatherny]

The millionaires who you know in central London can ferry themselves around with excellent transport links

Great, so people don't need to drive.

Anyone who lives in or has been in London will tell you, it is usually quicker to use public transport!