FT General Election Poll 2019

[Wymsey]

Give Ash Sarkar an opportunity for Labour..

Edited 16 December 2019 by Wymsey

[twoleftfeet]

38 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

... is anti-intellectualism a thing in the UK as well as a lot of the US now, then?

 

Actually, no need for answers there, it's been the case for a while, I think. It's just unfortunate that the scientific experts who know what they're doing are getting caught in the crossfire because some students happen to be a bit vocal, really.

I am not anti-intellectual and I am not sure that you were suggesting that was what I was. Indeed I have a degree and the student debt  to go along with it but I don't believe that I know what is best for every one I wouldn't even say I am an expert in the field I have a degree in. The Scientific expert getting caught in the cross fire I take it you are taking about the climate change lobby rather than those non science experts on the economy that predicted the end of the world after the first referendum. Experts are less respected than before not sure why perhaps the fact they get it so spectacularly wrong at times. do you remember when scientists said taking thalidomide whilst pregnant was a great idea or using paper bags was bad for the environment as chopping down trees was bad for the environment so everyone started to use plastic which is bad for the environment or smoking is bad for you and vaping is much better early evidence is a bit mixed but seems to be just as bad just causes death in a different way.

[bovril]

33 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's the snobbish holier than thou attitude that seems to accompany it now, the whole "we know everything and we know it better than you".

 

The when you go against them it's the torrent of insults that come your way after it. Don't agree us on this? Racist. Don't agree with me on this? Sexist. 

 

I don't think a lot of these people have any idea just how vile they are to the rest of the population. 

This comes across as a bit snowflake-y though. Presumably you don't want us to live in a totally PC society where we can't point out that a lot of political discussion is incredibly simplistic, and that we live in a society that mostly avoids any kind of intelligent, critical debate. If somebody wants to make a comment about migrants not speaking English, then they should be allowed to, but we should also be allowed to point out a lot of school-educated people in the UK have an appalling command of grammar and punctuation. And who actually says "we know everything and we know it better than you"? People on twitter, who literally could be anyone? 

 

Also, there's a lot of cognitive bias here - I have an opinion, university-educated people often have a different opinion, therefore they must be sneering and elitist.

Edited 16 December 2019 by bovril

[Strokes]

34 minutes ago, bovril said:

This comes across as a bit snowflake-y though. Presumably you don't want us to live in a totally PC society where we can't point out that a lot of political discussion is incredibly simplistic, and that we live in a society that mostly avoids any kind of intelligent, critical debate. If somebody wants to make a comment about migrants not speaking English, then they should be allowed to, but we should also be allowed to point out a lot of school-educated people in the UK have an appalling command of grammar and punctuation. And who actually says "we know everything and we know it better than you"? People on twitter, who literally could be anyone? 

 

Also, there's a lot of cognitive bias here - I have an opinion, university-educated people often have a different opinion, therefore they must be sneering and elitist.

You can point it out, no worries. You’re unlikely to sway me over to your way of thinking with such an approach, which is the point people are making. (At least I think so, if my intelligence has not mislead me again ).

[LiberalFox]

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-12-15/thornberry-criticises-total-and-utter-lie-shared-by-labour-colleague/

 

Is it bad that I'm kind of enjoying Labour infighting?

[bovril]

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

You can point it out, no worries. You’re unlikely to sway me over to your way of thinking with such an approach, which is the point people are making. (At least I think so, if my intelligence has not mislead me again ).

I don't think the point of political discussion is just to sway people to someone's way of thinking. 

 

I just find it frustrating that people have to be so incredibly careful what they say in the UK these days, it makes debate almost impossible. I think there is a discussion to be had about how clued-up (or not) the general population are on a lot of subjects, we shouldn't shy away from it in my opinion. 

Edited 16 December 2019 by bovril

[Strokes]

24 minutes ago, bovril said:

 

I just find it frustrating that people have to be so incredibly careful what they say in the UK these days, it makes debate almost impossible. I think there is a discussion to be had about how clued-up (or not) the general population are on a lot of subjects, we shouldn't shy away from it in my opinion. 

Its hasn’t been a debate though has it? It’s mostly been personal abuse or tantrum mudslinging.

I don’t recall the need for debate when they all voted labour and I have no faith in intellectuals holding a fair debate about people they consider to be their lessers. To be frank.

[LiberalFox]

On 07/12/2019 at 12:06, MattP said:

Given she's standing down I can't believe how much effort she is putting into the campaign - canvassing in Loughborough as well for the next candidate.

 

She must have been promised something.

Wonder what that could have been...

[UpTheLeagueFox]

9 hours ago, Kendal Fox said:

Diane Abbott comes to mind, the way she celebrated with a fist pump and  shouting "Yes!!! Get in!!!" When she found out Swinson had lost her seat.

Unless I'm missing a joke here, surely that was Nicola Sturgeon

 

7 hours ago, bovril said:

This comes across as a bit snowflake-y though. Presumably you don't want us to live in a totally PC society where we can't point out that a lot of political discussion is incredibly simplistic

Nobody wants to live in a totally PC society (and I'm as far from snowflake-y as possible) but the vicious and often personal bile smashed in the faces of anyone who doesn't/didn't worship at the altar of Corbyn and their hard left message, was just beyond toxic and unpleasant.

 

You can have political debate without being seriously abusive. It can be both robust and respectful. The language of the left, often sneering too, was not inclusive, as I've said before.

[leicsmac]

9 hours ago, MattP said:

It's the snobbish holier than thou attitude that seems to accompany it now, the whole "we know everything and we know it better than you".

 

The when you go against them it's the torrent of insults that come your way after it. Don't agree us on this? Racist. Don't agree with me on this? Sexist. 

 

I don't think a lot of these people have any idea just how vile they are to the rest of the population. 

It's tone that's the entire problem, then? As bovril says, that seems a little thin-skinned from folks who often pride themselves on their mental strength - but I can understand the sentiment. It's quite a difficult circle to square because of the whole Boy Who Cried Wolf thing - yes, folks are tired of being told to do a particular thing to help the world, but on that day the wolf does come those folks will feel the pinch too, and so all of this ends up hurting everyone. I honestly don't see a method of communication that will be effective for everyone - it seems it will be dismissed either as too soft or too dictatorial/patronising.

 

NB. That some people make arguments that the terms "racist" and "sexist" are overused doesn't mean there aren't genuine racists and sexists out there and perhaps that doesn't get addressed as much as it needs to as a consequence too.

 

8 hours ago, twoleftfeet said:

I am not anti-intellectual and I am not sure that you were suggesting that was what I was. Indeed I have a degree and the student debt  to go along with it but I don't believe that I know what is best for every one I wouldn't even say I am an expert in the field I have a degree in. The Scientific expert getting caught in the cross fire I take it you are taking about the climate change lobby rather than those non science experts on the economy that predicted the end of the world after the first referendum. Experts are less respected than before not sure why perhaps the fact they get it so spectacularly wrong at times. do you remember when scientists said taking thalidomide whilst pregnant was a great idea or using paper bags was bad for the environment as chopping down trees was bad for the environment so everyone started to use plastic which is bad for the environment or smoking is bad for you and vaping is much better early evidence is a bit mixed but seems to be just as bad just causes death in a different way.

No, I wasn't - if you deny that you're anti-intellectual I'm happy to take that at face value.

 

And yeah, I'm talking about the climate experts, the vaccine experts and a set of other experts in "harder" sciences being ignored because of this anti-intellectualism and there being pretty awful consequences often for people who do not deserve them as a a result - look at what happened in Samoa recently, and the incredible mess in Madrid because some folks think that holding onto political power is more important than the future of the planet - not to mention their own future.

 

I know people like to reference the times scientific consensus has been wrong in the past, but as these are independent events often driven by independent groups using independent methods that is pretty much a Gamblers Ruin Fallacy - attributing expected behaviour to and linking together independent studies and events, like thinking just because the roulette wheel landed on red three times it has to land on black this time. In short, that the scientific community was wrong on things before has zero relevance to whether or not they're wrong now as the studies being taken, the methods used, and the people applying them are pretty much entirely different. And, as mentioned in the BWCW parable above, they only have to be right once and not listened to once on a major event for everyone to be in trouble. The more risk averse idea (Pascals Wager) is to take such threats - provided the scientific community is reasonably sure about them - seriously until proven otherwise.

 

It is a blind spot in critical thinking that humans often have (I know it affects my decision-making sometimes) that could end up being a real problem.

 

7 hours ago, Strokes said:

Its hasn’t been a debate though has it? It’s mostly been personal abuse or tantrum mudslinging.

I don’t recall the need for debate when they all voted labour and I have no faith in intellectuals holding a fair debate about people they consider to be their lessers. To be frank.

I definitely agree that things have become very polarised and personal, but it is sad to hear about your lack of faith in the intellectual community, Strokes. I have no doubt that many people also think like you in that regard, and I just hope that I'm wrong about what it might end up entailing.

[WigstonWanderer]

Regarding purely the Brexit issue, I’m not quite sure what position Labour could have taken to maximise their vote. I understand that their voters in 2017  comprised ~70% remainers, so even a Brexit-agnostic pragmatic strategist would conclude that adopting a more pro-Brexit policy would risk losing votes to the Lib Dems.

 

A harder remain stance would risk losing more leavers. Trying to straddle the 2 ended up confusing and lacking credibility. Ultimately they were in a no-win position once Farage surrendered, uniting the leave side.

[EnderbyFox]

 

[foxy boxing]

1 minute ago, EnderbyFox said:

 

Absolutely hate the Cronyism that goes on in British Politics where that if you fail miserably as an mp or cabinet member you are rewarded to a seat in the Lords with all the taxpayer funded privelages. it says all that is wrong in British society.

[Milo]

40 minutes ago, foxy boxing said:

Absolutely hate the Cronyism that goes on in British Politics where that if you fail miserably as an mp or cabinet member you are rewarded to a seat in the Lords with all the taxpayer funded privelages. it says all that is wrong in British society.

Agree, but I can't really get worked up about it, tbh. Has always happened, will always happen. 

 

I'm sure if the Tweeter above was born to a billionaire father he would have bucked the establishment, refused his place at Eton for a position at the local comp and ended up working at Tesco's.   

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Milo said:

Agree, but I can't really get worked up about it, tbh. Has always happened, will always happen. 

 

I'm sure if the Tweeter above was born to a billionaire father he would have bucked the establishment, refused his place at Eton for a position at the local comp and ended up working at Tesco's.   

...is there some kind of "but thou must" divine unbreakable rules about human behaviour governing stuff like this lying around that I haven't got round to reading, then?

 

I'm really sorry but I honestly don't get appeal to tradition as a justification for something like this - or rather for allowing it to continue despite dislike.

Edited 17 December 2019 by leicsmac

[Jon the Hat]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...is there some kind of "but thou must" divine unbreakable rules about human behaviour governing stuff like this lying around that I haven't got round to reading, then?

 

I'm really sorry but I honestly don't get appeal to tradition as a justification for something like this - or rather for allowing it to continue despite dislike.

What are you going to do?  What is your proposal to stop such horrors from happening?  Ban the rich from politics?

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, foxy boxing said:

Absolutely hate the Cronyism that goes on in British Politics where that if you fail miserably as an mp or cabinet member you are rewarded to a seat in the Lords with all the taxpayer funded privelages. it says all that is wrong in British society.

not sure how many taxpayer privelages he will be using  …….. the ones he has already outweigh anything the state will offer him !

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

What are you going to do?  What is your proposal to stop such horrors from happening?  Ban the rich from politics?

Propose greater accountability for the granting of peerages - removing the hereditary part of it was a good start, now perhaps for greater insight into the competence and fitness to serve as a peer before it is granted, rather than just allowing it as a favour.

 

That MP's can go straight from Commons to Lords without almost any kind of accountability on the level of public service they've done to allow it opens the door for so much graft - regardless of whether or not money actually changes hands. I really don't care about their bank balances (though it's funny how almost all criticisms of this type seem to lay accusations of envy of wealth, as if the person involved always wants a place in the system rather than to change it), I care about their ability and competence to serve the public, because that is what they are there for.

Edited 17 December 2019 by leicsmac

[Guest MattP]

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...is there some kind of "but thou must" divine unbreakable rules about human behaviour governing stuff like this lying around that I haven't got round to reading, then?

 

I'm really sorry but I honestly don't get appeal to tradition as a justification for something like this - or rather for allowing it to continue despite dislike.

If Nigel Farage's next campaign is a successful as his first we won't have the House of Lords soon.

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

If Nigel Farage's next campaign is a successful as his first we won't have the House of Lords soon.

TBH I'm ok with the idea of a second House that doesn't rely on direct public elections for its members - if you have both Houses be directly elected you'd just get the same problems you get in the US. However, there's got to be at least some better form of competence for a peerage than some of your buddy MP's saying "here you go, do it for me when the time comes, yeah?"

 

Kinda hoping there's a happy medium to be sought somewhere.

[Innovindil]

Whilst I'm personally against how the whole house of Lords system works, I thought zac was a pretty decent guy? Wasn't he the one who resigned over the Heathrow expansion? 

 

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24911/zac_goldsmith/richmond_park/votes

 

Only the generally voted against equality and human rights seems dodgy to me. 

 

Seen a hell of a lot worse elected to Lords tbf. 

 

@leicsmac surprised he doesn't tickle your pickle on environmental issues. 

[David Guiza]

4 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Whilst I'm personally against how the whole house of Lords system works, I thought zac was a pretty decent guy? Wasn't he the one who resigned over the Heathrow expansion? 

 

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24911/zac_goldsmith/richmond_park/votes

 

Only the generally voted against equality and human rights seems dodgy to me. 

 

Seen a hell of a lot worse elected to Lords tbf. 

 

@leicsmac surprised he doesn't tickle your pickle on environmental issues. 

He lead an entire campaign for the London Mayoral position almost exclusively based on racism and lost to a man who was both a close pal of Miliband and put Corbyn forward for leader of the Labour Party. I don't think the fact he's somewhat of an environmentalist overshadows that, particularly when he has the wealth of a nation thanks to his Father. 

 

Oh, and he holds a pint like this:-

 

[Innovindil]

11 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

He lead an entire campaign for the London Mayoral position almost exclusively based on racism and lost to a man who was both a close pal of Miliband and put Corbyn forward for leader of the Labour Party. I don't think the fact he's somewhat of an environmentalist overshadows that, particularly when he has the wealth of a nation thanks to his Father. 

 

Oh, and he holds a pint like this:-

 

My mistake. I haven't ever followed a London majoral campaign. Or drinking habits. 

[Guest MattP]

17 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

He lead an entire campaign for the London Mayoral position almost exclusively based on racism and lost to a man who was both a close pal of Miliband and put Corbyn forward for leader of the Labour Party. I don't think the fact he's somewhat of an environmentalist overshadows that, particularly when he has the wealth of a nation thanks to his Father. 

 

Oh, and he holds a pint like this:-

 

Shocking that. Although look how much Boris is enjoying that pint.

 

Another reason to vote Boris was pint pouring abilities. 

 

 

Edited 17 December 2019 by MattP

[Guest MattP]

.

Edited 17 December 2019 by MattP