Danish Independence

I still get the error, even when using Real Player. can you tell me what it was about then ?

Bellatrix

Actually, in stats this is a clear majority. Put it on a graph, and it becomes more clear.

Paul Birch

Sorry, it isn't. A majority is "greater than one half". A clear majority is "greater than one half by a margin greater than the three-sigma error or uncertainty". 50% v 34% is not a majority at all, only a plurality; a clear plurality perhaps, but that's all.

SGK

Okay, I got the larger dictionary out. (Oxford)

Majority; the greater number

so actually, not so wrong. It goes on...

(Brit) the number by which the votes cast for one party or candidate exceed those of the next in rank

so it is a majority of 17%, is it not? and...

a party or group receiving the greater number of votes.

again correct.

BUT, I am aware that a dictionary is not a 'language bible' (is descriptive, not prescriptive) and the fact that it looks odd means his choice of words was probably wrong. I certainly stumbled over it.

As we're being pedantic, hello Stephen Booth, a good post, but can I ask that you refer to the EU and not Europe, since a lot of Europe is not in the EU. I also feel the use of EU attacks the establishment rather than sounding like an attack on the people themselves, something anti-EU campaigners often get accused of.

Paul Birch

Sorry, but OED definition (3) actually reads: the greater number or part; a number which is more than half the whole number.
The examples all relate to cases in which it clearly does mean more than half.
"The greater number" can only mean one out of two numbers - two possible ways of voting. If there were more than two ways, it would be the greatest number (a plurality).
A majority is always more than half of the votes cast: an absolute majority more than half of the votes that could have been cast.

The OED actually says: 4. The number by which, in voting, the votes cast on one side exceed those cast on the other (my emphasis).
The government's majority is not the difference between the number of MPs it has and the number of MPs the next largest party has, but the difference between the number of MPs it has and the number of MPs all the other parties have put together.

Again, greater is one of two. This poll had more than two options.

SGK

Actually I have the 'New Oxford Dictionary of English', which does show the pointlessness of arguing from dictionaries (as I pointed out). I was surprised not to find your above definition in mine. I was expecting it at least to be listed.

Good point. I think though, in this context, i.e. what he said, he is refering to the IN vs OUT argument, as 'don't know' is an option that won't appear in the referendum.
There is a case of being too pedantic and turning language INTO phpbb_a series of information sound bites, but as I said, I did do a double take myself and agree he could have phrased it better.

Within a government, where a motion is passed or defeated, fair enough, but when a candidate wins a seat with a majority of 10 votes, it means 10 votes over the next party down, even if there are 5 candidates and he won only 30% of the votes polled.

But when comparing the IN to the OUT, the OUT had the greater. Pedantry taken to an extreme, I know!

However much of a minority majority it is, I do think it is good news.

Paul Birch

It seems to have gone downhill lately, almost PC, with little attempt to maintain accuracy, and lots of pointless slang inclusions that will be out of date in a year or so. The "real" OED has the citations from actual use over the past millennium.

The idiots from the BBC do use it like that. But they shouldn't. In politics it's important for us to maintain precision of language - not least because so many politicians are deliberately trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Misuse of language plays INTO phpbb_their hands.

In this case I have little doubt that Nigel Farage was trying to spin the results to give a better impression than the figures really justified. It's not merely pedantry to complain of that.

SGK

I have likes and dislikes with the 'New' OED. I'm not sure I'd buy another one when the time comes for a new, er another, one.

He possibly was, though as far as spin goes it wasn't very bad. In a referendum there won't be a 3rd option and his assumption that the 'don't knows' will split equally, the same way or not vote is reasonable.

To get back on target a little, this is still only a poll and I worry that, should a referendum be taken (which I can't see at the moment anyway), the media will come in, the government will spend, the EU will spend, and people will be swayed. To lose it would seal membership for decades, if not forever.

We have seen this happen in many referendums on the continent and let's not forget the original referendum that got us in this mess in the first place.

Paul Birch

That's a bit like saying "it wasn't a very bad murder". If the public is to believe and vote for us, UKIP needs to be seen as standing completely apart from any political dishonesty or spin-doctoring whatsoever. Otherwise people will quite reasonably become as cynical about us as they already are about the other parties.

I'm not at all sure that it is. For one thing, the poll questions were flawed (like many of those on the UKIP website).Answer 1 is not the complement of answer 2. It drags in extraneous stuff about free trade agreements. So maybe many of the so-called don't knows were nothing of the sort.

I for one am not in favour of replacing our membership with a so-called free trade agreement (which in practice can only mean an agreement to restrict trade, since a genuine free trade agreement would have but a single clause, say, "trade between our countries shall be unrestricted"). Instead, I'm in favour of free trade. That is, a unilateral rejection of the imposition of any restriction upon foreign trade.

There may however be others who would accept a renegotiated trade agreement, and so gave answer (1), but who would not accept leaving the EU without one, and who, considering such renegotiation unlikely to succeed, would therefore in a simple in-or-out referendum vote for staying in. So the poll is less informative than it might initially have appeared.

SGK

Ooh, now come on. Spin is subjective, ranging from putting a particular angle on something to outright deception. Murder has a corpse lying around, however you re-phrase it. I'm not even sure it was spin at all; I do expect him to see the positive angle and if this voting pattern was repeated at a referendum, the OUTs would win by a clear majority.

Which is very easy to do, even impossible not to in some situations. The EU constitution question was weighted to a Yes, which research shows can make a couple of % points difference. It is one of the reasons I am unsure about all this 'direct democracy' enthusiasm that's going around.

Neither am I. Just because it's what we thought we were going INTO phpbb_doesn't mean it's what we can have now. Isn't this the fudge that the Conservatives came out with for the GE?
If anything, countries should impose trade restrictions on all EU products that have been subsidised. The alternative is to subsidise the same industries nationally so they can compete. Where's the gain?